Article XXII (X) Both Kinds in the Lord's Supper
[1] There is no doubt that using both parts in the Lord’s Supper is godly and in agreement with Christ’s institution and Paul’s words. For Christ instituted both parts, not for a portion of the Church, but for the whole Church. Not only the presbyters, but the entire Church uses the Sacrament by Christ’s authority, and not by human authority. We suppose the adversaries recognize this. [2] If Christ has instituted the Supper 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 Christ’s ordinance changed, especially when He Himself calls it His testament? If it is unlawful to set aside a man’s testament, it is more unlawful to set aside Christ’s testament. [3] Paul says, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” (1 Corinthians 11:23). He had delivered the use of both kinds, as the text, 1 Corinthians 11, clearly shows. He says, “Do this” (11:24), first about His body; afterward, Paul repeats the same words about the cup ‹Christ’s blood›. And then, “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (11:28). These are the words of Him who has instituted the Sacrament. Indeed, He says before that those who will use the Lord’s Supper should use both. [4] It is clear, therefore, that the Sacrament was instituted for the whole Church. The custom still remains in the Greek churches, and was once also observed in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Jerome testify. For Jerome says on Zephaniah: “The priests who administer the Eucharist, and distribute the Lord’s blood to the people,” and so on. The Council of Toledo gives the same testimony. Nor would it be difficult to gather a great multitude of references. [5] We are not exaggerating. We will allow the levelheaded reader to determine what should be held about the divine ordinance.
[6] In the Confutation, the adversaries do not try hard to relieve the Church, to which one part of the Sacrament has been denied. This would have been fitting to good and religious men. A strong reason for relieving the Church should have been sought, and consciences, which would have received only a part of the Sacrament, should have been instructed. Now these very men maintain that it is right to ban the other part of the Sacrament and forbid the use of both parts. [7] First, they imagine at the Church’s beginning, it was customary at some places to give out only one part of the Sacrament. However, they are not able to produce any ancient example for this. They quote the passages mentioning bread, as 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) about the breaking of bread. Although we do not object if some interpret these passages as referring to the Sacrament, it does not make sense that only one part of the Sacrament was given. According to the ordinary usage of language, naming one part also means the other. [8] They also refer to lay Communion, which was not the use of only one kind, but of both. Whenever priests are commanded to use lay Communion, it is meant that they have been removed from the ministry of consecration. The adversaries are not ignorant of this, but they abuse the ignorance of the uneducated. When the uneducated hear of lay Communion, they imagine the custom of our time, by which only a part of the Sacrament is given to laypeople.
[9] Consider the adversaries’ rudeness. Gabriel Biel recalls among other reasons why both parts are not given: to distinguish between laymen and presbyters. It is credible that the chief reason why one part is prohibited is this: the clerical order may be more dignified by a religious rite. To say nothing more extreme, this is a human design. It can easily be judged whether this helps. [10] In the Confutation they also mention Eli’s sons. After the loss of the high priesthood, they were to seek the one part applying to the priests. (See 1 Samuel 2:36.) Here they say that the use of one kind was meant. They add: “So, our laypeople should also be content with one kind, with only the priests receiving the other.” The adversaries are clearly being silly when they transfer the history of Eli’s descendants to the Sacrament. Eli’s punishment is described there. Will they also say that, as a punishment, laypeople have been separated from the other part? The Sacrament was instituted to comfort terrified minds. This happens when they believe that Christ’s flesh is given as food for the life of the world [John 6:51] and when they believe that, being joined to Christ, they are made alive. But the adversaries argue that laypeople are separated from the other part as a punishment. “They should,” they say, “be content.” This is enough for a dictator. [11] Why should they [withhold both parts of the Sacrament]? “The reason must not be asked, but let whatever the theologians say be law.” This is Eck’s doing. We recognize those proud words. If we wanted to criticize, there would be no lack of words. You see how great the rudeness is. He commands, as a tyrant in the tragedies: “ Whether they will or not, they must be content.” [12] Will the reasons that he cites excuse, in God’s judgment, those who ban a part of the Sacrament and attack people using an entire Sacrament? [13] If they make the prohibition in order that there may be a distinguishing mark between priests and laity, this very reason should move us not to agree with the adversaries, even though we could go along with their custom, but for other reasons. There are marks that distinguish the order of priests from the people, but it is clear why they defend this distinction so earnestly. We do not want to ridicule the value of the order, so we will not say more about the adversaries’ real intent.
[14] They also bring up the danger of spilling (the wine) and certain similar things. These are not serious enough to change Christ’s ordinance. [15] Certainly, if we assume that we are free to use either one part of the Sacrament or both, how can prohibiting ‹the use of both kinds› be defended? The Church does not allow itself to change Christ’s ordinances into unimportant matters. [16] We certainly excuse the Church that has suffered since it could not receive both parts. But we do not excuse the writers who maintain that using the entire Sacrament is justly banned and who now not only ban, but even excommunicate and violently persecute, those using the entire Sacrament. Let them figure out how they will answer God for their decisions. [17] It should not be immediately judged that the Church decides or approves whatever the pontiffs decide, especially since Scripture prophesies about the bishops and pastors in this regard, as Ezekiel 7:26 says, “The law perishes from the priest.”