UNLEAVENED BREAD, USE OF, in the Eucharist, has long been a subject of contro versy between the Latin church on the one hand and the Greek and other oriental churches on the other; with the latter of whom the reformed churches in later times have conformed in their practice of celebrating the Lord's supper. The early history of the usage is very obscure; but the western church had certainly, from a very remote date, employed azym,s, or unleavened bread, in the consecration and distribution of the Eucharist; nor was this nsaa•e made a subject of controversy with the Latins by Photius, on occasion of the dispute between the churches, which arose during his patriarchate. In the later controversy, however, under Michael Cerularius (see GREEK Crtuncil), the question of azyms became very prominent, and the diversity of practice still continues a subject of controversy between the Greeks and Latins. The principal argument alleged by the advocates of the use of leavened bread, is founded on the assumption that the last supper of our Lord took place on the eve of the Passover, that is, on the 13th day of the month Nisan, on which day common bread, and not the azyms, must have been used; and on this and some other grounds, some writers, even among the Roman Catholics themselves, and especially the learned Jesuit Sirmond, have main tained that the last supper was actually celebrated in leavened bread. On the other
hand, however, it is contended that the last supper, being held in the evening of that day, was, in the strictest sense, our Lord's celebration of the Passover, and therefore (Exodus, xii. 8-20), that the bread can have been no other than azvm, or unleavened. It must be added that all Roman Catholic writers, and the more learned among the Greeks, are agreed that the Eucharist may be validly consecrated whether the bread be leavened or unleavened.