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 receiv 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