Part 19 (1/2)

Let ress I have made in my studies on the administration of this sacrament For when I published e, being in no wise concerned with the question of the right or wrong of the papacy But now, challenged and attacked, nay, forcibly thrust into the arena, I shall freely speak ether

[Sidenote: The First Captivity: the Withholding of the Cup from the Laity]

In the first place, John vi is to be entirely excluded frole syllable to the sacrament For not only was the sacrament not yet instituted, but the whole context plainly shows that Christ is speaking of faith in the Word made flesh, as I have said above[27] For He says, ”My words are spirit, and they are life,” [John 6:63] which shows that He is speaking of a spiritual eating, whereby whoever eats has life, whereas the Jews understood Hi and therefore disputed with Hi which is by faith, for that is the truly spiritual and living eating As Augustine also says: ”Why make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten”[28] For the sacraive life, since many eat unworthily Therefore, He cannot be understood as speaking of the sacrae

These words have indeed been wrongly applied to the sacrament, as in the decretal _Dudu to misapply the Scriptures, it is quite another to understand thee enjoined the sacra, ”Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye have no life in you,” [John 6:53] He would condemn all infants, invalids and those absent or in any wise hindered froht be Thus Augustine, in the second book of his _Contra Julianum_[30], proves from Innocent that even infants eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, without the sacrah the faith of the Church Let this then be accepted as proved,--John vi does not belong here For this reason I have elsewhere[31] written that the Bohee in support of their use of the sacraes that do clearly bear upon this matter--the Gospel narratives of the institution of the Lord's Supper, and Paul in I Corinthians xi These let us exaave the whole sacrament to all the disciples [Matt 26, Mark 14, Luke 22], and it is certain that Paul delivered both kinds [1 Cor 11] No one has ever had the temerity to assert the contrary Further, Matthew reports that Christ said not of the bread, ”Eat ye all of it,” [Matt 26:27] but of the cup, ”Drink ye all of it”; and Mark likewise says not, ”They all ate of it,” but, ”They all drank of it” [Mark 14:23] Both Matthew and Mark attach the note of universality to the cup, not to the bread; as though the Spirit saw this schis, by which some would be forbidden to partake of the cup, which Christ desired should be coainst us, if they had found the word ”all” attached to the bread instead of the cup!

They would not leave us a loophole to escape, they would cry out upon us and set us down as heretics, they would damn us or schisainst theic--these ain even the things that be God's, and throw everything into confusion

But i my lords the papists In the Lord's Supper, I say, the whole sacraiven only to the priests or else it is given also to the laity If it is given only to the priests, as they would have it, then it is not right to give it to the laity in either kind; for it ive it when He instituted it For if we pered, we make all of His laws invalid, and every one will boldly claim that he is not bound by any law or institution of His For a single exception, especially in the Scriptures, invalidates the whole But if it is given also to the laity, then it inevitably follows that it ought not to be withheld from them in either form

And if any do withhold it from them when they desire it, they act impiously and contrary to the work, example and institution of Christ

I confess that I aument, and that I have neither read nor heard nor found anything to advance against it For here the word and example of Christ stand firm, when He says, not by way of permission but of command, ”Drink ye all of it” [Matt26:27] For if all are to drink, and the words cannot be understood as addressed to the priests alone, then it is certainly an impious act to withhold the cup froel from heaven were to do it For when they say that the distribution of both kinds was left to the judg any reason or it and put it forth without any authority; it is ignored just as readily as it is proved, and does not hold against an opponent who confronts us[33]

with the word and work of Christ Such an one must be refuted with a word of Christ, but this we[34] do not possess

But if one kind ht and reason a portion of baptisht also be taken from them by this same authority of the Church Therefore, just as baptism and absolution must be administered in their entirety, so the sacraiven in its entirety to all lay that the priests may never receive only the one kind, in thea mortal sin; and that for no other reason, as they unanimously say, than that both kinds constitute the one complete sacrament, which may not be divided I pray them to tell me why it may be divided in the case of the laity, and why to theiven Do they not acknowledge, by their own testiiven to the laity, or that it is not a valid sacraiven to them?

How can the one kind be a complete sacrament or the laity and not a complete sacrament for the priests? Why do they flaunt the authority of the Church and the power of the pope in my face? These do not make void the Word of God and the testimony of the truth

But further, if the Church can withhold the wine from the laity, it can also withhold the bread from them; it could, therefore, withhold the entire sacrament of the altar from the laity and completely annul Christ's institution so far as they are concerned I ask, by what authority? But if the Church cannot withhold the bread, or both kinds, neither can it withhold the wine This cannot possibly be gainsaid; for the Church's power must be the same over either kind as over both kinds, and if she has no power over both kinds, she has none over either kind I am curious to hear what the Roman sycophants will have to say to this

What carries ht with me, however, and quite decides me is this Christ says: ”This is my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins” [Matt 26:28] Here we see very plainly that the blood is given to all those for whose sins it was shed But ill dare to say it was not shed for the laity? Do you not see whoive it to all? Does He not say that it is shed or all? ”For you,” He says--well: ill let these be the priests--”and for many”--these cannot be priests; and yet He says, ”Drink ye all of it” [Matt

26:27] I too could easily trifle here and with my words make a mockery of Christ's words, as my dear trifler[34] does; but they who rely on the Scriptures in opposing us, must be refuted by the Scriptures This is what has prevented ood, certainly have the word and act of Christ on their side, while we have neither, but only that hollow device of men--”the Church has appointed it” It was not the Church that appointed these things, but the tyrants of the churches, without the consent of the Church, which is the people of God

But where in all the world is the necessity, where the religious duty, where the practical use, of denying both kinds, i e, the visible sign, to the laity, when every one concedes to then? If they concede the grace, which is the greater, why not the sign, which is the lesser? For in every sacra signified What then is to prevent thereater? I can see but one reason; it has coive occasion for a schiso lost the grace of the sacraainst that which is the ; just as soainst love Nay, this an for the sake of the riches of this world to rage against Christian love Thus God would show us, by this terrible sign, hoe esteenify How preposterous would it be to adranted the candidate or baptisn of this faith, namely, the water!

Finally, Paul stands invincible and stops every mouth, when he says in I Corinthians xi, ”I have received from the Lord what I also delivered unto you” [1 Cor 11:23] He does not say, ”I perly asserts[36] Nor is it true that Paul delivered both kinds on account of the contention in the Corinthian congregation For, first, the text shows that their contention was not about both kinds, but about the conte rich and poor, as it is clearly stated: ”One is hungry, and another is drunken, and ye put to shaain, Paul is not speaking of the time when he first delivered the sacraive_ unto you,” but, ”I received and delivered”--na while before this contention This shows that he delivered both kinds to them; and ”delivered” means the same as ”commanded,” for elsewhere he uses the word in this sense

Consequently there is nothing in the friar's fu about permission; it is a hotch-potch without Scripture, reason or sense His opponents do not ask what he has dreamed, but what the Scriptures decree in this matter; and out of the Scriptures he cannot adduce one jot or tittle in support of his dreahty thunderbolts in support of their faith

Come hither then, ye popish flatterers, one and all! Fall to and defend yourselves against the charge of Godlessness, tyranny, lese- your brethren,--ye that decry as heretics those ill not be wise after the vaporings of your own brains, in the face of such patent and potent words of Scripture If any are to be called heretics and schismatics, it is not the Bohemians nor the Greeks, for they take their stand upon the Gospel; but you Romans are the heretics and Godless schismatics, for you presume upon your own fictions and fly in the face of the clear Scriptures of God Parry that stroke, if you can!

But what could be more ridiculous, andthat the Apostle wrote these words and gave this permission, not to the Church universal, but to a particular church, that is, the Corinthian? Where does he get his proof? Out of his one storehouse, his own impious head If the Church universal receives, reads and follows this epistle in all points as written for itself, why should it not do the same with this portion of it? If we admit that any epistle, or any part of any epistle, of Paul does not apply to the Church universal, then the whole authority of Paul falls to the ground Then the Corinthians will say that what he teaches about faith in the epistle to the Roreater blaspheined than this! God forbid that there should be one jot or tittle in all of Paul which the whole Church universal is not bound to follow and keep! Not so did the Fathers hold, down to these perilous times, in which Paul foretold there should be blasphemers and blind and insensate men [2 Tim 3:2], of whom this friar is one, nay the chief

However, suppose we grant the truth of this intolerable ave his permission to a particular church, then, even from your own point of view, the Greeks and Boheht, for they are particular churches; hence it is sufficient that they do not act contrary to Paul, who at least gave per contrary to Christ's institution Therefore I cast in thy teeth, O Ros of Christ and Paul, on behalf of the Greeks and the Bohemians

Nor canst thou prove that thou hast received any authority to change the thy arrogance; rather dost thou deserve to be charged with the crime of Godlessness and despotish to hold all the Romanists at bay, bears witness, in the fifth book of his treatise _Of the Fallen_, that it was a wide-spread custom in his church to administer both kinds to the laity, and even to children[37], yea to give the body of the Lord into their hands; of which he cites ainst certain ious ered at the priests because he does not forthwith receive the body of the Lord with unclean hands, or drink the blood of the Lord with defiled lips”

He is speaking, as you see, of laymen, and irreverent laymen, who desired to receive the body and the blood fro to snarl at here, thou wretched flatterer? Say that even this holy martyr, a Church Father preeminent for his apostolic spirit, was a heretic and used that permission in a particular church

In the same place, Cyprian narrates an incident that cath how a deacon was adirl, who dreay from him, whereupon he poured the blood of the Lord into her mouth We read the same of St Donatus, whose broken chalice this wretched flatterer so lightly disposes of

”I read of a broken chalice,” he says, ”but I do not read that the blood was given”[38] It is no wonder! He that finds what he pleases in the Scriptures will also read what he pleases in the histories But will the authority of the Church be established, or will heretics be refuted, in this way? Enough of this! I did not undertake this work to reply to hi the truth of the ht

I conclude, then, that it is wicked and despotic to deny both kinds to the laity, and that this is not in the power of any angel, much less of any pope or council Nor does the Council of Constance give ht, why does not that of the Council of Basel also carry weight? For the latter council decided, on the contrary, after ht use both kinds, as the extant records and docunorant flatterer refers in support of his dream; in such wisdom does his whole treatise abound[39]

The first captivity of this sacrament, therefore, concerns its substance or completeness, of which we have been deprived by the despotisainst Christ, who use the one kind, for Christ did not command the use of either kind, but let it to every one's free will, when He said: ”As oft as ye do this, do it in reiving of both kinds to such as desire to exercise this free will The fault lies not with the laity, but with the priests The sacra to the priests, but to all, and the priests are not lords but ministers, in duty bound to administer both kinds to those who desire theht from the laity and forcibly withhold it, they are tyrants; but the laity are without fault, whether they lack one kind or both kinds; they must meanwhile be sustained by their faith and by their desire for the co ministers, are bound to administer baptisht to them; but if they do not administer them, he that seeks them has at least the full merit of his faith, while they will be accused before Christ as wicked servants In like manner the holy Fathers of old elt in the desert did not receive the sacraether[40]