of the
Holy Supper no longer agreed with Luther's. "Do not ask for my opinion
now," says he, "for I was the messenger of an opinion foreign to me,
although, forsooth, I will not hide what I think when I shall have heard
what our men answer. But concerning this entire matter either personally
or when I shall have more reliable messengers. _Meam sententiam noli
nunc requirere; fui enim nuntius alienae, etsi profecto non dissimulabo,
quid sentiam, ubi audiero, quid respondeant nostri. Ac de hac re tota
aut coram, aut cum habebo certiores tabellarios_." (2, 822.) Two days
later, January 12, 1535, Melanchthon wrote a letter to Brenz (partly in
Greek, which language he employed when he imparted thoughts which he
regarded as dangerous, as, _e.g._, in his defamatory letter to
Camerarius, July 24, 1525, on Luther's marriage; _C. R._ 1, 754), in
which he lifted the veil still more and gave a clear glimpse of his own
true inwardness. From this letter it plainly appears that Melanchthon
was no longer sure of the correctness of the literal interpretation of
the words of institution, the very foundation of Luther's entire
doctrine concerning the Holy Supper.

The letter reads, in part, as follows: "You have written several times
concerning the Sacramentarians, and you disadvise the Concord, even
though they should incline towards Luther's opinion. My dear Brenz, if
there are any who differ from us regarding the Trinity or other
articles, I will have no alliance with them, but regard them as such who
are to be execrated.... Concerning the Concord, however, no action
whatever has as yet been taken. I have only brought Bucer's opinions
here [to Wittenberg]. But I wish that I could talk to you personally
concerning the controversy. I do not constitute myself a judge, and
readily yield to you, who govern the Church, and I affirm the real
presence of Christ in the Supper. I do not desire to be the author or
defender of a new dogma in the Church, but I see that there are many
testimonies of the ancient writers who without any ambiguity explain the
mystery typically and tropically [_peri tupou kai tropikos_], while the
opposing testimonies are either more modern or spurious. You, too, will
have to investigate whether you defend the ancient opinion. But I do
wish earnestly that the pious Church would decide this case without
sophistry and tyranny. In France and at other places many are killed on
account of this opinion. And many applaud such