Jeremy Taylor.

The whole works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor (Volume 11) online

. (page 12 of 50)
Online LibraryJeremy TaylorThe whole works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor (Volume 11) → online text (page 12 of 50)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


rlr/ao/oY/ac, when it is ' a eucharist, it is still but bread ;'
and therefore there is a body, of which this is but an out-
ward argument, a vehicle, a channel and conveyance, and
that is the body of Christ ; for the eucharistical bread is
both bread and Christ's body too. For it is a good argu-
ment to say, "This is bread eucharistical, therefore this
is bread ; " and if it be bread still, it must be a figure of
the bread of life ; and this is that which I affirmed to be
the sense of Justin Martyr. The like expression to this is
in his second Apology ; u It is not common bread," mean-
ing that it is sanctified and made eucharistical. But here,
it may be, the argument will not hold ; ' It is not common
bread, therefore it is bread :' for I remember that Cardinal
Perron hath some instances against this way of arguing. F"or
the dove that descended upon Christ's head, was not a com-
mon dove ; and yet it follows not, therefore this was a dove.
The three that appeared to Abraham, were not common men ;
therefore they were men, it follows not. This is the sophis-
try of the Cardinal, for the confutation of which I have so
much logic left as to prove this to be a fallacy, arid it will
soon appear if it be reduced to a regular proposition. * This
bread is not common : therefore this bread is extraordinary
bread;' but therefore 'this is bread still ;' here the conse-
quence is good ; and is so still, when the subject of the pro-
position is something real, k and not in appearance only ;
because whatsoever is but in appearance arid pretence, is a
' non ens' in respect of that real thing which it counterfeits.
And therefore it follows not, ' this is not a common dove ;

k A propositione tertii acljecti, ad propositionem secundi adjecti valet conse-
quentia, si subjectum supponat realiter. Reg Dialect Vide sect. v. n. 10, of
Christ's Real Presence and Spiritual.



OF TRAXSUBSTANTIATION. 109

therefore it is a dove ; ' because, if this be modelled into a
right proposition, ' uihil supponit, there is no subject in
it,' for it cannot in this case be said, ' This dove is no com-
mon dove ; but this, which is like a dove, is not a common
dove ; and these persons, which look like men, are not com-
mon men.' And the rule for this, and the reason too, is,
" Non entis nulla sunt praedicata." To which, also, this may
be added, that in the proposition, as Cardinal Perron expresses
it, the negation is not the adjective, but the substantive part
of the predicate ; ' It is no common dove ;' where the nega-
tive term relates to the dove, not to common, it is no dove ;
and the words ' not common ' are also equivocal, and as it
can signify ' extraordinary,' so it can signify ' natural.' But
if the subject of the proposition be something real, then the
consequent is good ; as if you bring a pigeon from Japan,
all red, you may say, ' This is no common pigeon,' and your
argument is still good ; therefore ' it is a pigeon.' So if you
take sugared bread, or bread made of Indian wheat, you, say-
ing, * This is no common bread,' do mean it is ' extraordinary,',
or 'unusual,' but it is 'bread still;' and so if it be said,
' This bread is eucharistical,' it will follow rightly, therefore
' this is bread.' For in this case the predicate is only an
infinite or negative term, but the subject is supposed and
affirmed. And this is also more apparent, if the proposition
be affirmative, and the terms be not infinite, as it is in the
present case ; ' This bread is eucharistical.' I have now, I
suppose, cleared the words of Justin Martyr, and expounded
them to his own sense and the truth ; but his sense will
further appear in other words, which I principally rely upon
in this quotation. For speaking that of the prophet Isaiah,
" Panis dabitur ei, et aqua ejus fidelis," he hath these words :
It appears sufficiently " that, in this prophecy he speaks of
bread, which our Lord Christ hath delivered to us to do tic
a.vd[j,vri(5iv rov ffw/AaroTo/^irao^a/, ' for a memorial that he is
made a body ' for them that believe in him, for whose sake
he was made passible ; and of the cup which, for the record-
ation of his blood, he delivered to them to do [that is, give
thanks] or celebrate the eucharist." These are the words of
Justin: where, 1. According to the first simplicity of the
Primitive Church, he treats of this mystery according to the
style of the evangelists and St. Paul, and indeed of our
blessed Lord himself, commanding all this whole mystery



1 10 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

.to be done ' in memory of him.' 2. If St. Justin had meant
any thing of the new fabric of this mystery, 1 he must have
said, Xo/ffr&j Taps6wx.ec rbv asrov Gu^a.ro'rroir^vra.^ ' the bread
made for his body ; ' though this also would not have done
their work for them ; but when he says he gave the bread
only for the remembrance of his being made a body, the
bread must needs be the sign, figure, and representation, of
that body. 3. Still he calls it bread, even then when Christ
gave it ; still it is wine, when the eucharist is made, when
the faithful have given thanks ; and if it be bread still, we
also grant it to be Christ's body, and then there is a figure
and the things figured, the one visible, and the other in-
visible ; and this is it which I affirmed to be the sense of
Justin Martyr. And it is more perfectly explicated by
St. Gregory Nazianzen," 1 calling the paschal lamb ' a figure
of a figure,' of which I shall yet give an account in this
section. But to make this yet more clear, Ou yao wg xoubv
c/.grov, ovds xotvbv <rorov ravra, XafLJ3dvoij,iv, &C. " We do not
receive these as common bread, or common drink ; but
as by the word of God, Jesus Christ our Lord was made
flesh, and for our salvation had flesh and blood : so are
we taught, that that very nourishment, on which by the
prayers of his word thanks are given, by which our flesh
and blood are nourished by change, is the flesh and blood
of the incarnate Jesus." Here St. Austin compares the con-
secration of the eucharist by prayer to the incarnation of
Christ, the thing with the thing, to shew it is not common
bread, but bread made Christ's body ; he compares not the
manner of one with the manner of the other, as Cardinal
Perron" would fain have it believed, for, if it were so, it would
not only destroy an article of Christian faith, but even of
the Roman too ; for if the changes were in the same manner,
then either the man is transubstantiated into God, or else
the bread is not transubstantiated into Christ's body ; but
the first cannot be, because it would destroy the hypostati-
cal union, arid make Christ to be one nature as well as one
person ; but for the latter part of the dilemma, viz. that the

1 P. 296. "> Orat. ii. in Pascha.

n ic solemus loqui : sicut panis est vita corporis, ita verbum Dei est vita
aninue. Non scil. euudem conversionis aut nutriendi modum connotando, sed
eimilem et analogicum effectual utriusque nutrimenti observando.



OF TRANSUBSTANTIATIOX. Ill

bread is not transubstantiated, whether it be true or false,
it cannot be affirmed from hence, and therefore the cardi-
nal labours to no purpose, and without consideration of
what may follow. But now these words make very much
against the Roman hypothesis, and directly prove the EU-
XapHtrrifaTtfa, T^r h ' the consecrated bread/ that is, after it
is consecrated, to be natural nourishment of the body, and
therefore to be Christ's body only spiritually and sacrament-
ally ; unless it can be two substances at the same time :
Christ's body and bread in the natural sense, which the
Church of Rome at this day will not allow ; and if it were
allowed, it would follow that Christ's body should be tran-
substantiated into our body, and suffer the very worst
changes, which, in our eating, and digestion, and separation,
happen to common bread. This argument relies upon the
concurrent testimony of many of the ancient fathers besides
Justin Martyr, especially St. Irenaeus ; and certainly de-
stroys the whole Roman article of transubstantiation ; if the
eucharistical bread nourishes the body, then it is still the
substance of bread : for accidents do not nourish, and quan-
tity or quality is not the subject or term of nutrition ; but
reparation of substance by a substantial change of one into
another. But of this enough.

Eusebius is next alleged in the ' Dissuasive; ' but his words,
though pregnant and full of proof against the Roman hypo-
thesis, are by all the coutra-scribers let alone ; only one of
them says,P that the place of the quotation is not rightly
marked, for the first three chapters are not extant: well!
but the words are, and the last chapter is, which is there
quoted ; and to the tenth chapter the printer should have
more carefully attended, and not omit the cipher ; which I
suppose he would, if he had foreseen he should have been
written against by so learned an adversary. But to let them
agree as well as they can, the words of Eusebius, out of
his last chapter, I translated as well as I could ; the Greek
words I have set in the margent," 1 that every one that understands

Lib. iv. c. 31 ; lib. v. c. 2. PA. L.

1 Demonstr. Evang. lib. ii. c. ult. TOUTOU S?T reu vfttt<ro; TIV ^nf-n" '<rJ
roa,Ti/^yii IrrsXiTx oia /ruuScXair <ravTi fiufjutra; aunv, xa.i TOV fuTnoiau aifteLTo; *T
Sifftov; Tr,s Konri; Sja3ixjj *-ag!iXyi$ons' ' The apostles received a command
according to the constitution of the Nt-w Testament to make a memory of this
sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body and healthful blood.' So the
words are translated in the ' Dissuasive.' But the Letter translates them thus:



112 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

may see I did him right; and indeed to do my adversary
right, when he goes about to change, not to mend the
translation, he only changes the order of the words, hut in
nothing does he rnend his own matter by it : for he acknow-
ledges the main question, viz. that ' the memory of Christ's
sacrifice is to be celebrated in certain signs on the tuhle;'
but then, that I may do myself right, and the question too ;
whosoever translated these words for this gentleman, hath
abused him, and made him to render ixrtXw as if it were
and hath made rr,v ^/^v to be governed by
s, which is so far off it, and hath no relation to it,
and not to be governed by SKTS\S?V with which it is joined ; and
hath made <rw,u,aro; to be governed by r^v pripriv, when it
hath a substantive of its own, gvpfiohw ; and he repeats rfo
/Avfipqv once more than it is in the words of Eusebius, only be-
cause he would not have the reader suppose that Eusebius
called the consecrated elements ' the symbols of the body
and blood.' But this fraud was too much studied to be ex-
cusable upon the stock of human infirmity, or an innocent
persuasion. But that I may satisfy the reader in this ques-
tion, so far as the testimony and doctrine of Eusebius can
extend, he hath these words fully to our purpose : First,
our Lord and Saviour, and then after him his priests of all
nations, celebrating the spiritual sacrifice according to the
ecclesiastical laws, by the bread and the wine signify the mys-
teries of his body and healing blood." And again : "By the
wine, which is the symbol of his blood, he purges the old
sins of them who were baptized into his death, and believe
in his blood." Again: " He gave to his disciples the sym-
bols of the Divine economy, commanding them to make the
image (figure or representation) of his own body." And again :
" He received not the sacrifices of blood, nor the slaying of
divers beasts instituted in the law of Moses, but ordained we
should use bread, the symbol of his own body." r So far I

'Seeing, therefore, we have received the memory of this sacrifice to be celebrated
in certain signs on the table, and the memory of that body and healthful blood (as
is the institute of the New Testament).'

r Lib. v. c. 3. Houro; fiit OUTC; o 2rja xai Kvgit; n/tut, ifsira at ! avrau vra.vrif
hens > wavra TO. i0yn, r>i srv<i> l ua.Tixriv \-jeiTt\out~i;, x,a.ra, TOU; butiUWVMMvf Ssirf&ev;,
Stgovgyiav a'i'viu x&i eigrev, rov rs fftufittros avrov xai foil tru-mo'iov o."/u.xTa; mrvwmM T
fj.v7Tr.cia,. Lt lib. Vlli. c. 1. A< rou o'/tev, of iff r,r riv alf&eiros eturau ff^u.So).sv, <raui tlf
TOV &avaTv ttvTou /sacrn^Ojtttvat/f, xo.} i-rt TO difta ttureu sri'ri<rrivxo<ras, TU* -ra).ai xaxut
aToxaSaifti. Et paulo post : ITaXa; ya.^ auroi ra, ev^o>.a rris Mitv tlxoiift.ixs To7t



OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 113

thought fit to set down the words of Eusebius, to convince
my adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs, but he is wholly
ours in the doctrine of the sacrament.

St. Macarius 8 is cited in the ' Dissuasive' in these words :
" In the Church is offered bread and wine, the antitype of
his flesh and blood, and they that partake of the bread that
appears, do spiritually eat of the flesh of Christ." 1 A. L. saith,
* Macarius saith not so, but rather the contrary, viz. bread
and wine exhibiting the exemplar [or an antitype], his flesh
and blood.' Now although I do not suppose many learned
or good men will concern themselves with what this little
man says ; yet I cannot but note [that they who gave him
this answer, may be ashamed], for here is a double satisfaction
in this little answer. First, he puts in the word ' exhibiting/
of his own head ; there being no such word in St. Macarius
in the words quoted. 2. He makes eagxbz to be put with
&vr/ru<rov, by way of apposition, expressly against the mind
of St. Macarius, and against the very grammar of his words.
And after all, he studies to abuse his author, and yet gets
no good by it himself; for if it were in the words as he
hath invented it, or somebody else for him, yet it makes
against him as much, saying, * Bread and wine exhibit
Christ's body;' which is indeed true, though not here
said by the saint, but is directly against the Roman article,
because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which
Christ's body is exhibited to us : but much more is the whole
testimony of St. Macarius, which, in the * Dissuasive,' is trans-
lated exactly, as the reader may see by the Greek words
cited in the margent.

There now only remains the authority of St. Austin,
which this gentleman" would fain snatch from the Church
of England, and assert to his own party. I cited five
places out of St. Austin, to the last of which but one, he
gives this answer ; that ' St. Austin hath no such words
in that book, that is, in the tenth book, against Faustus the
Manichee.' Concerning which, I am to inform the gentleman

avrau fagitiilitu /u,a0vra.7s , rriv ilxtiva. <rou liiov <ra[t.a.ri{ ViitiffHut vra/ietxiXtuoftivaS'
Ovxtri ret; o ttl[t,a,<ruv Suria; ai/^l TO.; vra^a, Muffii iv "Sna^'ooav auv <rQaya,7s vivo/Aotifrti-
f/tiias -r^affiifi, agra $1 xfiffQai au^'oKta rou i^'itv ffupiKros Xa.^i^nti. "Or/ fv rj
ixx^nna. vrgotrlptgiTcu ci^Tsf xai out}, avrtrwfov rtj; yecoxc; avrau xcci <rov a'i/j,a<ri>s , a,}
ei /tiTaXa^favovrsy 1* rov tfaitoftivou cigrot/, vvivftKTixvs 7*1* <ra.^K.a. rou Kuj/ov \<ri'ituffn.
* Macarius, homil. xxvii. ' P. 22. u Ibid.

VOL. XI. I



114 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

a little better. These words, " That which by all men is
called a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice," are in
the tenth book of St. Austin, ' de Civitate,' cap. 5, and make
a distinct quotation, and ought by the printer to have been
divided by a column, as the other. But the following words,
" in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is cele-
brated by the sacrament of remembrance," are in the 20th
book, cap. 21, against Faustus the Manichee.* All these
words, and divers others of St. Austin, I knit together in a
close order, like a continued discourse ; but all of them are
St. Austin's words, as appears in the places set down in the
margent. But this gentleman cared not for what was said
by St. Austin, he was as well pleased that a figure was false
printed ; but to the words he hath nothing to say. To the
first of the other four only he makes this crude answer ; that
* St. Austin denied not the real eating of Christ's body in the
eucharist, but only the eating in that gross, carnal, and
sensible manner, as the Capharnaites conceived.' To which
I reply, that it is true, that upon occasion of this error
St. Austin did speak those words : and although the Roman
error be not so gross and dull as that of the Capharnaites,
yet it was as false, as unreasonable, and as impossible. And
be the occasion of the words what they are, or can be, yet
upon this occasion St. Austin spake words, which as well
confute the Roman error as the Capharnaitical. For it is not
only false which the men of Capernaum dreamt of, but the
antithesis to this is that which St. Austin urges, and which
comes home to our question, ' I have commended to you a
sacrament, which being spiritually understood shall quicken
you :' but because St. Austin was the most diligent expounder
of this mystery among all the fathers, I will gratify my
adversary, or rather, indeed, my unprejudicate readers, by
giving some other very clear and unanswerable evidences of
the doctrine of St. Austin, agreeing perfectly with that of our
church :.y " At this time, after manifest token of our liberty
hath shined in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus, we are not
burdened with the heavy operation of signs : but some few
instead of many, but those most easy to be done, and most

* Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas simili-
tudinum promittebatur : in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur,
post ascensum Christi per sucrameutum memoriae celebratur. Lib. xx. c. 21,
cont. Faustum Munich. J De Doctr. Christ, lib. iii. c. 9.



OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 115

glorious to be understood, and most pure in their observ-
ation, our Lord himself, and the apostolical discipline, hath
delivered : such is the sacrament of baptism, and the cele-
bration of the body and blood of our Lord, which, when every
one takes, he understands whither they may be referred, that
he may give them veneration, not with carnal service, but
with a spiritual liberty. For as to follow the letter, and to
take the signs for the things signified by them, is a servile
infirmity ; so to interpret the signs unprofitably is an evil
wandering error. But he that understands not what the
sign signifies, but yet understandeth it to be a sign, is not
pressed with servitude. But it is better to be pressed with
unknown signs, so they be profitable, than, by expounding
them unprofitably, to thrust our necks into the yoke of
slavery, from which they were brought forth." All this
St. Austin spake concerning the sacramental signs, the bread
and the wine in the eucharist ; and if by these words he does
not intend to affirm, that they are the signs signifying
Christ's body and blood ; let who please to undertake it,
make sense of them : for my part I cannot.

To the same purpose are these words of his : z "Christ is
in himself once immolated, and yet in the sacrament he is
sacrificed not only in the solemnities of Easter, but every
day with the people. Neither indeed does he lie, who being
asked, shall answer, that he is sacrificed : for if the sacra-
ments have not a similitude of those things of which they are
sacraments, they were altogether no sacraments; but com-
monly for this similitude they take the names of the things
themselves, ' sicut ergo secundum quendain modum,'&c. As
' therefore after a certain manner' the sacrament of the body
of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood
of Christ is the blood of Christ, so the sacrament of faith
(viz. baptism) is faith." Christ is but once immolated or
sacrificed in himself, but every day in the sacrament ; that
properly, this in figure ; that in substance, this in similitude ;
that naturally, this sacramentally and spiritually. But, there-
fore, we call this mystery a sacrifice, as we call the sacra-
ment Christ's body, viz. by way of similitude, or after a cer-
tain manner; for upon this account the names of the things
are imputed to their very figures. This is St. Austin's sense :

* Epist xxiii.



116 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

which, indeed, he frequently so expresses. Now, I desire it
may be observed, that oftentimes, when St. Austin, speaking
of the eucharist, calls it the body and blood of Christ, he
oftentimes adds, by way of explication, that he means it in
the sacramental, figurative sense ; but, whenever he calls it
the figure or the sacrament of Christ's body, he never offers
to explain that by any words, by which he may signify such
a real or natural being of Christ's body there, as the Church
of Rome dreams of; but he ought not, neither would he have
given offence or umbrage to the Church by any such incu-
rious and loose handling of things, if the Church in his age
had thought of it otherwise than that it was Christ's body in
a sacramental sense.

Though I have remarked all that is objected by A. L., yet
E. W. a is not satisfied with the quotation out of Gregory
Nazianzen, not but that he acknowledges it to be right, for
he sets down the words in Latin ; b but they conclude nothing
against transubstantiation. Why so ? because, though the
paschal was a type of a type, a figure of a figure, yet, ' in St.
Gregory's sense, Christ concealed under the species of bread
may be rightly called a figure of its own self, more clearly
hereafter to be shewed us in heaven.' To this pitiful answer
the reply is easy. St. Gregory clearly enough expresses him-
self, that in the immolation of the passover Christ was figured ;
that in the eucharist he still is figured ; there more obscurely,
here more clearly, but yet still but typically, or in figure;
' nunc quidem adhuc typice ; here we are partakers of him
typically.' Afterward we ' shall see him perfectly,' meaning,
in his Father's kingdom. So that the saint affirms Christ to
be received by us in the sacrament, after a figurative or
typical manner : and, therefore, not after a substantial, as
that is opposed to figurative. Now of what is this a type ? of
himself, to be more clearly seen in heaven hereafter. It is very
true it is so ; for this whole ceremony, and figurative, ritual
receiving of Christ's body here, does prefigure our more
excellent receiving and enjoying him hereafter; but then it
follows that the very proper substance of Christ's body is not
here ; for figure, or shadow, and substance cannot be the same;

P. 41.

b Orat. ii. hi Pascha. Jam vero paschalis participes erimus, nunc quidem
adhuc typice, tametsi apertius licet quam in veteri; legale siquidem pascha (nee
enira dicere verebor) figura erat obscurior.



OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 117

to say a thing that is present, is a figure of itself hereafter,
is to be said by no man but him that cares not what he says.
' Nemo est sui ipsius imago,' saith St. Hilary; and yet, if
it were possible to be otherwise, it is a strange figure or sign
of a thing, that what was invisible should be a sign of what
is visible. Bellarmine, d being greatly put to it by the fathers
calling the sacrament 'the figure of Christ's body,' says, it is
in some sense a figure of Christ's body on the cross ; and
here E. W. would affirm, out of Nazianzen, that it is a figure
of Christ's body glorified. Now suppose both those dreamers
say right, then this sacrament, which, whether you look for-
wards or backwards, is a figure of Christ's body, cannot be
that body of which so many ways it is a figure. So that the
whole force of E. W.'s answer is this ; that if that which is
like be the same, then it is possible that a thing may be a sign
of itself, and a man may be his own picture ; and that which
is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing
that is invisible.

I have now expedited this topic of authority in this
question. Amongst the many reasons I urged against tran-
substantiation (which I suppose to be unanswerable, and
if I could have answered them myself, I would not have
produced them), these gentlemen my adversaries are pleased
to take notice but of one ; e but by that it may be seen
how they could have answered all the rest, if they had
pleased. The argument is this : * Every consecrated wafer
(saith the Church of Rome) is Christ's body ; and yet this
wafer is not that wafer, therefore, either this or that, is
not Christ's body, or else Christ hath two natural bodies ;
for here are two wafers.' To this is answered, the multipli-
cation of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ, no more



Online LibraryJeremy TaylorThe whole works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor (Volume 11) → online text (page 12 of 50)