2"<i S. NO 3., JAS. 19. '56.]
NOTES AND QUEKIES.
59
synod of Exeter, in 1287, Wiikins (Cone., vol. ii.
cap. iv. p. 131.) states, that the laity "are to be
instructed that they receive the same which
hung for their salvation upon the cross, under
the species of bread, and they receive that in
the cup which was shed from Christ's body."
But after the doctrine of concomitance had withdrawn the eucharistic cup from the laity, another custom crept into the Church, nearly identical with that which in the Church of Corinth had drawn down apostolic censure ; and which may have been either a vicious development of the giving unconsecrated wine, or an attempt to imitate the primitive agapte. This custom is de- scribed in the constitutions of Walter Raynold, Archbishop of Canterbury in 1325 (Wiikins, vol. ii. p. 528.), in which those are most severely censured " who introduced this corruption into the Church ; viz. that immediately after receiving the Lord's body on Easter Day, unconsecrated oblations and wine should be given them in the Church where they sit, and eat, and drink, as they would in taverns." Some, it seems, came to the eucharist merely for the sake of joining in these Paschal feasts ; and " it might be feared that some were led by the outward appearance of the bread into a damnable error, not distinguish- ing between the material food and the food of the soul, which is the body of Christ." This custom is, therefore, prohibited in the deaneries of Can- terbury, " under pain of the greater excommuni- cation;" and Christians are advised to refrain from food, at least " till they reached their own houses."
I will not venture to contest a point of ritual- ism, either with the REV. W. DENTON or F. C. H. ; but I confess, it seems to me not unlikely, that the very large quantities of wine "pro com- munione parochianorum ad Pascha" which oc- casioned the question of the former, were used for such a purpose as this : a sort of Easter feast, given by the clergy to their communicants. The evil which was rife in Canterbury in 1325, may not have been yet corrected in York in 1385. At any rate, I would draw MR. DKNTON'S attention to this constitution of Walter Raynold. I doubt if any instances of laymen except royal ones communicating in the cup, can be found as late as the latter half of the fourteenth century.
WILLIAM FRASEK, B. C. L. Alton, Staffordsliire.
Though not ignorant of Dr. Rock's valuable store-house of liturgical rites and practices, I cannot believe myself so well acquainted with his Church of our Fathers as OLD ENGLAND must, I presume, be. I am, however, neither satisfied
with what I find there on the subject of wine
"pro communione parochianorum ad Pascha"
nor with the explanation given by your corres-
pondents.
Until at least the eleventh century, there is no question, that in the Holy Communion, both the body and blood of our Blessed Lord were adminis- tered. Lingard says : " During the whole of the Anglo-Saxon period, it was administered under both kinds, first to the clergy of the Church and then to the people" (Anglo-Saxon Church, vol. i. p. 326., 2nd edit.). This Dr. Rock proves, when he tells us that it was specially ordered " That on Good Friday, the Communion should be given to all who partook of it under one kind only" (Church of our Fathers, vol. i* p. 171.), since Good Friday would need no special rule, unless this were an exception to the practice on all other days. But, later still, we have evidence that the f chalice with the consecrated wine was partaken of by the laity. Dr. Rock (Ibid., vol. i. p. 168.), quoting Kog. de Hoveden Ann., tells us, that William Rufus, in compliance with the wishes of his father, distributed to the greater churches and monasteries of England eucharistic reeds (fis- tulas), which were used by the laity in receiving the consecrated wine ; and, at least as late as 1295, such reeds were used in the cathedral church of St. Paul, London. F. C. H., in his communication, says, that " the practice of re- ceiving the Holy Communion under one kind only, did not begin till the twelfth century. He should have said the thirteenth. Pellicia (lib. ii. sect. 2. c. 9. 13.) tells us that " Calicis communio a xiii. saec. exolescere ccepit in occidente, ac tandem sa3c xv. justissimis de causis desueta omninb est turn pro laicis, turn pro sacrorum ministris, qui liturgiae adsunt." (As I quote from the Institu- tiones Liturgica of J. Fornici, compiled " ad usum Seminarii Romani," I presume this may be con- sidered authoritative.) Now, taking these asser- tions together with the admissions made at the Council of Constance, it is clear that, until the fifteenth century, communion under both kinds was the law of the Church, and the practice too in many parts. Remembering this, the entries in the Jarrow and Monk Wearmouth accounts (1 st S. xii. 363.) clearly show, I think, what was the practice in the North of England. And since religious observances are not obliterated suddenly and without a struggle, it is improbable, almost impossible, that communion under one kind could ever have been the rule throughout England.
W. DENTON.
P.S. Since writing the before-going remarks, the opinion expressed at the close of tny com- munication has been confirmed by an examina- tion of what is stated on this subject by Mr. Plummer, in his Notes and Illustrations on the Booh of Common Prayer. He there gives ex- tracts from the account rolls of the parish of
