Article XXII (X): Of Both Kinds In the Lord's Supper.
1] 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, 2] 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. 3] And Paul says, 1 Cor. 11, 23ff , 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. 4] 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. 5] 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].
6] 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 reasons 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. 7] 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,
http://lcms.org/bookofconcord/augsburgdefense/21_lordssupper.asp (1 of 3) [7/31/2003 3:51:51 PM]
LCMS: The Defense of the Augsburg Confession
because, according to the ordinary usage of language, by the naming of one part the other is
also signified. 8] 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.
9] 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. 10] 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 to 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, la 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 part? [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." 11] 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, 12] 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.] 13] 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.
http://lcms.org/bookofconcord/augsburgdefense/21_lordssupper.asp (2 of 3) [7/31/2003 3:51:51 PM]
LCMS: The Defense of the Augsburg Confession
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.
14] They also allege the danger of spilling and certain similar things, which do not have force
sufficient 15] 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 16] 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. 17] 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 7, 26 says: The Law
shall perish from the priest [there will be priests or bishops who will know no command or law of
God].
