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, 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.] 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. 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.

They also allege the danger of spilling and certain similar things,
which do not have force sufficient 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 matters of indifference. We indeed excuse the Church
which has borne the injury [the poor consciences which have been