136. And if there be not above twenty persons in the Parish of discretion to receive the Communion; yet there shall be no Communion, except four (or three at the least) communicate with the Priest.
In considering the operation of the two last rubrics, it must be remembered—I. That the Prayer-Book gives the Curate no authority to dismiss non-communicants.—2. That the system of separating the communicants from the rest of the congregation, which underlies the rubrics in the earlier part of the office, has generally ceased to be observed.—3. That the order for signifying the names of intending communicants, at least some time the day before, has fallen into abeyance.—4. That the Curate has no opportunity of interrupting the Service for the purpose of making inquiry among the congregation of their individual intentions in this respect. The Curate, therefore, has no means of obtaining information whereon to exercise the discretion to which this rubric refers. It may happen that there being more than three or four in the church when he begins the Service, some may depart before Communion. If there be fewer, some may arrive later with the intention of communicating. In short, he cannot be certain whether or not the number of communicants be below the minimum until he has communicated himself.[h]
It seems then that the utmost he can do, in order to comply with this part of the rubric, is to avoid any deliberate promoting of Solitary Communion, or nearly Solitary Communion.
In accordance with the general protest of this rubric against Solitary Communion of the Priest, he should, at all celebrations, be very careful to allow ample time for the people to present themselves for Communion, not beginning the Lord's Prayer until it is quite evident that none who intend to communicate remain without having done so.
137. And in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, and Colleges, where there are many Priests and Deacons, they shall all receive the Communion with the Priest every Sunday at the least, except they have a reasonable cause to the contrary.
This rubric affords no ground for the opinion that Communions should not be more frequent than weekly. The direction that the Clergy when numerous should all receive the Communion every Sunday at the least, so far from debarring them or any one else from the privilege of more frequent Communions, implies that a weekly Communion is the lowest standard in such cases. Any other principle of interpreting the words 'at the least,' in this and in the later paragraph of this rubric (where the laity are required to receive three times in the year at the least), would involve a prohibition to the laity against receiving more than three times in the year.
Bishop Cosin was of opinion that when the Church enjoined her Priests and Deacons to communicate every Sunday at least, she supposed it "ought and should be done by them oftener. And from hence was it that the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels were appointed upon the Sundays and Holy-days, and a rubric made at the beginning of the Service Book for the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels to serve all the week-days, that were used on the Sunday—that is, at any time when there is a Communion on the week-day. And, certainly, though it be no fault to read the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels either upon Sundays or week-days; yet to read them, and not to go on with the Communion, is contrary to the intent of our Church, that, if there were any company, intended a Communion every day, for the continuing of the daily sacrifice in the Church, ever used till Calvinism sprung up, and leaped over into England."
It was a principle affirmed by Hooker and Archbishop Laud as well as by Bishop Cosin, and still later by Archbishop Sheldon in 1670, that the practice of cathedrals or mother churches was intended to be a pattern for that of parochial churches. Wherever, therefore, the Clergy form a company sufficient for communion they ought not to communicate less often than every Sunday, and may well do so oftener, even daily; and wherever a company of communicant laity desire a like privilege, they are not debarred from it by this rubric.
138. And to take away all occasion of dissension, and superstition, which any person hath or might have concerning the Bread and Wine, it shall suffice that the Bread be such as is usual to be eaten; but the best and purest Wheat Bread that conveniently may be gotten.
The words 'shall suffice' do not exclude a higher alternative, as may be seen in the rubric of administration of Baptism to Infants, where they are employed in the recognition of the validity of baptism by pouring, though it is not equally significant with, and certainly is not exclusive of, baptism by dipping. The true meaning is expanded in the corresponding rubric of the Scottish Liturgy of 1637:—"Though it be lawful to have wafer bread, it shall suffice that the bread be such as is usual; yet the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten." This is more strongly expressed by Bishop Cosin, in his comment on the similar rubric in the Prayer-Book of 1604:—"It is not here commanded that no unleavened or wafer bread be used, but it is said only that the other bread shall suffice. So that, though there was no necessity, yet there was a liberty still reserved of using wafer bread, which was continued in divers churches of the kingdom and Westminster for one) till the 17th of King Charles.[j] The first use of the common bread was begun by Farel and Viret at Geneva, in 1538, which so offended the people there, and their neighbours at Lausanne and Berne (who had called a synod about it), that both Farel and Viret and Calvin and all were banished for it from the town; where afterwards, the wafer bread being restored, Calvin thought fit to continue it, and so it is at this day."