Article XXII (X): _Of Both Kinds in the Lord's Supper._
It cannot be doubted that it is godly and in accordance with the
institution of Christ and the words of Paul to use both parts in the
Lord's Supper. For Christ instituted both parts, and instituted them
not for a part of the Church, but for the entire Church. For not
only the presbyters, but the entire Church uses the Sacrament by the
authority of Christ, and not by human authority, and this, we suppose,
the adversaries acknowledge. Now, if Christ has instituted it for
the entire Church, why is one kind denied to a part of the Church?
Why is the use of the other kind prohibited? Why is the ordinance of
Christ changed, especially when He Himself calls it His testament?
But if it is not allowable to annul man's testament, much less will
it be allowable to annul the testament of Christ. And Paul says, 1
Cor. 11, 23 ff., that he had received of the Lord that which he
delivered. But he had delivered the use of both kinds, as the text,
1 Cor. 11, clearly shows. This do [in remembrance of Me], he says
first concerning His body; afterwards he repeats the same words
concerning the cup [the blood of Christ]. And then: Let a man
examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that
cup. [Here he names both.] These are the words of Him who has
instituted the Sacrament. And, indeed, he says before that those who
will use the Lord's Supper should use both. It is evident, therefore,
that the Sacrament was instituted for the entire Church. And the
custom still remains in the Greek churches, and also once obtained in
the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Jerome testify. For thus Jerome
says on Zephaniah: The priests who administer the Eucharist, and
distribute the Lord's blood to the people, etc. The Council of Toledo
gives the same testimony. Nor would it be difficult to accumulate a
great multitude of testimonies. Here we exaggerate nothing; we but
leave the prudent reader to determine what should be held concerning
the divine ordinance [whether it is proper to prohibit and change an
ordinance and institution of Christ].
The adversaries in the _Confutation_ do not endeavor to [comfort the
consciences or] excuse the Church, to which one part of the Sacrament
has been denied. This would have been becoming to good and religious
men. For a strong reason for excusing the Church, and instructing
consciences to whom only a part of the Sacrament could be granted,
should have been sought. Now these very men maintain that it is
right to prohibit the other part, and forbid that the use of both
parts be allowed. First, they imagine that, in the beginning of the
Church, it was the custom at some places that only one part was
administered. Nevertheless they are not able to produce any ancient
example of this matter. But they cite the passages in which mention
is made of bread, as in Luke 24, 35 where it is written that the
disciples recognized Christ in the breaking of bread. They quote
also other passages, Acts 2, 42. 46; 20, 7, concerning the breaking
of bread. But although we do not greatly oppose if some receive
these passages as referring to the Sacrament, yet it does not follow
that one part only was given, because, according to the ordinary
usage of language, by the naming of one part the other is also
signified. They refer also to Lay Communion which was not the use of
only one kind, but of both; and whenever priests are commanded to use
Lay Communion [for a punishment are not to consecrate themselves, but
to receive Communion, however, of both kinds from another], it is
meant that they have been removed from the ministry of consecration.
Neither are the adversaries ignorant of this, but they abuse the
ignorance of the unlearned, who, when they hear of Lay Communion,
immediately dream of the custom of our time, by which only a part of
the Sacrament is given to the laymen.
And consider their impudence. Gabriel recounts among other reasons
why both parts are not given that a distinction should be made
between laymen and presbyters. And it is credible that the chief
reason why the prohibition of the one part is defended is this,
namely, that the dignity of the order may be the more highly exalted
by a religious rite. To say nothing more severe, this is a human
design; and whither this tends can easily be judged. In the
_Confutation_ they also quote concerning the sons of Eli that after
the loss of the high-priesthood, they were to seek the one part
pertaining to the priests, 1 Sam. 2, 36 [the text reads: Every one
that is left in thine house shall come and crouch him for a piece of
silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee,
into one of the priest's offices (German: _Lieber, lass mich zu einem
Priesterteil_) that I may eat a piece of bread]. Here they say that
the use of one kind was signified. And they add: "Thus, therefore,
our laymen ought also to be content, with one part pertaining to the
priests, with one kind." The adversaries [the masters of the
_Confutation_ are quite shameless, rude asses, and] are clearly
trifling when they are transferring the history of the posterity of
Eli to the Sacrament. The punishment of Eli is there described.
Will they also say this, that as a punishment the laymen have been
removed from the other party [They are quite foolish and mad.] The
Sacrament was instituted to console and comfort terrified minds when
they believe that the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world,
is food, when they believe that, being joined to Christ [through
this food], they are made alive. But the adversaries argue that
laymen are removed from the other part as a punishment. "They ought,"
they say, "to be content." This is sufficient for a despot. [That,
surely, sounds proud and defiant enough.] But [my lords, may we ask
the reason] why ought they? "The reason must not be asked but let
whatever the theologians say be law." [Is whatever you wish and
whatever you say to be sheer truth? See now and be astonished how
shameless and impudent the adversaries are: they dare to set up their
own words as sheer commands of lords, they frankly say: The laymen
must be content. But what if they must not?] This is a concoction of
Eck. For we recognize those vainglorious words, which if we would
wish to criticize, there would be no want of language. For you see
how great the impudence is. He commands, as a tyrant in the
tragedies: "Whether they wish or not, they must be content." Will the
reasons which he cites excuse, in the judgment of God, those who
prohibit a part of the Sacrament, and rage against men using an
entire Sacrament? [Are they to take comfort in the fact that it is
recorded concerning the sons of Eli: They will go begging? That will
be a shuffling excuse at the judgment-seat of God.] If they make the
prohibition in order that there should be a distinguishing mark of
the order, this very reason ought to move us not to assent to the
adversaries, even though we would be disposed in other respects to
comply with their custom. There are other distinguishing marks of
the order of priests and of the people, but it is not obscure what
design they have for defending this distinction so earnestly. That
we may not seem to detract from the true worth of the order, we will
not say more concerning this shrewd design.
They also allege the danger of spilling and certain similar things,
which do not have force sufficient to change the ordinance of Christ.
[They allege more dreams like these for the sake of which it would
be improper to change the ordinance of Christ.] And, indeed, if we
assume that we are free to use either one part or both, how can the
prohibition [to use both kinds] be defended? Although the Church
does not assume to itself the liberty to convert the ordinances of
Christ into matters of indifference. We indeed excuse the Church
which has borne the injury [the poor consciences which have been
deprived of one part by force], since it could not obtain both parts;
but the authors who maintain that the use of the entire Sacrament is
justly prohibited, and who now not only prohibit, but even
excommunicate and violently persecute those using an entire Sacrament,
we do not excuse. Let them see to it how they will give an account
to God for their decisions. Neither is it to be judged immediately
that the Church determines or approves whatever the pontiffs
determine, especially since Scripture prophesies concerning the
bishops and pastors to effect this as Ezekiel says, 7, 28: The Law
shall perish from the priest [there will be priests or bishops who
will know no command or law of God].