Iudicium D. Philippi Melanchthonis De controversia Coenae Domini

Nazianzen, who calls it an ἀντίτυπον σῶμα antitypical body; and Theodoret, who says of the bread, φύσιν ὃ μεταβαλών changing its nature.

What, then, is this great authority of Heshusius, that we should agree with him rather than with so many approved ancient writers who clearly testify that the Church at that time did not have this Papal dogma and adoration? If these things are new in the Church, one must consider whether it was permitted for those of later times to introduce a new dogma into the Church. Nor am I ignorant that many spurious works are cited under the titles of the ancients, of which the learned must judge.

Indeed, I do not intend to start a long dispute now; nor do I wish to argue with contentious men who establish idols and parricides, whose cruelty I myself experience. But I only wished to signify, according to my judgment, what I believe should be done in that matter for the weakness of the tender Church, and I remain in this opinion: that contentions from both sides must be prohibited, and a