Chapter X: Of Both Kinds in the Lord’s Supper (Article XXII)

p. 243 Article XXII: 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 that 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: sqq.) 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,” he says first concerning his body; afterwards he repeats p. 244 the same words concerning the cup. And then: “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.” 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 it together. Wherefore it is evident that the sacrament was instituted for the entire Church. And the custom still remains in the Greek churches, and was also once 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, only we leave the prudent reader to determine what should be held concerning the divine ordinance.

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, Art. xxii.; Smalcald Articles, Part iii., Art. vi.; Formula of Concord, Epitome, vii.: 24; Sol. Dec., vii.: 110.

The adversaries in the Confutation do not endeavor to excuse the Church, to which one part of the sacrament has been denied. This was 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. They first imagine that, in the beginning of the Church, the custom was 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,; 20:7) concerning the breaking of bread. But although we do not greatly oppose the receiving of some of these passages as referring to the sacrament; yet it does not follow that one part only has been 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,¹ which was not the use of only one kind, but of both; and if priests ever are commanded to use Lay Communion, it is meant that they have been removed from the ministry of consecration. Neither are the adversaries ignorant of this, but they abuse the inexperience 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.

¹ In the ancient Church, Lay Communion was a punishment of the clergy, by which they were degraded to the condition of laymen, and were accordingly compelled also to receive the communion with the laity. See Bingham’s Antiquities, Eng. ed., p. 1030 sq.

p. 245 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, viz. 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 the direction in which 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 seek¹ the one part pertaining to the priests (1 Sam. 2:36).² 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.³ The adversaries are clearly trifling when they are transferring the history of the posterity of Eli to the sacrament. The punishment of Eli is there described. Do they also say this, that as a punishment the laymen have been removed from the other part? 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. But why ought they? “The reason ought not to be asked, but let whatever the theologians say be law.” This is the ἐωλοκρασία⁴ of Eck. For we recognize those vainglorious words, which if we would wish to criticise, 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 ought to 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? If they⁵ make the prohibition in order that there should be a distinction of orders, 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 distinctions of order between p. 246 priests and 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 orders, we will not say more concerning this shrewd advice.

¹ Rech. Tit.: Would lose.

² Vulgate: Dimitte me, obsecro, ad unam partem sacerdotalem.

³ Melanchthon narrates briefly this folly of Faber also in a letter to LUTHER. See Corpus Reformatorum, ii., No. 824.

⁴ “A mixture of all the dregs with which the drunken were sometimes dosed at the end of a revel by their stronger-headed companions.”—Lid-dell and Scott. Wittily applied by Melanchthon to Eck, because of his well-known fondness for wine.

⁵ German omits ¶ 13.

They also allege the danger of spilling and certain similar things, which do not have force sufficient to change the ordinance of Christ. And indeed if we imagine that we are free to use either one part or both, how can the prohibition 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 both parts could not be granted; but the authors who maintain that the use of the entire sacrament is prohibited aright, and who now not only prohibit, but even ex-communicate 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 at once judged that the Church determines or approves whatever the pontiffs determine, especially since Scripture prophecies concerning the bishops and pastors to the effect as Ezekiel says (7:26): “The Law shall perish from the priest” [there will be priests or bishops who will know no command or Law of God].