5
compensated for the smaller range of the practical measures of reform which he advocated. To show the general inferiority of Janow to his disciple it is enough to mention one fact, that he recanted; although it is true that the subject of his recantation was not distinctly a matter of faith. He had advocated the frequent, if not daily, Communion of the laity; and by implication, if not explicitly, the Communion of the laity in both kinds. His language on this subject he was compelled to retract at a Synod held at Prague in 1389, when the laity were positively forbidden to communicate more frequently than once a month.[1]
- ↑ Gieseler contends that the assertion that Matthias of Janow advocated lay Communion in both kinds was based upon his use of the words “Communicatio corporis et sanguinis J. Christi” in reference to the laity—language which the doctrine of concomitance rendered perfectly orthodox. (Gieseler, Eng. Trans., vol. iv., p. 241–2. Note.) But it is impossible so to understand the language attributed to him by Neander with out a very forced construction of the words: he held “that the whole multitude should taste the sweetness of the Sacrament that is hidden beneath the species of the bread and wine.” (Neander, General Church History,” vol. ix. p. 313–4.)
