_The Confutatio Pontificia:
         In Reference To The Matters Presented To His Imperial Majesty
          By The Elector Of Saxony And Some Princes And States Of The
            Holy Roman Empire, On The Subject And Concerning Causes
           Pertaining To The Christian Orthodox Faith, The Following
                Christian Reply Can Be Given._ August 3, 1530.
                              Edited by J.M. Reu.
                                 Published in
              _The Augsburg Confession, A Collection of Sources._
     (Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press), pp. 349-383.


                                    Part II

                  Reply to the Second Part of the Confession.

 Of Lay Communion under One Form. As in the Confessions of the princes and
 cities they enumerate among the abuses that laymen commune only under one
 form, and as, therefore, in their dominions both forms are administered to
 laymen, we must reply, according to the custom of the Holy Church, that this
 is incorrectly enumerated among the abuses, but that, according to the
 sanctions and statutes of the same Church it is rather an abuse and
 disobedience to administer to laymen both forms. For under the one form of
 bread the saints communed in the primitive Church, of whom Luke says: "They
 continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in
 breaking of bread." Acts 2:42. Here Luke mentions bread alone. Likewise Acts
 20:7 says: "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together
 to break bread." Yea, Christ, the institutor of this most holy sacrament,
 rising again from the dead, administered the Eucharist only under one form to
 the disciples going to Emmaus, where he took bread and blessed it, and brake
 and gave to them, and they recognized him in the breaking of bread. Luke
 24:30, 31: where indeed Augustine, Chrysostome, Theophylact and Bede some of
 whom many ages ago and not long after the times of the apostles affirm that it
 was the Eucharist. Christ also (John 6) very frequently mentions bread alone.
 St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, in his Epistle to the
 Ephesians mentions the bread alone in the communion of the Eucharist. Ambrose
 does likewise in his books concerning the sacraments, speaking of the
 communion of Laymen. In the Council of Rheims, laymen were forbidden from
 bearing the sacrament of the Body to the sick, and no mention is there made of
 the form of wine. Hence it is understood that the viaticum was given the sick
 under only one form. The ancient penitential canons approve of this. For the
 Council of Agde put a guilty priest into a monastery and granted him only lay
 communion. In the Council of Sardica, Hosius prohibits certain indiscreet
 persons from receiving even lay communion, unless they finally repent. There
 has always been a distinction in the Church between lay communion under one
 form and priestly communion under both forms. This was beautifully predicted
 in the Old Testament concerning the descendants of Eli: "It shall come to
 pass," says God, 1 Kings 2; 1 Sam. 2:36, "that everyone 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 priests' office
 (Vulgate reads: "Ad unam partem sacerdotalem."), ̉that I may eat a piece of
 bread." Here Holy Scripture clearly shows that the posterity of Eli, when
 removed from the office of the priesthood, will seek to be admitted to one
 sacerdotal part, to a piece of bread. So our laymen also ought, therefore, to
 be content with one sacerdotal part, the one form. For both the Roman pontiffs
 and cardinals and all bishops and priests, save in the mass and in the extreme
 hour of life for a viaticum, as it is called in the Council of Nice, are
 content with taking one form, which they would not do if they thought that
 both forms would be necessary for salvation. Although, however, both forms
 were of old administered in many churches to laymen (for then it was free to
 commune under one or under both forms), yet on account of many dangers the
 custom of administering both forms has ceased. For when the multitude of the
 people is considered where there are old and young, tremulous and weak and
 inept, if great care be not employed and injury is done the Sacrament by the
 spilling of the liquid. Because of the great multitude there would be
 difficulty also in giving the chalice cautiously for the form of wine, which
 also when kept for a long time would sour and cause nausea or vomition to
 those who would receive it; neither could it be readily taken to the sick
 without danger of spilling. For these reasons and others the churches in which
 the custom had been to give both forms to laymen were induced, undoubtedly by
 impulse of the Holy Ghost, to give thereafter but one form, from the
 consideration chiefly that the entire Christ is under each form, and is
 received no less under one form than under two. In the Council of Constance,
 of such honorable renown, a decree to this effect appeared, and so too the
 Synod of Basle legitimately decreed. And although it was formerly a matter of
 freedom to use either one or both forms in the Eucharist, nevertheless, when
 the heresy arose which taught that both forms were necessary, the Holy Church,
 which is directed by the Holy Ghost, forbade both forms to laymen. For thus
 the Church is sometimes wont to extinguish heresies by contrary institutions;
 as when some arose who maintained that the Eucharist is properly celebrated
 only when unleavened bread is used, the Church for a while commanded that it
 be administered with leavened bread; and when Nestorius wished to establish
 that the perpetual Virgin Mary was mother only of Christ, not of God, the
 Church for a time forbade her to be called Christotokos, mother of Christ.
 Wherefore we must entreat the princes and cities not to permit this schism to
 be introduced into Germany, into the Roman Empire, or themselves to be
 separated from the custom of the Church Universal. Neither do the arguments
 adduced in this article avail, for while Christ indeed instituted both forms
 of the Sacrament, yet it is nowhere found in the Gospel that he enjoined that
 both forms be received by the laity. For what is said in Matt. 26:27: "Drink
 ye all of it," was said to the twelve apostles, who were priests, as is
 manifest from Mark 14:23, where it is said: "And they all drank of it." This
 certainly was not fulfilled hitherto with respect to laymen; whence the custom
 never existed throughout the entire Church that both forms were given to
 laymen, although it existed perhaps among the Corinthians and Carthaginians
 and some other Churches. As to their reference to Gelasius, Canon Comperimus,
 of Consecration. Dist. 2, if they examine the document they will find that
 Gelasius speaks of priests, and not of laymen. Hence their declaration that
 the custom of administering but one form is contrary to divine law must be
 rejected. But most of all the appendix to the article must be rejected, that
 the procession with the Eucharist must be neglected or omitted, because the
 sacrament is thus divided. For they themselves know, or at least ought to
 know, that by the Christian faith Christ has not been divided, but that the
 entire Christ is under both forms, and that the Gospel nowhere forbids the
 division of the sacramental forms; as is done on Parasceve (Holy or Maundy
 Thursday) by the entire Church of the Catholics, although the consecration is
 made by the celebrant in both forms, who also ought to receive both. Therefore
 the princes and cities should be admonished to pay customary reverence and due
 honor to Christ the Son of the living God, our Savior and Glorifier, the Lord
 of heaven and earth, since they believe and acknowledge that he is truly
 present - a matter which they know has been most religiously observed by their
 ancestors, most Christian princes.

       _________________________________________________________________
       This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by
           Karen Janssen and is in the public domain. You may freely
        distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments
       or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at
                        Concordia Theological Seminary.
       
                          E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
          Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft.  Wayne, IN 46825 USA
       Phone: (260) 452-3149                        Fax: (260) 452-2126
       _________________________________________________________________