CONSPICILLVM.

...unless this is granted to them. What more? According to your own Selneccerus, in his opposition to the Saxon Exegesis, Luther initially thought like the Calvinists, as you call them. You cannot hide, however, when writing against the Bremensians, that Dr. Philippus Philipp Melanchthon, who interpreted the words of the institution metonymically, just as axes are said to be command, declined from his first opinion to ours. But it is also certain that Luther, that most bitter opponent of transubstantiation whenever it pleased him, established the dogma of transubstantiation as indifferent not only in those most ancient books of his On the Babylonian Captivity, but also in the year '28 in the Greater Confession, and even in the year '41, that is, only five years before his death. Indeed, in one and the same year, namely '23, he spoke anathema against transubstantiation to the King of England; but writing to the Waldensian brothers, he affirmed that while it is an error to assert that bread does not remain in the Sacrament, there is not much placed in that error, provided that the body and blood of Christ are left there with the word. But why these things: namely, not so that because of this any detraction should be made from the authority of those greatest men through whose labors the Lord, in our memory, asserted his Church from the Papistical Babylon: but so that the αὐτὸς ἔφα he himself said in the Church should be attributed only to the word of God, explained from the analogy of the Articles of Faith: and so that you may remember to weigh the flaws of your own people against the same scale as ours, since we should rather humanely cover and excuse both, mindful of our own condition as well.