no thanks to them,) they must call communion.  But that is called MASS which the priest alone performs at the altar, in which no common christian or layman takes part.”  All other christians do nothing more than receive the sacrament, and do not perform mass. [Note 17] Certainly it must be evident that Luther did not regard the word mass as the ordinary term for eucharist, but had a clear idea of the distinction, and of the importance of observing it.

II.  Let us now adduce similar evidence from the writings of Melancthon himself, who wrote the Confession, to show that he also observed the distinction between mass and eucharist.  This evidence will be the stronger as all his letters quoted, were written from Augsburg itself, during the very time that he composed the Confession, and whilst it was under consideration in the Diet. [Note 18]

1.  In a letter to Luther, dated Augsburg, July 30, 1530, Melancthon says:  “Zwingle has sent hither a printed Confession.  His views of the Eucharist (Abendmahl) he urge strongly.  He wishes all bishops to be extirpated.”  Then after speaking of human traditions, he adds:  “In the matter of the mass, (not eucharist, which he had just mentioned before,) and in the first discussion (Aufsatz, composition) of the doctrinal articles I think I was cautions enough, but on the topics concerning unwritten traditions, I was never rightly satisfied with myself.” [Note 19]

2.  In another letter to Luther, of August 6th, he says:  “At last, on Aug. 3d, we heard the (Romish) Refutation (of the Augsburg Confession), and also the declaration of the emperor.  His declaration was terrible enough, but the Refutation was composed in such a puerile manner, that we could not but heartily congratulate each other.  There is not a single composition of Faber, (the pensman of the Refutation,) however silly it may be, that is not exceeded in silliness by this.  On the doctrine concern the two kinds, (in the Eucharist,) he adduced the history of the sons of Eli, who desired bread to eat; and wished to prove by it, that it becomes laymen to be satisfied with the mere bread in the Eucharist.  His defence of the Mass was very frosty.” [Note 20] Here we find the eucharist and the mass spoken of as separate things, and the discussion of the one represented as silly, and that of the other frosty.

3.  In a letter to Luther, dated August 22d, he thus writes:  “Yesterday we closed the discussion, or rather the quarrel (Gezaenk) which has been conducted before the umpires.  The third point was the question of merit, &c.  Then he came to the two kinds (in the eucharist).  Here he exerted himself to the utmost to prove that both kinds are not commanded.  He maintained that it was a matter of indifference whether one or both kinds are received, and and [sic] that if we would teach this, he would cheerfully allow us both kinds.  This I could not