(5) The withholding of the cuj) from the laity in .the Communion, which came into vogue in ' the Western Church, and is still a Koman Catholic usage, may be briefly referred to. It is admitted by Komish authorities that communion in both kinds was the primitive custom for all communicants. Cardinal Bona, e.g., says: 'It is certain, indeed, that in ancient times all without distinction, clergy and laity, men and women, received the sacred mysteries in both kinds ' (iv'cr. Liturg. 11. xviii. 1). The practice of withholding the cup does not come into view before the 12th century. Tlie danger of efi'usion was ofi'ered as a reason for it. Short of this, as an expedient against effusion, we find slender tubes (/6-<!«te) or quills brought intense, the communicants drawing the wine from the chalice by suction. Another intermediate stage towards communion in one kind was the practice of intinc- tion, i.e. administering to the peojde the bread dipped in the wine. This practice, however, was condemned in the West, but it remains as the custom of the Eastern Church still, the sacred ele- ments in this form being administered to the laity with a spoon {\a^is). Ultimately the rule of com- munion in one kind was ordained in the West by a decree of the Council of Constance in 1415 ; and the reason assigned for the decree was tliat it was ' to avoid certain perils, inecniveniences, and scandafs.' Tiiis momentous change, however, was not brought about without much demur and oiiposi- tion. Tlie decree of Constance itself did not im- mediately .and universally take efi'ect ; for after tliis
402
CURES
time tliere -were even in Home cases \vliere the cup ■was administered. The great Hussite movement in Bohemia, contemporaneous with the Council of Constance itself, ottered determined opposition to the withdrawal of the cup ; and the kindred Utra- quist Communion in that country continued for two centuries t lieir protest as Catholics wlio claimed the celebration of the Lord's Supper in both kinds, after the primitive usage. The badge of the Utra- quists, a large chalice together witli a sword — significant conjunction ! — bespoke the sternness of the conflict.
Wliat really lay at the root of tliis prohibition of the cup was the tremendous dogma of tran- suhstantiation, with all its implicates, togetlier with a hardening of the distinction between the clergy and the people. The growth of this Euchar- istic custom proceeded pari passu with tlie de- velopment of the dogma. Naturally, therefore, the restoration of the cup to the people was a necessary part of the Reformation claim. It is also worthy of remembrance that even in the Tri- dentine Council there were not wanting Romanist advocates of this as well as other reforms ; but ' no compromise ' counsels prevailed, and the rule in its fullest rigidity was reallirmed.
How strange to look back over tlie welter of controversy and the many saddening developments connected witli but this one point of Eucharistic observance, away to that simple evening - meal wliich took place ' in the same night that he was betrayed ' ! J. S. CLEMENS.
CURES The details of medical knowledge pos- sessed by tlie Jews of our Lord's time and of current medical practice can only be gathered piecemeal from various sources, and relate largely to what is known of these in OT and in post- Biblical times. It Is not unreasonable to believe that from these sources one can with fair accuracy gather what was the knowledge and practice of our Lord's own generation. In the NT references are made to physicians in Mt 5™, Lk 8". Tlie value of diet and the use of oil and wine in cases of bodily injury are indirectly referred to in Lk gsb jyj4_ Visitation of the sick is a Christian virtue, and was warmly commended by Jesus (Jit 2536.43)^ in terms implying that it was practised; but the Talmud, which also recognizes the virtue, makes an exception in cases where visitation might aggravate the disorder. The balm of Gilead had an ancient reputation for healing virtue, and the Pools of Siloam and Bethesda and the springs at Tiberias and Callirrhoe were reputed to be cura- tive. Medical theory among the Jews \\as almost entirely borrowed empirically, and no systim of medical training and education existed in Pales- tine in Bible times. Prevention of disease by sanitary precautions was more emphasized, and it has even been suggested th;it the whole Levitical legislation was based upon hygienic considerations, so far as these were understood. The priestly class were the depositaries of such medical know- ledge as was possessed, although Solomon is said to liave known about the use of drugs, and various references in the Talmud attribute to him a book of cures whicli was said to have been withdrawn from tlie people by Hezekiah.
In tlie time of Jesus medical pvnclltionprs would be in possession of such iinMiirii !,,,■ .i \i as held and practised in former gi n' i;- i . ,<l would therefore be familiar with il- ii <.i i iwifery, and possibly had attained to ■ nn-hi^ i iMc ^k^ll jn its practice, though there are few references to surgical operations. Probably an aversion existed to surgery, as to the practice of bleeding, on account of the national belief concerning the blood ; but later this aversion was overcome, and Jewish