accede to; nevertheless, I excused those who had hitherto erroneously received but one kind; for they cried out, the whole church is condemned by us.  What think you of this?  The command of Jesus refers to ministers and laymen.  Hence if it is our duty to receive the sacrament, we are also obligated to retain the form of the entire sacrament.  If you also are of this opinion, then inform me of it distinctly.  On the subject of the mass, vows and marriage, there was no discussions, only some conditions were proposed, which we, however, did not accept.” [Note 21] Here again, the distinction between the sacrament and the mass is clearly made, and we are told that at the disputation before the umpires, the former was debated and the latter not.  Can anything be plainer, than that a distinction is here made between eucharist and mass?

4.  Under date of August 28, Melancthon thus writes to Luther: “They (the Papists,) wish us to admit, that neither those who administer but one kind, nor those who receive it, are guilty of sin.  We have, indeed, exonerated those from blame, who receive but one kind; but as to those who administer but one,—­there is the knot.  The Synod of Basil conceded the whole sacrament to the Bohemians, on condition that they would acknowledge that it may, with propriety, be taken and received in one kind only.  This confession they also wish to extort from us. Eckius says he contends for this point, merely because the people cannot be retained in the discharge of duty, unless we also release their consciences in regard to the sacrament (that is, unless the reformers would admit, that its reception in one kind was also allowable).  We therefore desire to know your judgment on the case.  As to the application of masses, they are willing to postpone this till the meeting of the synod (or council); and thus they intimate, that they will not oppress us with the reception of their ungodly views on the mass (Koethe’s edition:  mit der gottlosen Application der Messe, with the ungodly application of the mass, i.e. to the living and dead).  And yet they desire us to receive the canon of the mass, (i.e. the most objectionable part of the ritual of the mass, relating to the transubstantiation of the bread and wine, its application to others, &c.,) but with a convenient and devout explanation.” [Note 22] Here again, the distinction between the mass and the sacrament is clearly seen.

5.  On Sept. 4th, he again writes to Luther: “I know that this long silence must be very annoying to you, especially at this time, when we ought to consult one another most frequently; but believe me, nothing is so much opposed to my wishes in the court, as this indifference in dispatching more frequent messengers to you, and yet I am unable to induce them to do it.  We have not yet received from our opponents the proposed conditions in reference to the two kinds (in the eucharist), marriage and the mass.” [Note 23] Here again, who does not see the distinction?