and §, No 3,, Jan. 19. °56.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
59 
synod of Exeter, in 1287, Wilkins (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withdrawn the eucharistic cup from the laity, 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 agape; This custom is de- 
scribed in the constitutions of Walter Raynold, 
Archbishop of Canterbury in 1325 (Wilkins, 
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. Denton’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. 
Wit Frasnr, B. C. L. 
Alton, Staffordshire. 
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 Ory Encianp 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.). ‘Lhis 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 
chalice with the consecrated wine was partaken 
of by the laity. Dr. Rock (Zbid., vol. i. p. 168.), 
quoting Rog. 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 (/is- 
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 4 xiii. 
sec. exolescere cepit in occidente, ac tandem 
‘see xy. justissimis de causis desueta omnind est 
tim pro laicis, ttm pro sacrorum ministris, qui 
liturgiz adsunt.” (As I quote from the Jnstitu- 
tiones Liturgice 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* 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 my 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 
Book of Common Prayer. He there gives ex- 
tracts from the account rolls of the parish of 
