“It, is therefore not rejected, nor regarded as wrong, that the (Protestant) princes and cities (according to Article XXIV. of their Confession, on which they are commenting,) celebrate one common (or public) mass in their churches; if they only performed it properly, according to the holy rule and canonical regulations, as all Catholics perform it.  But that they (the Protestants) reject all other masses, can neither be tolerated nor suffered by the Christian faith and Catholic profession;” (that is, cannot be allowed by us who profess the Roman Catholic religion. [Note 35]) As this Romish Refutation is rarely met with, we add the exact original:  “Wird demnach nicht verworfen noch fuer unrecht erkannt, dasz die Fuersten und Staedt halten ein gemeine Mess in der Kirchen, wann sie solche nur ordentlich und richtig nach der heiligen Richtschnur und canonischen Regel hielten und thaeten, we es alle Catholischen halten:  Dieweil sie aber alle andere Messen abschaffen, das kann der Christlich glaub und Catholische Profession und Bekaentnisz weder dulden noch leiden.”

6.  The same fact is confirmed still further by the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, written by Melancthon, in reply to the Romish Refutation, from which we have just presented an extract.  From this it is evident that the Papists had correctly understood the Augsburg Confession as speaking of the mass properly so called; and that we have therefore also not misunderstood or misrepresented it.  Speaking of the very part of the Refutation from which the above passage is cited, Melancthon says:  “In the first place, we must state, by way of introduction, that we do not abolish the mass.  For on every Sunday and Festival, masses, (Messen) (not Lord’s Suppers) are held in our churches, at which the sacrament is administered to those who desire it.”  Here evidently mass and the sacrament are two things.

“Our opponents make a great talk (geschwaetz) about the Latin mass, that is about the Mass which, as is well known, was and is read in Latin; but certainly they did not talk about the Latin Lord’s Supper.

“But where do we find the Pharisaic, doctrine written, that the hearing of the mass without understanding it, is, ex opere operato, meritorious and saving?” The term hearing evidently refers to the mass, which was read; but what sense would there be in the phrase hearing the Lord’s Supper?

“That we do not celebrate private masses, but only a public mass (eine oeffentliche Messe,) when the people also commune, is not at all contrary to the common (or general) Christian church.”  Here the private masses are distinguished from the public mass, and the fact affirmed, as clearly as language can convey the idea, that the Reformers did retain and practice PUBLIC mass on sacramental occasions.” [Note 36] We might easily adduce a number of other passages from this book, but really it seems to be a work of supererogation.