Of One or Both
kinds in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
What is the main dispute here?
This is the main controversy, whether it is right for the Roman pope to take the chalice away from the laity and pretend that it belongs only to the clergy. We say it is not right and can never be approved. The opponents say it is right.
For what reasons do we not think it is right?
For the following reasons: 1. when we consider the institution of the Lord Jesus Christ, we find that he has not instituted one form, but two forms. What then should move us to depart from this order of Jesus Christ? Should not Christ Jesus be most valid with us, do we not act most safely when we follow his appointment, and our adversaries may not object. Christ did not institute it thus? Because this is so clear and bright that even the Concilium of Costnitz and the Concilium of Trent must themselves confess it.
2. Thus Christ Jesus, as the evangelists testify, instituted only one supper, not two, one for the priests, the other for the laity, but as we all have one baptism, so we all have one sacrament of the supper of Jesus Christ. And no pope will be able to show that Christ ordained a special supper for the clergy and a special one for the secular, but for both of them one and the same, namely his true body and his true blood. This is irrefutably true.
3. For more confirmation, Christ especially said of the cup, Matt. 26 [:27]: Drink ye all from it, which they also did, and they all drank from it, Mark 14 [:23], which was said at that time to the apostles alone, but under their name to the whole Christian church, just as Christ says of the body: Eat, which Christ also said at that time to the apostles present alone. Nevertheless, there were also other Christians and laymen among their number, which our adversaries themselves must confess. If it is possible for them, they may show that Christ gave the body to the church under the apostles' names, but not the cup. But how do they want to demonstrate this, how is it possible?
4. For these reasons the holy apostle Paul with special diligence put in the other part ώσάντως, Similiter, of the same opinion, even the same has Jesus given the cup to whom he gave the blessed bread. This is to indicate that Christ did nothing special with the cup, or gave it to them, the apostles, on the condition that it should remain with the spiritual order alone, but should be distributed to believing Christians in the same way as the blessed bread.
5. Therefore, when the apostle St. Paul instructs the Corinthians how they should show themselves in the use of this sacrament, he does not say: The laity should receive only the body, but the priests also the blood, but he says in general: Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup, etc. The man, says St. Paul. The priests will not be the only people.
So further he says [1 Corinthians 11:26]: As often as you (Corinthians) eat of this bread and drink of this cup, you shall proclaim the death of the Lord.
He says this to Christians in general, not to priests alone. What does he say? He says not only that they eat of the bread, but also that they drink of the cup. This proves sufficiently that the Corinthians were not deprived of the cup in the days of St. Paul.
6. The Christian churches have only just followed this praiseworthy practice of the church at Corinth, because such use of Holy Communion is entirely consistent with the institution of the Lord Jesus Christ. Although there are some among our opponents today who are not afraid or ashamed to write publicly that the one form has been among Christians for about 1600 years, they do so without any reason, except that they deceive the simple-minded, for many of the popes themselves have confessed and written publicly that in the first Christian church Christians always communicated in both forms. Hence the Fathers in the Concilio at Costnitz say freely and publicly: Licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus, sub utraque specie: Hoc tamen non obstante, &c. That is, whether already in the first Christian church the sacrament was taken by the faithful in two forms, but this without hindrance, etc.
At the time of the most laudable emperors Maximilian and Ferdinand, there was a very learned papal theologian by the name of Georgius Cassander, whom the aforementioned Roman emperors both held very dear and esteemed, also asked him for advice, as he did from others, thus also about this article and graciously requested that he, Cassander, would record and send his opinion to Their Imperial Majesties. This he did, Cassander, and writes about this article, among others, in his advice:
Satis compertum est, Universalem Christi Ecclesiam, in hunc usque diem, Occidentalem vero, seu Romanam, mille amplius a Christo annis, in solenni praesertim, & ordinariae huius Sacramenti dispensatione, utramque panis & vini speciem, omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse, ad quod ex innumeris veterum Scriptorum, tam Graecorum, quam Latinorum testimoniis manifestum est manifestum. Atque ut ita facerent, inductos fuisse primum instituto, exemploque Christi, qui hoc
Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis sui, duobus hisce panis & vini Symbolis, discipulis suis, fidelium personam repraesentantibus, praebuit.
That is to say in German [in English]:
It is sufficiently known and evident that the universal Church of Christ to this day, but the Western or Roman Church more than a thousand years after Christ, especially in the public and orderly dispensation of this sacrament, both the bread and the wine, was given to all the members of the Church of Christ, which is evident from innumerable testimonies of the ancient writers, both Latin and Greek. And that they did so, they were moved, first of all, by the example and institution of Christ, who gave and distributed this sacrament of his body and blood, under these two species of bread and wine, to his disciples, who at that time represented the faithful communicants.
Behold, Christians, this noble papal teacher confesses, and writes to the Roman emperors, that the universal Christian Church, from the time of Christ until his day, has always administered the sacrament in both forms. What then may some write to the contrary, that the one act has always been, and it is well to note that the aforementioned Cassander adds something further to this:
Quare non temere est, quod optimi quique & Catholicae professionis, in divinorum, & Ecclesiasticorum lectione versati, & his, quas supra diximus, rationibus incitati, summo desiderio potiundi calicis Dominici incenduntur, omnibusque modis contendunt, ut hoc salutare Sacramentum sanguinis Christi, una cum Sacramento corporis, juxta veterem consuetudinem, & multis seculis perpetuatam, Universalis Ecclesiae consuetudinem in usum reducatur.
That is:
Therefore it is not out of frivolity that pious Catholics, well versed in the books of God and the Church, for these and other reasons, have such a great desire for the chalice and endeavor in all kinds of ways that this salutary sacrament of the blood of Jesus Christ, together with the sacrament of the body, may again be used and dispensed according to the ancient use and custom of many hundreds of years of the common churches.
Well then, it has been customary for many hundreds of years to administer the sacrament in two different forms, as this distinguished papal teacher testifies. How dare they now say, contrary to their conscience, that the one form has always been customary and usual? Why do they cry out that we speak against the universal Christian Church, when their own teacher says that those who give only one form do so against the Church, and says: He can prove from innumerable testimonies of the ancient teachers that both parts of the sacrament have always been distributed to all members of the Church of Christ. What will they answer to this?
That is probably the honest truth. But they have a lot of objections and excuses to whitewash their doctrine.
They are nothing but pretenses, for nothing can really be brought forward against the thorough truth. But I am prepared to answer if you briefly recount their objections one by one.
First, they say that they confess that one may receive the sacrament under both forms, but also under one, because it is free.
Answer: It is not an indifferent thing (adiaphora); Christ did not leave it to us, nor did St. Paul to the Corinthians, that they should use the sacrament as they pleased, but Christ said to the apostles: Do this, what I have done, do this and nothing else. He did not say: It is up to you whether you want to keep the chalice for yourselves alone and withdraw it from the laity. The sacred sacraments are not something in between, but things that are based on God's word and are dispensed and distributed according to God's word. The Councils of Costnitz and Trent clearly states that it is not a free matter to commune under one or both forms, but that it is necessary to dispense the sacrament to the laity under one form, so this objection is meaningless.
Because the body of Christ is not without blood, for it is a living body, therefore the laity also receive the blood under the form of the body.
This is their greatest and most noble aid in this whole article, but it is also easily overturned and refuted.
1. If so, why can't the altar priests also be satisfied with one kind?
2. Although the body of Christ is naturally not without blood, yet the Lord Christ has so ordained that he has dispensed his body and his blood under special elements, namely, that one should eat his body under the bread, not drink his blood under the bread, but eat, eat, eat his body and drink his blood under the wine, not eat his body under the wine. Since Christ Jesus himself knew that his body is not without blood, but nevertheless dispenses and distributes his body and blood in different ways, let us stick to this and not prescribe anything to Christ.
3. Thus it is also undeniable, even if the body is not the blood, that body and blood are nevertheless distinct. The body is a different essence, the blood is a different essence. So what is distinct, Christ Jesus can also give in different ways.
4. Nor do we find these doctrines in Scripture, but the antithesis. For St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10 [:16-17] that the blessed bread is a communion of the body of Jesus Christ. He does not say that the bread is a communion of the blood, or of the body and blood together, but that the bread is a communion of the body and the cup a communion of the blood. It is this: Christ wants to give us his body with the bread and his blood with the wine. We must look to this will and order of Jesus Christ and not master it. The question is not whether Christ could have given us his body and blood in the bread at the same time, but whether he wanted to give it in this way. We do not find this to be the case, but he wanted to give us his body with the bread and his blood with the wine.
5. If we also received Christ's blood with the bread, we would not only have to say: Take, eat, but at the same time: Take, eat and drink; this blessed bread is the communion of the body and blood of Christ. But who wants to do this without and against God's Word? And how is it fitting that one should eat the blood? That one should drink the body of Christ in the other part with the blood?
6. It would also follow that in the whole sacrament the blood of Jesus Christ is received twice, once under the
bread, the other time under the wine. Where is this written, where is it found among the apostles, where was it heard in the ancient Christian universal church?
7. Even if the popes regard their own doctrine, this work does not exist, for they themselves confess that in the consecration the bread is changed into the body and nothing into the blood, which is found now and then in their books.
8. Therefore a papal teacher, Andreas Fricius, writes thus against this erroneous opinion and concomitance:
Separarim comestio nominatur, separatim bibitio, ab illa sapientia increata, cui sapientia omnis Humana, de inseparabilitate sanguinis vivi a carne viva cedere debet. Non enim hic disputandum est ex rationibus humanis, sed voluntas Christi intuenda, quae convivium non mancum instituit, sed cibo addidit potum.
That is in German [in English]:
It is especially called the eating, especially the drinking of uncreated wisdom, to which all human reason must give way with the inseparability of the living blood from the living flesh. For there is no need to argue on the basis of human reason, but the will of Christ must be considered, who did not prepare half a meal, but also gave drink as food.
This is a reasonable speech from a papist; let our opponents follow it and abandon their complacency. Whoever desires further refutation of this error, may read blessed Luther, printed in the third part of his German books at Jena, on the 528th leaf, etc., without hesitation. I hope, however, that from the pieces which I have now related, one will have sufficient reason to beware of this error.
St. Paul says: Whoever eats of this bread unworthily, or drinks of this cup unworthily. Because he says “or”, he leaves it up to you to communicate under one or both forms.
This is a futile expedient, because:
1. Thus all papists, by virtue of the Council of Trent in the 4th Session, Decret. 2, to accept the old Latin version and not to depart from it at all.
Now it does not say Aut, “or”, but Et, “and”: Whoever of this bread and of this cup, etc.
2. Although in the Greek there is a little word which means as much as or, yet it is not of the kind that it separates from one another, but distinguishes, distinguishes, as here in Paul, who distinguishes the loaf and the cup, because they are also distinct in themselves; for the loaf is not the cup, the cup is not the loaf.
3. It would follow that one could also communicate under the cup alone, which our adversaries themselves do not want to allow.
4. This is contrary to the conciliar councils of Costnitz and Trent, which do not, in fact, allow communing under one or both forms, but in fact deprive the laity of the chalice and forbid it, even saying that the one form is to be regarded as a law.
5. Finally, these words must not be interpreted contrary to the institution, but according to the institution of Christ. The institution, however, does not leave it up to us whether we want to drink the cup, but orders and commands us all to drink from it. And the evangelists write: Similiter, in the same way, Christ also gave the cup to drink from it, just as he gave the blessed bread to eat, that is, not freely.
The Council of Costnitz also has this reason, among others, why the laity were denied the chalice because of the danger that the blood might remain in the beards of the laity.
The cardinals, bishops, prelates and the whole Council of Costnitz have set this cause. Is it to be wondered at and lamented that in such important matters one acts so dissolutely? Well, let us answer this properly:
1. This is the blood of Jesus Christ, which is drunk after the institution of Jesus Christ, not that which remains in the beard, for the same, because it is out of ordinary use, is not blood but wine.
2. But if it were so (as it never is), would it not be better for the laity to have their beards cut off and give sixpence to the barber, than that they should be deprived of the most holy blood of Jesus Christ?
3. And why did he, Christ, give the apostles, who had large beards, as especially Nicephorus
writes of St. Peter, that he had barbam crispam & densam, a curly and thick beard? Why did he not send them to the barber first?
4. How then did St. Paul himself allow the Corinthians to drink the cup, since there is no doubt that many of them had beards?
5. But how do the poor women come to be deprived of the cup, since the cause is not valid? Therefore this ratio and motio is quite vain, quite ridiculous, stemming from the transformation.
They also say: If the blood is kept for a long time, it may turn into vinegar or even spoil, so that worms and similar vermin grow out of it.
With this cause, one can see with what atrocious blasphemy the error of the one form must be glossed over. Why is it necessary to keep the wine so long, can we not have fresh wine at all times? 2. Now if the wine were to turn sour, the blood of Jesus Christ would not turn sour, the blood of Jesus Christ would not spoil, and vermin would not grow from the blood of Jesus Christ. Would it be a miracle if the earth were to split open and avenge such blasphemy? David says of the person of Christ in the 16th Psalm [:10]: You will not allow your Holy One to rot. Of course, the blood of Jesus Christ cannot decay. That is why St. Peter in the first epistle, chapter 1 [:19], calls it a sanguinem preciosum, a precious blood, which, like silver and gold, is not perishable. Indeed, if the wine were transformed into the blood of Christ according to the papal opinion, and if blood were also beyond consumption, then they would be able to enjoy it. Even if it were so, the blood of Jesus Christ could not corrupt, any more than Christ Jesus himself can corrupt. The dear, faithful God graciously protects every Christian heart from having such thoughts about the precious, imperishable blood of his Savior Jesus Christ.
If the laity received the chalice just as well as the clergy, they could remember that the laity are just as important as the clergy.
So, I hear, it is only a matter of preference, of the tiresome pride. Should the holy sacrament help to strengthen the arrogance of the clergy? In
God's eyes, all Christians are one; no one is worth more than the other. That is why the clergy and the regular people [Weltliche] have one God, one baptism, one faith, one Word, one forgiveness of sins, one heaven, one eternal blessedness of soul. Our Lord God does not do anything special to anyone in this case. So all Christians, spiritual and regular, also have the sacrament of Holy Communion. And because Christ Jesus granted the laity the cup just as well as the clergy, what do we want to take away from them? Is it because Christ is so gracious that our eyes are dim? The laity need forgiveness of sins just as much as the clergy, which is why Christ gave them his blood for the forgiveness of their sins. St. Peter did not despise the laity, but held them in high esteem, calling them all a royal priesthood and a chosen people, in the first epistle of Peter in the second chapter [1 Peter 2:9-12]. For this reason, the patres at Costnitz might well have stayed at home with this argument, so that they themselves would not have proclaimed their proud name like the cuckoo.
Furthermore, they say: For this reason we must now hold so firmly to the one form that we do not think that the Roman Church is mistaken and that those who have introduced the one form are damned.
That is the whole deal. But even if they hold to it a thousand times as firmly, every pious Christian will know that the Roman Church has erred and is still erring. Will this cause be upheld one day at death's door, when conscience awakens, or on the Last Day before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ, when He will demand an account? We believe that Christ Jesus will not allow himself to be rebuffed, but will punish them most severely for having abandoned his commandment for the sake of the Roman Church, for having acted contrary to His Word and not obeyed it. Woe then to the ringleaders, how will they stand? The simple-minded and the laity, who were forced to do so by force or deceived by the clergy, if they otherwise kept the foundation of their faith, Christ Jesus, in their hearts, had to console themselves and still pray to the intercession of Jesus Christ: Father, forgive them, they know not what they do. But those who have practiced this tyranny and introduced cup snatching will remember the words of the 56th Psalm: God, you will cast them down into the deep pits, etc. [Ps 55:23]
Veit Miletus, a papist, writes in a book: If the apostles had not taken both forms, St. Peter would not have denied Christ and the apostles would not have abandoned Christ, would not have fled.
This is truly blindness upon blindness, blasphemy upon blasphemy. Thus the holy blood of Jesus Christ caused St. Peter to deny Christ and the apostles to flee from him. O thou most holy blood of Jesus Christ, wherewith shalt thou have caused or wrought this? Where is there a single letter in the Scriptures, indeed, where is there a single word, a single word, a single word, I say, in all the books of the ancient Fathers? We may well say here: It is hard to tempt against the sting.
Just one more thing: there are quite a few Miletus who cannot drink wine at all, so the cup has been abolished for their sake.
Yes, who would or could believe it, there are many such people, but few, how would the others get to the point that they would have to repay them? 2. The reason does not apply to the papists in particular. They have no wine in their sacrament, but only blood. Thus the deprived (abstemii), who do not drink wine, may not express themselves or shy away from the chalice, because according to the papal transubstantiation they do not drink wine, but only blood. Therefore this objection is absolutely useless. 3. But even if wine is taken and partaken of in this sacrament, an abstaining (abstemious) person, one who does not drink wine, can still take one, two or three drops in honor of his Lord Jesus Christ and for the salvation of his soul by the grace of God, without his embarrassment, if he prays diligently and calls upon God. I can confirm this with my own example, as I also have a natural aversion to wine and have never drunk any other wine in my life. Nevertheless, God the Holy Spirit (to whom be praise and thanksgiving) has always given me the grace, after previous devout prayer, that I have been able to use the blessed cup in the Most Holy Communion, and God will do the same to others who call upon him for it. 4. Could it not happen that one or more of the clergy by nature do not drink wine? From this it would be necessary to deprive all clergy of the cup? It would then be a matter of admitting no one into
their order, for he could then honestly raise the large glasses. 5. Finally, and in conclusion, if these or other causes were sufficient, Christ Jesus, the supreme wisdom, would have known it. But alas, we have come to the time when wisdom must be vindicated by her children. We ask God to keep us in the truth. His Word is the truth. Amen.
Chapter Navigation