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, re 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