After the death of Jan Hus (1369–1415), his successors, the Hussites, began to develop his thoughts on the theology and practice of the Church, particularly on= the question of the lay chalice. This time, however, it was not a question of whether this should be permitted at all—after all, this had been one of the core characteristics of Hus and his followers—but whether it should also be permitted for the young children (parvuli) of believers. Roughly speaking, two camps emerged among the Hussites: the Magisters of Prague, who were mainly based at the university there, and the later Taborites, who formed the radical wing of the Bohemian Reformation. It was the latter who first demanded paedocommunion (communio parvulorum). The Prague magisters disagreed, and this led to public discussions on the subject. The people of Prague rejected paedocommunion as an invalid innovation in the church. This is when Jacob von Mies (lat. Jacobellus de Misa, cz. Jakoubek ze Stříbra) came onto the scene, who became a preacher in Prague’s Bethlehem Chapel from 1419 and thus Jan Hus’ successor there and who was on the side of the moderate Hussites. He argued in favour of the practice of paedocommunion which in his opinion was an integral part of the practice of the Early Church. In 1417, he successfully defended his theses in this regard against Magister Simon von Tišnov (1370–1428), which apparently had the effect of winning over the Prague party in favour of paedocommunion. His treatise on paedocommunion (Tractatus de Communione parvulorum) from 1417 is available below for the first time in English translation from the Latin original. This is above all an attempt to prove that paedocommunion was indeed a widespread practice in the early Church and would therefore have binding validity for the Church today.¹

---

Jacob of Mies
On the communion of little children
The communion of baptised infants derived from the writings below.²

John 6: »Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.« (John 6:53) This text is understood in the sense of both sacramental and spiritual communion, as is clear from the interlinear gloss and the ordinary gloss on the same text.³ It is also evident via Augustine in “On Consecration, Distinction II”⁴, and also from Scotus in “Questions on the fourth book of the Sentences, Distinction II, Question I”⁵.

Matthew 26 »Take and eat, this is my body« and then: »Drink from it, all of you.« (Matth. 26:26-27) Let the believer consider the figure of what things the apostles are referring to in this context, for here it says: »Drink from it, all of you.«

Likewise in 1 Corinthians 10: »We all partake of the one bread and the one cup.« (1 Cor 10:17) Behold, the apostle says: »All.«

Dionysius says in “On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy”: “The children who are not yet capable of understanding divine things become partakers of the holy birth in God and of the most sacred signs of the thearchical⁶ communion”⁷, that is, according to the commentator in the same passage, “partakers of baptism and the Eucharist”. And Dionysius explicitly says “the children who are not yet able to understand the divine”, so that the rivals of truth cannot claim that his words refer to children who already have the ability to reason.

Likewise, the same Dionysius says in the same book, in the third chapter on the Eucharist: “None of the other sacraments is truly celebrated in which Holy Communion is not received, to indicate that no sacrament leads to true repentance in which the Holy Eucharist is not received.”⁸ See, he explicitly says: “None of the other sacraments is truly celebrated”, etc. It is clear from these words that he is speaking here of the sacrament of the altar when he says, “in which Holy Communion is not received”, as well as from the following statement, “in which the Holy Eucharist is not received”. The fact that Dionysius actually speaks of the sacrament of the altar in the passage mentioned is confirmed by Thomas in his “Summa, Part III, Question 65”⁹. For reasons of brevity, I omit further statements by Dionysius; however, anyone who wishes to do so may consult the original.

In his “On the Apostates”, the martyr Cyprian mentions a young girl who [because of her age] was unable to speak, report, understand or avoid a committed crime. He writes: “Under the impression of the divine majesty, the little girl turned her face away, closed her mouth with her lips pressed together and refused the cup. Nevertheless, the deacon insisted and poured her some of the sacrament of the chalice despite her resistance.”¹⁰ And it is added: “This concerns an infant¹¹ who has not yet reached the age to speak about a foreign crime against herself.”¹² From this statement by the blessed martyr it is clear that in his time children were given communion before reaching the age of reason¹³. And it is never recorded that the aforementioned martyr disapproved of such communion, which he certainly would have done if he had considered it wrong at the time, especially since it happened in his presence, which is reported about this girl who had not yet reached the age of reason, as is made clear in the same work.¹⁴

Likewise, the same Cyprian says in Letter 34: “For through baptism the Holy Spirit is received, and so the baptized and those who have received the Holy Spirit come to drink the cup of the Lord.”¹⁵ This is what he said speaking about the infant girl in the sense mentioned earlier; namely, that infants born through baptism have the right to receive the sacrament of communion, not only when they have reached the age of reason, but also immediately in childhood itself, similar to the girl mentioned.

Augustine writes the following in his work “On the Baptism of Infants”, making his view clear to the attentive: “Let us hear the Lord, not the notions and conjectures of mortals, speaking of the sacrament of his holy table, to which no one has a right to approach except the baptized: »Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in you.« (John 6:53)”¹⁶ And he adds: “Or will anyone actually dare to say that this statement” – about the sacrament of the Lord’s Table, namely »Unless you eat« etc. – does not also apply to the little ones?”¹⁷ In answer to this question, the following is written thereafter: “Whoever says this,”– namely that this statement does not apply to infants –, “is inattentive, because unless all are embraced in this statement, that they cannot have life without the body and blood of the Son of Man, then it is in vain that the older people also concern themselves with this.”¹⁸

And what Augustine says about the thesis that little children are unable to hear and understand is clear from his words in the same passage, where he says: “He [i.e. Christ] does not say” – add: as some claim who understand the scriptures badly –“»Except one eat«” – namely in third person, as with baptism: »unless one is born again« (John 3:3) – “but he says: »except you eat«, as if he were speaking to those who were able to hear and understand, which of course little children are not capable of”¹⁹, as Augustine asserts. From these words it becomes abundantly clear that Augustine is speaking of little children who have not yet reached the age of reason.

And thereafter: “Very well do the Christians of Carthage name baptism itself as nothing other than salvation and the sacrament of the body of Christ as nothing other than life. Where does this come from, if not from the ancient, in my estimation, apostolic tradition? These hold that no person who is grafted into the Church of Christ without baptism and participation at the Lord’s Table can attain either the kingdom of God or salvation and eternal life. Scripture also testifies to this: For what else do they who call baptism salvation hold than what is said here: ‘He saved us through the washing of regeneration’ (Titus 3:5) and what Peter says: ‘The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us’ (1 Peter 3:21). And what else do they who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper life, say than what is said here: ‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven.’ (John 6:51) And: ‘the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.’ (John 6:51) And: ‘unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.’ (John 6:53) If therefore, as so many and divine testimonies unanimously declare, no one may hope for both salvation and eternal life without baptism and without the body and blood of the Lord, salvation without these [sacraments] is promised to little children in vain. Furthermore, if only sins separate man from salvation and eternal life, then through these sacraments nothing but the guilt of sin in the little children can be removed. It is written about this guilt that no one is pure, ‘even if his life were only as long as a single day.’“²⁰ So much for Augustine.

It follows from his words that these sacraments, namely baptism and the Eucharist, must be given to young children because [Augustine] says: “through these sacraments nothing but the guilt of sin in the little children can be removed.” And I ask the opponent to tell me how the guilt of the little ones is removed through these sacraments in another way, if not by receiving the same.

Likewise, in “On Consecration’, Distinction IV, If anyone” and originally in “On Ecclesial Dogmas”, it is made clear through Augustine that infants and the mentally handicapped who do not grasp the doctrine, but for whom those who bring them respond according to the practice of baptism, should be admitted to the mysteries of the Holy Eucharist. Where it says: “But if they are small and feeble – admittedly baptised on the confession of the Trinity – and they cannot understand the doctrine, let those who offer it according to the baptismal rite answer for them, and so, strengthened by the laying on of hands with chrism, let them be admitted to the mysteries of the Eucharist.”²¹ This is what the canon and St Augustine say in the above-mentioned passage.

Behold, a baptised little child, who did not yet reach the age of reason, is to be admitted to the holy mystery of the Eucharist after having been strengthened by the laying on of hands with chrism! But what kind of admission is it if such a little child is to be denied the sacrament of the Eucharist?

Likewise, in his work “Against the Pelagian and Celestian Heretics”, Augustine writes in the fifth chapter, shortly after the middle, as follows: “But you” – namely, the Pelagians and Celestians – “promise eternal life to little children, even if they have not been baptised, for you believe that the grace of Christ takes nothing away from those who are baptised and adds nothing to them. Do you not understand why Christ said: »It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick« (Matth. 9:12)? You would surely believe that they are not well, but wounded, and must be presented to the physician and saviour for healing through the sacrament of baptism, and that they will not have life unless they eat the flesh of him who is life and drink his blood. For he himself said: »Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life« (John 6:53–54). How then do you promise the little children the life of the kingdom of heaven if they are not born again of water and the Holy Spirit, if they are not nourished with the flesh and are not drenched in the blood of Christ that was shed for the remission of sins?”²² And further down: “Behold, he who is not baptised and is deprived of the life-giving food and drink is separated from the kingdom of heaven, where Christ flows through as the source of the living.”²³ So much for his words.

From these words of Augustine it is clear that it is something else to be baptised or born again with water and the Holy Spirit and something else to be nourished with the flesh and watered with the blood of Christ—and both are imposed on or commanded to little children.

Likewise Augustine “to Boniface”²⁴, and it is held in “On Consecration, Distinction IV, In the Church”: “In the Church of the Saviour, little children believe through others, just as they have received through others the sins that are forgiven them in baptism. And surely you do not think that they can have life who do not partake of the body and blood of Christ – when he himself says: »If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man« (John 6:53) etc.”²⁵ The gloss on the words “Do not think” says: “This means: Do not doubt, but rather be certain that they cannot have life if they are deprived of the body and blood of Christ – even if they are baptised.”

Chrysostom says the same in his dialogue in Book 3, Chapter 5: “This is a mystery without which neither salvation nor the goods promised to us are given to us. For no one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born again of water and of the Spirit, and if he neither eats the flesh of the Lord nor drinks his blood, he will not have eternal life, all of which is effected by the hand of none other than the holy priest.”²⁶ That is what he says.

From these words it is clear that it is dangerous to forbid someone who has been baptised from eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. And so that it does not become a sophistry, he adds which flesh and which blood he is talking about when he says: “all of which is effected by the hand of none other than the holy priest.”

Likewise, Albertus Magnus says the following when he discusses the body and blood of Christ in “On the Canon of the Mass”: “Concerning the two things that serve as food and drink in this sacrament, it says in Hosea 7: »They will ruminate on wheat and wine.«²⁷ (Hosea 7:14) For these two things shall be ruminated in the mouths of all believers.”²⁸

Since therefore, according to Augustine in “On the Baptism of Little Children”, the baptised little children are joined to the number of believers, it follows that these two things are to be ruminated by their mouths.

Likewise, in his Summa, speaking of this sacrament, Innocent says the following: “Because the Eucharist gives an increase of grace, some have said that the Eucharist should be given to little children, because if something were withheld from them, some of the grace would also be diminished, and so they would have less reward in heaven; therefore the one who withholds the Eucharist from them would be sinning. Others have said that the Eucharist should not be given to little children because of the danger of them vomiting and because it is of no use to them if they do not swallow it. Some eminent men have said that all that is required when receiving the Eucharist is that the sense of taste is changed and the flavour is perceived, just as when the person being baptised is told: ‘Take the salt of wisdom’²⁹. It is known that he does not swallow the salt, and yet the exorcism has its effect on the little child through the taste of the salt alone. Therefore, it would be pious to give the Eucharist to every little child with such caution that if he vomits after tasting it, this vomit would be collected and burned in the fire, as it is said in Exodus: »If anything remains, it shall be burned in the fire.« (Ex. 12:10) “³⁰ Thus he says.

From the words of this doctor, who does not reject this view but, it seems, clearly states that “it would be pious to give the Eucharist to every little child”, the folly of those who claim that those who give Communion to little children are in error in this respect becomes evident.

Likewise, Thomas says the following in part 3, question 73 in his Summa: “Through baptism, a person is ordained to the Eucharist. Therefore, by being baptised, children are ordered through the Church to the Eucharist.”³¹

Likewise, according to the same in “On the Fourth Book of Sentences, Distinction 24”: “Every baptised person has the right to receive the Eucharist, unless he loses it through mortal sin.”³² Thus he says.

So anyone who wants to deprive such a baptised person of his right is putting his [= the depriving persons] soul in danger, it seems.

Likewise, in the canon “On Consecration, distinction II, at the Lord’s Supper” it says: “At the Lord’s Supper the reception of the Eucharist is neglected by some, although the custom of the Church shows that it should be received on this day by all the faithful – with the exception of those who are forbidden to do so because of grave offences.”³³ This says the canon.

Likewise the gloss on what is written in “on Consecrations, distinction IV, in the chapter ’these’” says: “Communion is to be granted to those who are withheld under the imposition of hands”; so it says; “for the age that does not understand what it is doing should not be kept”³⁴ – add: from communion. This is the gloss at this point.

Likewise, the teacher Pascasius says the following in his treatise “On the Body and Blood of the Lord, chapter XXII”: “Let no one be considered a stranger to the flesh and blood of Christ except the one who has cut himself off from it because of his offences. Behold, what an order! For he who does not eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood undoubtedly does not have life dwelling in him.”³⁵ These are his words.

Likewise, the teacher of Lyra writes on chapter 25 of Isaiah that “the Lord is said to have prepared a meal for his disciples on Mount Zion” and “then he gave his disciples his body for food and his blood for drink, and this sacrament is most refreshing for the soul; and through his apostles and disciples he has prepared this meal for all Christians and has it prepared.”³⁶ These are his words.

All Christians are therefore to be given this sacrament provided they are not disqualified through sin.

Likewise, Scotus writes the following “on the fourth book of the Sentences, on the thirteenth Distinction”: “Christ has expressly taught that he wants the Eucharist to be received by every Christian, John 6: »Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood« (John 6:53); for there he speaks to all.”³⁷ These are his words.

So anyone who does not want it to be received by every Christian seems to be opposed to the Christian and is therefore an antichrist.

Likewise, in the “Book of the Insights of Blessed Clement, in the first book” it is said from Blessed Peter: “For in no other way could they be shown how they could be saved than by hastening, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be cleansed by baptism with threefold invocation and to take the Eucharist of the Lord Christ.”³⁸

Likewise, “in the third book” it is said thus: “But let each one of you be baptised in continual waters, calling upon him the name of the threefold blessedness, having first been anointed with oil sanctified by prayer, so that he may finally be consecrated by these rites and be able to receive of the holy things”³⁹, that is, of the sacraments of the Eucharist.

And the text of God’s law seems to agree with this statement:

First from Isaiah 49: »Thus says the Lord: Behold, I will lift up My hand to the nations and set up My standard to the peoples; and they will bring your sons on their arms,
and your daughters will be carried on their shoulders. Kings will be your providers, and their queens your nurses. They will adore you with their faces to the earth.« (Isai. 49:22-23)

Likewise in Exodus 10: »’We shall go with our young and our old; with our sons and our daughters, with our sheep and our herds, for we must hold a feast to the Lord.’ Then Pharao replied, ‘Thus may the Lord be with you, if ever I let you and your little ones go! Who doubts that you have extremely bad thoughts? Not so!’« (Ex. 10:9-11)

Likewise in Lamentations 2: »My eyes have failed because of tears, my inner parts are greatly troubled; my heart is poured out on the earth because of the contrition of the daughter of my people, when the little one and the infant faint in the streets of the city. They say to their mothers, “Where is grain and wine?” as they faint like wounded men in the streets of the city.« (Lam. 2:11-12)

Likewise in Lamentations 4 »The tongue of the infant cleaves to the roof of its mouth because of thirst; the little ones ask for bread, But no one breaks it for them.« (Lam. 4:4)

Joel 2: »a grain offering and a drink offering for the Lord your God.« (Joel 2:14)

And this view, together with its practice, is ridiculed by most, just as it was once ridiculed by unbelievers, as is made clear in the book “On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy” by Blessed Dionysius, who replies to Timothy as follows: “As you have told me, it seems ridiculous to unbelievers that children who are incapable of understanding the divine receive baptism and the Eucharist, and that bishops teach those, although they cannot comprehend it, the divine things and pass on in many ways the sacred traditions which they themselves do not understand. And still more does it seem to give the unbelievers cause for ridicule that others speak the baptismal vows and make the profession of faith in place of the little children. But let not your episcopal discernment be put off by the errors of unbelievers, but rather in humility and reverence lovingly justify to their enlightenment how they themselves revile such things, adding, according to the testimony of Holy Scripture, that not all divine things are limited by our knowledge. For many things that are unknown to us have proper causes with God, which of course we do not know; for much that is unknown to us has appropriate causes with God, which we certainly do not know; the heavenly [beings] know one or the other thing; but much remains hidden even from the highest angels and is known only to divine wisdom.”⁴⁰ Thus he says.

The practice of giving communion to infants can also be traced back through ancient agendas [=liturgical books] and mass orders.⁴¹

And to instill fear in the opponent, let him note that this communion [of infants] continues to this day in the Church of the Greeks, as Nicholas of Lyra says in his interpretation of that passage in John VI⁴²: »Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man« (John 6:53), etc. These Greeks, according to Jerome in his prologue to the Epistle of St James, “have integrity of mind and consistently follow the right faith.”⁴³

---

Damian Domke, studied History and Latin at the Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg (Germany), and is currently pursuing a PhD in History with a work on Amandus Polanus and the transition of the University and City of Basel to Calvinism at the end of the 16th/beginning of the 17th Century. His interests are Church History of the Late Medieval and Reformation Period, History of Dogmatics and Ideas and the History of the Bohemian Lands in the Early Modern Period. 

---

NOTES

1. Selected literature on the question of infant communion among the Hussites: Joseph Th. Müller, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, Vol. 1: 1400-1528 (Herrnhut: Verlag der Missionsbuchhandlung, 1922), 23f.; David R. Holeton, La Communion des Tout-Petits Enfants. Étude du mouvement eucharistique en Bohême vers la fin du Moyen-Âge (Rome: Ed. Liturgiche, 1989); David R. Holeton, “The communion of infants and Hussitism,” Communio viatorum, vol. 27 (1984): 207–225; David R. Holeton, “The communion of infants: the Basel years,” Communio viatorum, vol. 29 (1986), 15–40. ↩︎
2. The text is edited in the original Latin and in Czech translation in Bohumil Ryba, Betlemské Texty (Prague: Orbis, 1951), 141–163. ↩︎
3. For the glosses see Migne, PL 114, 384; also, for the medieval collection of the Latin Bible text with the ordinary glosses see the early modern edition Biblia Sacra cum Glossa Ordinaria […] Tomus Quintus (Antwerp 1634), 207v. ↩︎
4. This refers to the Decretum Gratiani, the medieval collection of canon law, 3^rd part on Consecration, dist. II, ch. 44: “We must not receive the body and blood of Christ carnally, but spiritually.” The text can be found online at: https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de/decretum-gratiani/online/angebot. ↩︎
5. This actually refers to distinction 9, question 1 of Duns Scotus: Quaestiones in Librum Quartum Sententiarum, in Opera Omnia XVII (Paris 1894), 119. ↩︎
6. “Thearchical”, from gr. θεαρχικός and lat. thearchicus means “pertaining to the supreme God”. ↩︎
7. For the Greek and slightly different Latin text of Ps.-Dion. Areop., De Eccl. Hier.  7, 11; see Migne, PG 3, 565–566. ↩︎
8. Ps.-Dion. Areop. De Eccl. Hier.  3, 1, see Migne, PG 3, 424, but it appears to be a paraphrase. ↩︎
9. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica, 3^rd part, q. 65, art. 3, in, Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici Opera Omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P.M. edita, vol. 12: Tertia Pars Summae Theologiae a quaestione LX ad quaestionem XC […] (Rome: Polyglotta, 1906), 59–60. ↩︎
10. Cyprian, Liber de Lapsis, ch. 25; see Migne, PL 4, 485. ↩︎
11. The Latin text has “infans”. This word refers to a child which is not able to speak yet. It corresponds to the Greek βρέφος used, e.g., in Luke 18:15. To remain consistent, I will distinguish between infant and young child according to the Latin terminology, although they are used interchangeably in this text. ↩︎
12. Migne, PL 4, 486. ↩︎
13. I take “ante racionis usum“ (literally “before the use of reason”) as “before reaching the age of reason”, as this is implied in the text. ↩︎
14. Indeed, Cyprian begins this part of his treatise with the words: “Take note of what has happened, in my presence and witnessed by myself”; see Migne, PL 4, 484. ↩︎
15. This refers, rather, to Cyprian’s Letter 63; see Migne, PL 4, 380. ↩︎
16. Augustine, De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, I, 20, 26; see Vrba/Zycha, CSEL 60, 25–26. ↩︎
17. Op. cit. I, 20, 27; see Vrba/Zycha, CSEL 60, 26. ↩︎
18. Ibid. ↩︎
19. Ibid. ↩︎
20. Augustine, De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, I, 24, 34. This is the text variant of Job 14:5 of the Vetus Latina which follows the LXX which has: “ἐὰν καὶ μία ἡμέρα ὁ βίος αὐτοῦ“. The Hebrew text reads: »Since his days are determined« (NASB). The history of the text is discussed in Joseph Ziegler, “Iob 14, 4–5a als wichtigster Schriftbeweis für die These „Neminem sine sorde et sine peccato esse” (Cyprian, test 3, 54) bei den lateinischen christlichen Schriftstellern,” Vorgetragen am 3 (München: Beck, 1985). ↩︎
21. Decretum Gratiani, 3^rd part on Consecration, dist. IV, ch. 28: “Baptism, which is administered in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, is not to be repeated.” The chapter starts with “If anyone”. The writing “De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus” was previously attributed to Augustine. The author is now thought to be Gennadius of Massilia. Gennadius, de eccl. dogm., ch. 22; see Migne, PL 42, 1217. ↩︎
22. Ps.-Augustine, Hypomnesticon contra Pelagianos et Caelestianos, V, 5, 10; see Migne, PL 45, 1653. ↩︎
23. Op. cit.; see Migne, PL 45, 1653–1654. ↩︎
24. Augustine, Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, I, 22, 40; see Vrba/Zycha, CSEL 60, 457–458. ↩︎
25. Decretum Gratiani, 3^rd part on Consecration, dist. IV, ch. 130: “The faith of others saves the little children at baptism.” The chapter starts with “In the Church”. ↩︎
26. John Chrysostom, De sacerdotio, III, 5; see Migne, PG 48, 643. ↩︎
27. The Hebrew text of this passage reads: »For the sake of grain and new wine they assemble themselves.« (NASB) The Hebrew root גּוּר of the Hithpael יִתְגּוֹרָ֖רוּ (“assemble themselves”) means “to sojourn, to dwell”. The LXX renders it as ἐπὶ σίτῳ καὶ οἴνῳ κατετέμνοντο. (“They cut themselves for grain and wine.”) Some commentators also translate the LXX variant as “they pined for corn and wine”, which does not correspond to the literal sense of κατατέμνω and already interprets the passage. In any case, the interpretation is already correct: God’s people have turned away from him, do not seek him and (following the LXX reading) give themselves over to pagan practices. Jacob of Mies, following Albertus Magnus, here seems to take the whole passage more positively, namely as the people longing for the two elements of the sacraments. Apparently, Jacob von Mies also made a spelling mistake here, because he reads ruminabunt (“they will ruminate, they will contemplate”) while the Latin Vulgate has the imperfect tense ruminabant (“they ruminated, they regurgitated” and metaphorically “they meditated”), which is the variant Albertus has as well.  ↩︎
28. See Albertus Magnus, Liber de sacramento Eucharistiae, dist. II, trac. II, ch. I: “The quality of the sacramental drink in terms of type and kind”, in, Beati Alberti Magni, Ratisbonensis Episcopi Ordinis Praedicatorum, Miscellanea, […] Operum Tomus Vigesimus-primus (Lyon 1651), 52. ↩︎
29. At that time, a pinch of salt was placed on the tongue of the person being baptised before the anointing with phrases such as, “Take the salt of wisdom, that Christ may have mercy on you for eternal life.” ↩︎
30. The quoted text has been attributed to all sorts of people, including Popes Innocent II, III and IV. It is therefore not clear which of these three Jacob von Mies is referring to here, or whether he even knows who he is referring to. It is now clear that the author of the quoted text, Summa Confessorum, is Thomas of Chobham. The text is edited in F. Broomfield, Thomae de Chobham Summa confessorum (Louvain: Éd. Nauwelaerts, 1968), 104–105. Broomfield discusses the question of authorship on pages xxvi–xxviii. ↩︎
31. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3^rd part, q. 73, art. 3, in Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici Opera Omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P.M. edita, Vol. 12: Tertia Pars Summae Theologiae a quaestione LX ad quaestionem XC […] (Rome: Polyglotta, 1906), 140. ↩︎
32. Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in Quartum Librum Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi, dist. IX, q. 1, art. 5, in Doctoris Angelici Divi Thomae Aquinatis Sacri Ordinis F.F. Praedicatorum Opera Omnia, Vol. 10 (Paris: Vivès, 1873), 229. ↩︎
33. Decretum Gratiani, 3^rd part on Consecration, dist. II, ch. 17: “We should also receive Holy Communion at the Lord’s Supper.” The chapter starts with “At the Lord’s Supper”. ↩︎
34. Decretum Gratiani, 3^rd part on Consecration, dist. IV, ch. 118: “About those who are deliberately baptised twice.” The chapter starts with “these”. However, the last phrase is not found there. ↩︎
35. Paschasius Radbertus, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini; see Migne, PL 120, 1343–1344.
    ↩︎
36. Nicholas of Lyra, Isaiae Prophetia, in Biblia Maxima Versionum, ex linguis orientalibus pluribus sacris ms. Codicibus […] Tom. 9 (Paris, 1660), 202. ↩︎
37. Duns Scotus, Quaestiones in Librum Quartum Sententiarum, dist. 13, q. 2, in Opera Omnia XVII (Paris, 1894), 764. ↩︎
38. Ps.-Clement, Recognitiones, book I, ch. 63; see Migne, PG 1, 1242. ↩︎
39. Op. cit., book III, ch. 67; see Migne, PG 1, 1311–1312. ↩︎
40. This refers to the Paraphrase of Pachymeres to Ps.-Dion. Areop., De Eccl. Hier.  7, 11; see Migne, PG 3, 584. ↩︎
41. Jan Rokycana (1396–1471), the pupil of Jacob von Mies and later Hussite Archbishop of Prague, repeated this sentence in one of his sermons, which were collected in his Postillas. Here it says, “And that the dear Lord taught Nicodemus about baptism. For it is a great thing—holy baptism—when a man is baptised; for our baptism draws strength from that water which flowed from the side of the Lord Christ; for at that moment the soul joins itself to the Lord Christ and attains new life and obtains God’s grace. And as the bodily life after birth immediately needs its nourishment, so also the spiritual life after baptism needs its food and drink, namely the body and blood of the Lord Christ. This is what the order of the original holy Church, the holy teachers Dionysius, Cyprian, Augustine and many others teach; and this is also clearly shown in the agendas and missals. But through the work of the devil it has now been abandoned and taken away from the children and postponed until the age of twelve.” See František Šimek, Postilla Jana Rokycany, Vol. 2 (Prague, 1928), 135. ↩︎
42. The reference can be found in Biblia Sacra cum Glossa Ordinaria […] Tomus Quintus (Antwerp 1634), 207v. However, Nicholas of Lyra rejects the view of the Greek Church as false. ↩︎
43. This refers rather to Jerome’s prologue to the seven canonical letters (James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John and Jude): Jerome, Prologus septem epistolarum canonicarum; see Migne, PL 29, 821. ↩︎