Reply to the Second Part of the Confession.
Of Lay Communion under One Form. As in the Confessions of the princes
and cities they enumerate among the abuses that laymen commune only
under one form, and as, therefore, in their dominions both forms are
administered to laymen, we must reply, according to the custom of the
Holy Church, that this is incorrectly enumerated among the abuses, but
that, according to the sanctions and statutes of the same Church it is
rather an abuse and disobedience to administer to laymen both forms. For
under the one form of bread the saints communed in the primitive Church,
of whom Luke says: "They continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine
and fellowship, and in breaking of bread." Acts 2:42. Here Luke mentions
bread alone. Likewise Acts 20:7 says: "Upon the first day of the week,
when the disciples came together to break bread." Yea, Christ, the
institutor of this most holy sacrament, rising again from the dead,
administered the Eucharist only under one form to the disciples going to
Emmaus, where he took bread and blessed it, and brake and gave to them,
and they recognized him in the breaking of bread. Luke 24:30, 31: where
indeed Augustine, Chrysostome, Theophylact and Bede some of whom many
ags ago and not long after the times of the apostles affirm that it
was the Eucharist. Christ also (John 6) very frequently mentions bread
alone. St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, in his
Epistle to the Ephesians mentions the bread alone in the communion
of the Eucharist. Ambrose does likewise in his books concerning the
sacraments, speaking of the communion of Laymen. In the Council of
Rheims, laymen were forbidden from bearing the sacrament of the Body to
the sick, and no mention is there made of the form of wine. Hence it is
understood that the viaticum was given the sick under only one form. The
ancient penitential canons approve of this. For the Council of Agde put
a guilty priest into a monastery and granted him only lay communion. In
the Council of Sardica, Hosius prohibits certain indiscreet persons
from receiving even lay communion, unless they finally repent. There has
always been a distinction in the Church between lay communion under
one form and priestly communion under both forms. This was beautifully
predicted in the Old Testament concerning the descendants of Eli: "It
shall come to pass," says God, 1 Kings 2; 1 Sam. 2:36, "that everyone
that is left in thine house shall come and crouch to him for a piece of
silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, 'Put me, I pray thee,
into one of the priests' office' (Vulgate reads: "Ad unam partem
sacerdotalem."), 'that I may eat a piece of bread.'" Here Holy Scripture
clearly shows that the posterity of Eli, when removed from the office
of the priesthood, will seek to be admitted to one sacerdotal part, to a
piece of bread. So our laymen also ought, therefore, to be content
with one sacerdotal part, the one form. For both the Roman pontiffs
and cardinals and all bishops and priests, save in the mass and in the
extreme hour of life for a viaticum, as it is called in the Council of
Nice, re content with taking one form, which they would not do if they
thought that both forms would be necessary for salvation. Although,
however, both forms were of old administered in many churches to laymen
(for then it was free to commune under one or under both forms), yet
on account of many dangers the custom of administering both forms has
ceased. For when the multitude of the people is considered where there
are old and young, tremulous and weak and inept, if great care be not
employed and injury is done the Sacrament by the spilling of the liquid.
Because of the great multitude there would be difficulty also in giving
the chalice cautiously for the form of wine, which also when kept for
a long time would sour and cause nausea or vomition to those who would
receive it; neither could it be readily taken to the sick without danger
of spilling. For these reasons and others the churches in which the
custom had been to give both forms to laymen were induced, undoubtedly
by impulse of the Holy Ghost, to give thereafter but one form, from the
consideration chiefly that the entire Christ is under each form, and
is received no less under one form than under two. In the Council of
Constance, of such honorable renown, a decree to this effect appeared,
and so too the Synod of Basle legitimately decreed. And although it
was formerly a matter of freedom to use either one or both forms in the
Eucharist, nevertheless, when the heresy arose which taught that both
forms were necessary, the Holy Church, which is directed by the Holy
Ghost, forbade both forms to laymen. For thus the Church is sometimes
wont to extinguish heresies by contrary institutions; as when some
arose who maintained that the Eucharist is properly celebrated only when
unleavened bread is used, the Church for a while commanded that it be
administered with leavened bread; and when Nestorius wished to establish
that the perpetual Virgin Mary was mother only of Christ, not of God,
the Church for a time forbade her to be called Christotokos, mother of
Christ. Wherefore we must entreat the princes and cities not to permit
this schism to be introduced into Germany, into the Roman Empire, or
themselves to be separated from the custom of the Church Universal.
Neither do the arguments adduced in this article avail, for while Christ
indeed instituted both forms of the Sacrament, yet it is nowhere found
in the Gospel that he enjoined that both forms be received by the laity.
For what is said in Matt. 26:27: "Drink ye all of it," was said to the
twelve apostles, who were priests, as is manifest from Mark 14:23, where
it is said: "And they all drank of it." This certainly was not fulfilled
hitherto with respect to laymen; whence the custom never existed
throughout the entire Church that both forms were given to laymen,
although it existed perhaps among the Corinthians and Carthaginians
and some other Churches. As to their reference to Gelasius, Canon
Comperimus, of Consecration. Dist. 2, if they examine the document they
will find that Gelasius speaks of priests, and not of laymen. Hence
their declaration that the custom of administering but one form is
contrary to divine law must be rejected. But most of all the appendix
to the article must be rejected, that the procession with the Eucharist
must be neglected or omitted, because the sacrament is thus divided. For
they themselves know, or at least ought to know, that by the Christian
faith Christ has not been divided, but that the entire Christ is under
both forms, and that the Gospel nowhere forbids the division of the
sacramental forms; as is done on Parasceve (Holy or Maundy Thursday) by
the entire Church of the Catholics, although the consecration is made
by the celebrant in both forms, who also ought to receive both. Therefore
the princes and cities should be admonished to pay customary reverence
and due honor to Christ the Son of the living God, our Savior and
Glorifier, the Lord of heaven and earth, since they believe and
acknowledge that he is truly present--a matter which they know has been
most religiously observed by their ancestors, most Christian princes.