That Melanchthon permitted himself to be guided by human authorities
rather than by the clear Word of God alone, appears from the fact that
Oecolampadius's _Dialogus_ of 1530--which endeavored to show that the
symbolical interpretation of the words of institution is found also in
the writings of the Church Fathers, notably in those of St. Augustine,
and which Melanchthon, in a letter to Luther (_C. R._ 2, 217), says, was
written "with greater exactness (_accuratius_) than he is otherwise wont
to write"--made such a profound impression on him that ever since, as is
shown by some of his private letters, to which we shall presently refer,
he looked with increasing favor on the figurative interpretation. As a
result, Melanchthon's attitude toward the Southern Germans and the
Zwinglians also underwent a marked change. When he left to attend the
conference with Bucer at Cassel, in December, 1534, Luther in strong
terms enjoined him to defend the sacramental union and the oral eating
and drinking; namely, that in and with the bread the body of Christ is
truly present, distributed, and eaten. Luther's _Opinion_ in this
matter, dated December 17, 1534, concludes as follows "Und ist Summa das
unsere Meinung, dass wahrhaftig in und mit dem Brot der Leib Christi
gegessen wird, also dass alles, was das Brot wirkt und leidet, der Leib
Christi wirke und leide, dass er ausgeteilt [ge]gessen und mit den
Zaehnen zerbissen werde." (St. L. 17, 2052.) Self-evidently, when
writing thus, Luther had no Capernaitic eating and drinking in mind, his
object merely being, as stated to emphasize the reality of the
sacramental union. January [1]0, 1535, however, the day after his return
from Cassel, Melanchthon wrote to his intimate friend Camerarius that at
Cassel he had been the messenger not of his own, but of a foreign
opinion. (_C. R._ 2, 822)
As a matter of fact, Melanchthon returned to Wittenberg a convert to the
compromise formula of Bucer, according to which Christ's body and blood
are truly and substantially received in the Sacrament, but are not
really connected with the bread and wine, the signs or _signa
exhibitiva_, as Bucer called them. Stating the difference between Luther
and Bucer, as he now saw it, Melanchthon said: "The only remaining
question therefore is the one concerning the physical union of the bread
and body,--and of what need is this question? _Tantum igitur reliqua est
quaestio de physica coniunctione panis et corporis, qua quaestione quid
opus est?_" (_C. R._ 2, 827. 842; St. L. 17, 2057.) To Erhard Schnepf he
had written: "He [Bucer] confesses that, when these things, bread and
wine, are given, Christ is truly and substantially present. As for me I
would not demand anything further." (_C. R._ 2, 787.) In February he
wrote to Brenz: "I plainly judge that they [Bucer, etc.] are not far
from the view of our men; indeed in the matter itself they agree with us
(_reipsa convenire_); nor do I condemn them." (2, 843; St. L. 17, 2065.)
This, however, was not Luther's view. In a following letter Melanchthon
said: "Although Luther does not openly condemn it [the formula of
Bucer], yet he did not wish to give his opinion upon it as yet.
_Lutherus, etsi non plane damnat, tamen nondum voluit pronuntiare_." (_C.
R._ 2, 843; St. L. 17, 2062.) A letter of February 1, 1535, to Philip of
Hesse and another of February 3, to Bucer, also both reveal, on the one
hand, Melanchthon's desire for a union on Bucer's platform and, on the
other, Luther's attitude of aloofness and distrust. (_C. R._ 2, 836.
841.)