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. 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 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, lass 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 party [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." 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