Jeremy Taylor.

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

. (page 13 of 50)
Online LibraryJeremy TaylorThe whole works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor (Volume 11) → online text (page 13 of 50)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

than head and feet infer two souls in a man, or conclude
there are two Gods, one in heaven, and the other in earth,
because heaven and earth are more distinct than two wafers.
To which I reply, that the soul of man is in the head and
feet as in two parts of the body which is one and whole, and
so is but in one place, and, consequently, is but one soul.
But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies
intermedial, then, indeed, if there were but one soul in feet and

c Lib. de Synod. d De Euchar. lib. ii. c. 15, sect. Est igitur tertia.
E. W. p. 42.


head, the gentleman had spoken to the purpose. But here
these wafers are two entire wafers, separate the one from the
other ; bodies intermedial put between. ; and that which is
here is not there ; and yet of each of them it is affirmed, that it
is Christ's body ; that is, of two wafers, and of two thousand
wafers, it is at the same time affirmed of every one that it is
Christ's body. Now if these wafers are substantially not
the same, not one, but many ; and yet every one of these
many is substantially and properly Christ's body, then these
bodies are many, for they are many of whom it is said,
* Every one distinctly, and separately, and in itself, is Christ's
body.' 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in
the wafer with the presence of God in heaven, is spoken
without common wit or sense ; for does any man say that
God is in two places, and yet be the same one God ? Can
God be in two places that cannot be in one? Can he be
determined and numbered by places, that fills all places by
his presence? or is Christ's body in the sacrament as God is
in the world, that is, ' repletive,' filling all things alike, spaces
void and spaces full, and there where there is no place,
where the measures are neither time nor place, but only the
power and will of God. This answer, besides that it is weak
and dangerous, is also to no purpose, unless the Church
of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans, and maintain the
ubiquity of Christ's body. Yea, but St. Austin f says of Christ,
" ferebatur in manibus suis," &c. " He bore himself in his
own hands :" and what then? * Then, though every wafer be
Christ's body, yet the multiplication of wafers does not
multiply bodies ; for then there would be two bodies of Christ,
when he carried his own body in his hands.' To this I answer,
that concerning St. Austin's mind we are already satisfied,
but that which he says here is true, as he spake and intended
it ; for by his own rule, the similitudes and figures of things
are oftentimes called by the names of those things whereof
they are similitudes : Christ bore his own body in his own
hands when he bore the sacrament of his body ; for of
that also it is true, that it is truly his body in a sacramental,
spiritual, and real manner, that is, to all intents and pur-
poses of the Holy Spirit of God. According to the words of
St. Austin cited by P. Lombard : " We call that the body of

In Psalm xxxiii.


Christ, which, being taken from the fruits of the earth, and
consecrated by mystic prayer, we receive in memory of the
Lord's passion ; which when by the hands of men it is brought
on to that visible shape, it is not sanctified to become so
worthy a sacrament, but by the Spirit of God working invi-
sibly." g If this be good catholic doctrine, and if this con-
fession of this article be right, the Church of England is right ;
but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone
in this truth and modesty of confession, but impose what is
unknown in antiquity and Scripture, and against common
sense, and the reason of all the world ; she must be greatly
in the wrong. But as to this question, I was here only to
justify the ' Dissuasive ;' I suppose these gentlemen may be
fully satisfied in the whole inquiry, if they please to read
a book b I have written on this subject entirely, of which
hitherto they are pleased to take no great notice.


Of the Half -Communion.

WHEN the French ambassador in the Council of Trent, A.D.
1561, made instance for restitution of the chalice to the laity,
among other oppositions the Cardinal St. Angelo answered ;
' That he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to
the people of France, instead of a medicine, and that it was
better to let them die, than to cure them with such remedies.'
The ambassador being greatly offended , replied ; ' That it was
not fit to give the name of poison to the blood of Christ, and
to call the holy apostles poisoners, and the fathers of the
Primitive Church, and of that which followed for many hun-
dred years, who with much spiritual profit have ministered the
cup of that blood to all the people : ' this was a great and a
public, yet but a single person, that gave so great offence.

One of the greatest scandals that ever was given to Christ-
endom, was given by the Council of Constance ; ' which

8 Lib. iii. de Trin. c. 4, in fine P. Lombard dist. 11 ; lib. iv, ad finem lit. C.
'' Christ's Real and Spiritual Presence in the Sacrament, against the Doctrine
of Transubstantiation. Pri ted at London by R. Houston. 'Sess. 13.


having acknowledged that Christ administered this venerable
sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine, and that in
the Primitive Church this sacrament was received of the faith-
ful under both kinds, yet the council not only condemns them
as heretics, and to be punished accordingly, who say it is un-
lawful to observe the custom and law of giving it in one kind
only ; but under pain of excommunication forbids all priests
to communicate the people under both kinds. This last
thing is so shameful and so impious, that A. L. directly de-
nies that there is any such thing : which if it be not an argu-
ment of the self-conviction of the man, and a resolution to
abide in his error, and to deceive the people even against his
knowledge, let all the world judge : for the words of the
council's decree, as they are set down by Carran/.a, at the end
of the decree, are these: " Item praecipimus, sub pcena ex-
communicationis, quod nullus presbyter communicet populum
sub utraque specie panis et vini." k I need say no more in
this affair : to affirm it necessary to do in the sacraments
what Christ did, is called heresy ; and to do so is punished
with excommunication. But we who follow Christ, hope we
shall communicate with him, and then we are well enough ;
especially since the very institution of the sacrament, in both
kinds, is a sufficient commandment to minister and receive it
in both kinds. For if the Church of Rome upon their sup-
position only, that Christ did barely institute confession, do
therefore urge it as necessary, it will be a strange partiality,
that the confessed institution by Christ of the two sacramental
species, shall not conclude them as necessary, as the other
upon an unproved supposition. And if the institution of the
sacrament in both kinds be not equal to a command, then
there is no command to receive the bread, or indeed, to
receive the sacrament at all : but it is a mere act of superero-
gation, that the priests do it at all, and an act of favour and
grace, that they give even the bread itself to the laity.

But besides this, it is not to be endured that the Church
of Rome only binds her subjects to observe the decree of
abstaining from the cup 'jure humano,' and yet they shall
be bound 'jure divino,' to believe it to be just, and specially
since the causes of so scandalous an alteration are not set
down in the decree of any council ; and those which are set

k Lugduni. A.D. 1600, apud Horatium Cardon. p. 440.


down by private doctors, besides tbat they are no record of
the Church, they are ridiculous, weak, and contemptible.
But as Granatensis 1 said in the Council of Trent, 'This affair
can neither be regulated by Scripture nor traditions (for
surely it is against both), but by wisdom ; ' wherein because
it is necessary to proceed to circumspection, I suppose the
Church of Rome will always be considering whether she
should give the chalice or no ; and because she will not ac-
knowledge any reason sufficient to give it, she will be content
to keep it away without reason: and, which is worse, the
Church of Rome excommunicates" 1 those priests that com-
municate the people in both kinds; but the Primitive Church
excommunicates them that receive but in one kind. It is
too much that any part of the Church should so much as in
a single instance administer the holy sacrament otherwise
than it is in the institution of Christ; there being no other
warrant for doing the thing at all, but Christ's institution,
and, therefore, no other way of learning how to do it, but by
the same institution by which all of it is done. And if there
can come a case of necessity (as if there be no wine, or if a
man cannot endure wine), it is then a disputable matter, whe-
ther it ought or not to be omitted ; for if the necessity be of
God's making, he is supposed to dispense with the impossi-
bility : but if a man alters what God appointed, he makes to
himself a new institution ; for which, in this case, there can
be no necessity, nor yet excuse. But suppose either one or
other ; yet so long as it is, or is thought, a case of necessity,
the thing may be hopefully excused, if not actually justified ;
and because it can happen but seldom, the matter is not
great: let the institution be observed always where it can.
But then, in all cases of possibility, let all prepared Christians
be invited to receive the body and blood of Christ according
to his institution ; or if that be too much, at least let all them
that desire it, be permitted to receive it in Christ's way : but
that men are not suffered to do so, that they are driven from
it, that they are called heretic for saying it is their duty to
receive it as Christ gave it and appointed it, that they should
be excommunicated for desiring to communicate in Christ's

1 A.D. 1562.

m Vide Preface to the Dissuasive, part 1, canon. Comperimus de Consecrat.
dist. 2.


blood, by the symbol of his blood, according to the order of
him that gave his blood ; this is such a strange piece of
Christianity, that it is not easy to imagine what antichrist can
do more against it, unless he take it all away. I only desire
those persons, who are here concerned, to weigh well the
words of Christ, and the consequents of them : " He that
breaketh one of the least of my commandments, and shall
teach men so," and what if he compel men so? "shall be
called the least in the kingdom of God."

To the canon last mentioned it is answered, that the
canon speaks not of receiving the sacrament by the commu-
nicants, but of the consummating the sacrifice by the priest.
To this I reply, 1. That it is true that the canon was particu-
larly directed to the priests, by the title which themselves
put to it; but the canon meddles not with the consecrating or
not consecrating in one kind, but of receiving; for that is
the title of the canon. The priest ought not to 'receive' the
body of Christ without the blood ; and in the canon itself,
" comperimus autem, quod quidam, sumpta corporis sacri
portione, a calice sacrati cruoris abstineant." By which it
plainly appears, that the consecration was entire ; for it was
' calix sacrati cruoris, the consecrated chalice,' from which
out of a fond superstition some priests did abstain ; the canon
therefore, relates to the sumption or receiving, not the sacri-
ficing (as these men love to call it) or consecration ; and the
sanction itself speaks indeed of the reception of the sacra-
ment, but not a word of it as it is, in any sense, a sacrifice ;
" ant Integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arcean-
tur." So that the distinction of ' sacrament' and * sacrifice'
in this question will be of no use to the Church of Rome.
For if Pope Gelasius (for it was his canon) knew nothing of
this distinction, it is vainly applied to the expounding of his
words ; but if he did know of it, then he hath taken that
part which is against the Church of Rome ; for of this mys-
tery, as it is a sacrament, Gelasius speaks, which therefore
must relate to the people as well as the priest. And this
canon is to this purpose quoted by Cassander." And, 2. No
man is able to shew that ever Christ appointed one way of
receiving to the priest, and another to the people. The law
was all one, the example the same, the rule is simple and

n In Consult, de Sacra Commun.


uniform, and no appearance of difference in the Scripture, or
in the Primitive Church : so that though the canon mentions
only the priest, yet it must, by the same reason, mean all ;
there being at that time no difference known. 3. It is called
sacrilege to divide one and the same mystery ; meaning, that
to receive one without the other, is to divide the body from
the blood (for the dream of concomitancy was not then found
out), and, therefore, the title of the canon is thus expressed ;
" Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacerdos non debet acci-
pere ; " and that the so doing, viz. by receiving one without
the other, cannot be without sacrilege. 4. Now suppose at
last, that the priests only are concerned in this canon, yet
even then also they are abundantly reproved, because even the
priests in the Church of Rome (unless they consecrate) com-
municate but in one kind. 5. It is also remarkable, that
although in the Church of Rome there is great use made of
the distinction, of its being sometime ' a sacrifice,' sometime
only ' a sacrament/ as Friar Anthony Mondolphus said in
the Council of Trent, yet the arguments, by which the Roman
doctors do usually endeavour to prove the lawfulness of the
half-communion, do destroy this distinction, viz. that of
Christ's ministering to the disciples at Emmaus, and St. Paul
in the ship : in which either there is no proof or no consecra-
tion in both kinds, and consequently no sacrifice : for there
is mention made only of ' blessing the bread,' for they
received that which was blessed ; and, therefore, either the
consecration was imperfect, or the reception was entire.

To this purpose also the words of St. Ambrose are severe,
and speak clearly of communicants without distinction of
priest and people : which distinction, though it be in this
article nothing to the purpose, yet I observe it to prevent
such trifling cavils, which my adversaries put me often to
fight with. His words are these : " He (viz. the apostle St.
Paul) saith, that he is unworthy of the Lord, who otherwise
celebrates the mystery than it was delivered by him. For he
cannot be devout, that presumes otherwise than it was given
by the author : therefore, he before admonishes, that accord-
ing to the order delivered, the mind of him that comes to
the eucharist of our Lord, be devout ; for there is a judgment
to come, that as every one comes, so he may render an
account in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ: because they who


come without the discipline of the delivery (or tradition), and
of conversation, are guilty of the body and blood of our
Lord." One of my adversaries 1 * says, these words of St.
Ambrose are to be understood only of the priest : and it
appears so, by the word 'celebrat,' not 'recipit;' he that
'celebrates' otherwise than is delivered by Christ. To this I
answer, that first it is plain, and St. Ambrose so expresses
his meaning, to be of all that receive it, for so he says, " That
the mind of him that cometh to the eucharist of our Lord,
ought to be devout." 2. It is an ignorant conceit, that St.
Ambrose by * celebrat,' means the priest only, because he
only can celebrate. For however the Church of Rome does
now almost impropriate that word to the priest, yet in the
Primitive Church it was no more than 'recipit' or 'accedit
ad eucharistiam,' which appears not only by St. Ambrose's
expounding it so here, but in St. Cyprian, q speaking to a
rich matron, " Locuples et dives Dominicum celebrare te
credis, et corban omnino non respicis? Dost thou, who art
rich and opulent, suppose that you ' celebrate' the Lord's
supper (or sacrifice), who regardest not the poor man's
basket?" ' Celebrat' is the word, and ' receive' must needs
be the signification : and so it is in St. Ambrose ; and there-
fore I did, as I ought, translate it so. 3. It is yet objected,
that I translate " aliter quam ab eo traditum est, otherwise
than he appointed;" whereas it should be, "otherwise than
it was given by him." And this surely is a great matter, and
the gentleman is very subtle. But if he be asked, whether
or no Christ appointed it to be done as he did, to be given as
he gave it; I suppose this deep and wise note of his will just
come to nothing. But ' ab eo traditum est,' of itself signifies,
'appointed ;' for this he delivered not only by his hands, but
by his commandment of 'Hoc facite;' that was his appoint-
ment. Now that all this relates to the whole institution and
doctrine of Christ in this matter, and therefore to the dupli-

In Corinth, xi. Indignum dicit esse Domino, qui aliter mysterium celebrat
quam ab eo traditum est. Non enim potest devotus esse, qui aliter prsesumit
quam datum est ab auctore. Ideoque praemonet, ut secundum ordinem traditum
devota mens sit accedentis ad eucbaristiam Domini : quoniam futurum est judi-
cium, ut quemadmodum accedit uuusquisque, reddat causas in 'die Domini Jesu
Cbristi : quia sine disciplina traditionis et conversationis qui accedunt, rei sunt
corporis et sanguinis Domini.

P A. L. p. 4. i Senn. i. de Eleemos.


cation of the elements, the reception of the chalice, as well
as the consecrated bread, appears, 1. By the general terras,
" qui aliter mysterium celebrat, he that celebrates other-
wise than Christ delivered." 2. These words are a com-
mentary upon that of St. Paul, " He that eats this bread, and
drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body
and blood of the Lord." Now hence St. Ambrose, arguing
that all must be done as our Lord delivered, says also * that
the bread must be eaten, and the cup drunk, as our Lord de-
livered : and he that does not do both, does not do what our
Lord delivered.' 3. The conclusion of St. Ambrose is full to
this particular: "They are guilty of the body and blood of
Christ, who come without the discipline of the delivery and of
conversation;" that is, they who receive without due pre-
paration, and not after the manner it was delivered, that is,
under the differing symbols of bread and wine. To which we
may add that observation of Cassander/ and of Vossius ;
that the apostles represented the persons of all the faithful,
and Christ saying to them, ' Take, and eat,' he said also,
' Drink ye all of this ;' he said not, ' Eat ye all of this ;' and
therefore if by virtue of these words, ' Drink ye all of this,'
the laity be not commanded to drink, it can never be proved
thai the laity are commanded to eat; 'omnes' is added to
' bibite,' but it is not expressly added to * accipite et come-
dite ;' and therefore Paschasius Radbertus, & who lived about
eight hundred and twenty years after Christ's incarnation, so
expounds the precept without any hesitation, " Bibite ex
hoc oinnes, i.e. tarn ministri quain reliqui credentes ; Drink
ye all of this, as well they that minister, as the rest of the
believers." And no wonder, since for their so doing they
have the example and institution of Christ ; by which as by
an irrefragable and undeniable argument, the ancient fathers
used to reprove and condemn all usages which were not
according to it. For, saith St. Cyprian, 1 " If men ought not
to break the least of Christ's commandments, how much less
those great ones, which belong to the sacrament of our Lord's
passion and redemption, or to change it into any thing but
that which was appointed by him?" Now this was spoken
against those who refused the hallowed wine, but took water
instead of it ; and it is of equal force against them that give

1 Disp. v. de Sacra Coena. Lib. de Corp. et Sang. Domini, c. 15. * Epist. liiii.


to the laity no cup at all ; but whatever the instance was or
could be, St. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of
prevaricating Christ's institution. The whole epistle is worth
reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians :
" Ab eo quod Christus magister et praecepit et gessit, hu-
mana et novella institutione decedere ; By a new and
human institution to depart from what Christ our master
commanded and did ;" that the bishops would not do : " ta-
men quoniam quidam," &c. " because there are some who
simply and ignorantly," " in calice Dominico sanctificando
et plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus
Dominus et Deus noster, sacrificii hujus auctor et doctor,
fecit et docuit," &c. " in sanctifying the cup of the Lord,
and giving it to the people, do not do what Jesus Christ did
and taught, viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the
people ;" therefore St. Cyprian calls them to return " ad
radicem et originem traditionis Dominicae, to the root and
original of the Lord's delivery." Now besides that St. Cyprian
plainly says, that when the chalice was sanctified, it was also
ministered to the people ; I desire it to be considered, whether
or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine
and practice, in not giving the consecrated chalice to the
people ; do they not recede from the root and original of
Christ's institution ? Do they do what Christ did ? Do they
teach what Christ taught? Is not their practice quite
another thing than it was at first ? Did not the ancient
Church do otherwise than these men do? and thought them-
selves obliged to do otherwise ? They urged the doctrine and
example of our Lord, and the whole economy of the mystery
was their warrant and their reason : for they always believed
that a peculiar grace and virtue were signified by the symbol
of wine ; and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent
representment and memorial of the effusion of Christ's blood
for us, and the joining both the symbols signifies the entire
refection and nourishment of our souls, bread and drink
being the natural provisions; and they design and signify
our redemption more perfectly, the body being given for our
bodies, and the blood for the cleansing our souls, the life of
every animal being in the blood : and finally, this, in the
integrity, signifies and represents Christ to have taken body
and soul for our redemption. For these reasons the ' Church


of God always, in all her public communions, gave the chalice
to the people for above a thousand years.' This was all I
would have remarked in this so evident a matter, but that I
observed, in a short spiteful passage of E. W. p. 44, a noto-
rious untruth, spoken with ill intent concerning the holy
communion as understoood by Protestants. The words are
these ; " Seeing the fruit of Protestant communion is only to
stir up faith in the receiver, I can find no reason why their
bit of bread only, may not as well work that effect, as to taste
of their wine with it." To these words, 1. I say, that although
stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of
the holy communion, yet it is falsely said, that the fruit of
the Protestant communion is only to stir up faith. For in the
catechism of the Church of England it is affirmed, that " the
body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and re-
ceived of the faithful in the Lord's supper : and that our souls
are strengthened and refreshed by the body and blood of
Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine," and that
of stirring up our faith is not at all mentioned : so ignorant,
so deceitful, or deceived, is E. W., in the doctrine of the
Church of England. But then, as for his foolish sarcasm,
calling the hallowed elements a ' bit of bread,' which he
does in scorn; he might have considered, that if we had a
mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause, that
the papist's wafer is scarce so much as ' a bit of bread,' it is
more like marchpane than common bread, and besides that
(as Salmeron" acknowledges) anciently, " olim ex pane uno
sua cuique particula frangi consueverat," that which we in
our church do, was the custom of the Church ; out of a great
loaf to give particles to every communicant, by which the
communication of Christ's body to all the members is better

Online LibraryJeremy TaylorThe whole works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor (Volume 11) → online text (page 13 of 50)