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 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