Jeremy Taylor.

The whole works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor (Volume 13) online

. (page 3 of 61)
Online LibraryJeremy TaylorThe whole works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor (Volume 13) → online text (page 3 of 61)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


their folly, is a recourse to the institution. See, how did
Christ deliver it: " Invenimur non observari a nobis quod
mandatum est, nisi eadem quae Dominus fecit, nos quoque
faciamus ; Unless we do what Christ did, we do not ob-
serve what he commanded ;" plainly implying, that the in-
stitution itself was a commandment: " we must hold what
he admonished, we must observe what he taught, we must do
what he did." Not every thing done at the time of the insti-
tution, but, 'every thing of it.' " For," says he, " Christ did
institute it after supper, but we in the morning." But every
thing by which he did signify what he did exhibit, and exhi-
bit what he did promise, every such thing was a part of the
institution, and cannot be changed." And therefore St. Paul,
when he instructs the Corinthians in the mystery of the holy
eucharist, uses no demonstration of the rites but this : " I
have received this of the Lord :" and " This I have delivered
unto you. Other things I will set in order when I come ;" f
that is, ' Whatsoever I did not receive from the Lord Jesus,
whatsoever was not of his institution, I have power to dispose
of ; but not of any thing which he appointed.'

7. (l.)Nowthereisno peradventurebut the apostles under-
stood this institution to be a commandment, Ilag'&duxav OVTUS
fvrirdXQai airo/s rbv IrtfoZv said Justin Martyr, 5 speaking of
the distribution of the bread and wine, exdsry ruv



Ad Caecil. lib. ii. ep. 3. f 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 34. Apol. 2.



OF THE LAWS OF JESUS CHRIST. 19

" to every one that was present," he says that " the apostles
did deliver that Jesus so commanded them." For what com-
mandment have we to consecrate in bread and wine ? What
precept is there, that the consecration should be by a priest ?
Nothing but the institution. For if it be said, that Christ
added the preceptive words of " Hoc facite," ' This do in
remembrance of me,' I reply, He did so: but "Hoc
facite" is no commandment of itself, but when it is joined
with, "in mei commemorationem, in remembrance of
me ;" that is, when ye remember me, then do thus : so
St. Paul' 1 more expressly, "This do, as often as you drink it,
in remembrance of me." Therefore " Hoc facite" will be but
ill expounded to be a commandment for the priest's consecra-
tion, unless it borrow all its force from the whole institution:
for it plainly says only this ; ' When ye remember me, then
do this which ye see me do.' But " Hoc facite" does not
signify any particular commandment, but that which is rela-
tive to the whole action ; and all the discourses of mankind
can never extract any other signification.

8. But, (2.) The apostles received an express command-
ment ; " Drink ye all of this." If therefore Christ instituted
the sacrament for the whole Church, and that they were the
representatives of the whole body of Christ, then all the
whole Church, when they communicate, are bound by the
commandment to receive the chalice. But if they did not
represent the whole Church, then where shall we find a war-
ranty that the people may receive it all? For if they received
only in the capacity of clergymen, then the institution ex-
tends no further; and it is as much sacrilege for the people
to eat and drink the symbols as to offer at the consecration.
But if they received- in the capacity of Christians only, then
they received the commandment of drinking in the chalice,
for themselves and for all Christians.

9. And, indeed, the apostles were not then priests.
'True/ say they of the Church of Rome, * they were not ;'
but James Payva, a Portuguese, in the Council of Trent, talk-
ed merrily, and said that ' the apostles as laics received
the bread ; but then when Christ said, " Hoc facite, This
do," he made them priests ; and then gave them the chalice
as representatives of the clergy, not of the people.' But as

11 1 Cor.xi. 25.



20 OF THE INTERPRETATION AND OBLIGATION

merry a fancy as this seemed then, it was found to be the best
shift they had ; and therefore, upon better advice, it was
followed by Canasius, Suarez, Bellarmine, and divers others.
But if this be stood upon, besides that it must be crushed
to nothing by the preceding argument, the pretence itself
crosses their own devices. For if it be said, that the apo-
stles were made priests by " Hoc facite," spoken before the
institution of the chalice, then "Hoc facite," does not sig-
nify, " Offerte sacrificium," and consequently cannot make
them priests, that is (with them), ' sacrificers ;' for, by their
own doctrine, to offer both kinds is necessary to its being a
sacrifice. Since therefore the first " Hoc facite" (which in-
deed is the only one mentioned by the evangelists) can but relate
to the consecrating of the bread, as the second (mentioned
by St. Paul) does to the consecrating of the chalice, either
they are priests without a power of sacrifice ; or the sacri-
fice is complete without the chalice ; or else they were not
then made priests when Christ had first said, " Hoc facite ;"
and if they were by the the second, besides that a reason cannot
be fancied, why the same words should, and should not, effect
so differing changes, without difference in the voice, or in
the action, or in the mystery, besides this, I say, it is plain
that Christ reached the cup to them, commanding them all
to drink before he made them priests, that is, they received
the chalice as representatives of the people : for being laics
at least till all that ceremony was done, they did represent
the people ; and consequently, as such, received a command-
ment to drink. Let them choose by what part they will be re-
proved. Every one of these overthrows their new doctrine,
and all of them cannot be escaped. But let it be considered
whether it be likely that Christ should, at one time, institute
two sacraments (for they pretend ordination to be as very a
sacrament as the Lord's supper) of so different natures, and
yet speak nothing of the use or the reason, the benefit or the
necessity of one of them : nor tell them that he did so, nor
explicate the mystery, nor distinguish the rite or the words,
but leave it to be supposed or conjectured, by the most im-
perfect and improbable construction in the world. But sup-
pose it ; yet, at least, it must be confessed that the words
which Christ used, and the same ritual, must, in the apostles'
ministry, be able to effect the same grace : and if so, then



OF THE LAWS OF JESUS CHRIST. 21

a priest hath power to ordain priests; for he hath power to
say, " Hoc facite," in all the same meanings which Christ
had, when he used them: and if this be not accepted, yet at
least a bishop may ordain all the congregations' priests, if he
please, by saying of one mass; which are pretty fancies
and rare propositions in our divinity.

10. To which I add this consideration, that if our blessed
Lord did, by those words of " Hoc facite," make his disci-
ples priests, then they were priests before the Lord himself;
for although he was designed for ever, yet he was consecrated
on the cross, there he entered upon his priestly office; but
officiates in that office not on earth, but in heaven ; "for if he
were on earth, he should not be a priest," saith St. Paul ; ' there-
fore, being consecrate on the cross, he ascended into heaven,
to be there " our priest for ever, there making intercession
for us." Now, it were strange if the apostles should be
declared priests before the consecration, or first sacerdotal
action, of their Lord: or that they should be priests without
the power of the keys, without the commission to baptize in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: for these were
given afterward. But this device is so very a dream, so
groundless and airy a phantasm, so weakly laid, and employed
to such trifling purposes, that it needs no further an inquiry
into it; it was raised to serve the end of this question, to
answer an objection, and pretends no strength of its own,
neither can it weaken that which hath ; and that it is indeed
only pretended for a shift, and intended to operate no further,
appears in this manifestly; because, if the apostles did drink
of the chalice in the capacity of being priests, then it ought
to be followed, at least so far; and all the priests that are
present, ought to receive the chalice, which because they do
not in the Church of Rome, it is apparent they prevaricate the
institution ; and that they may exclude the laity from the
cup, they use their clergy as bad, when themselves do not
officiate.

11. (3.) This trifling pretence being removed, it remains
that the words of institution, "Drink ye all of this, "be also
the words of a commandment; and although they were spoken
to the apostles only, as being only present, yet the precept
must equally concern all Christians and disciples of Christ.

1 Ileb. viii. 4.



22 OF THE INTERPRETATION AND OBLIGATION

Just like those of " Watch and pray, lest ye fall into tempta-
tion;" 15 and " Unless ye be converted and become as little
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God :" ' which
were spoken only in the presence of the apostles: but as
these precepts and moral rules concern all Christians, so do
the words of institution of the holy sacrament and command-
ment of " Drink ye all of this." For " oportet coenam
Dominicam esse communem, quia ille omnibus discipulis
suis, qui aderant, aequaliter tradidit sacramenta," said St.
Jerome; the Lord's supper is common to all, and so
ought to be; because our Lord did equally deliver it to all
that were present:" and upon this very account Durandus
affirms, " In Primitiva Ecclesia, singulis diebus, omnes qui
celebrationi missarum intererant, communicare solebant, eo
quod apostoli omnes de calice biberunt, Domino dicente,
* Bibite ex eo omnes;' In the Primitive Church, all that
were present did, every day, receive, because the apostles
did all drink of the chalice, and the Lord said, ' Drink ye all
of this.' " n

12. And this appears, beyond all contradiction, to have
been so intended. So St. Ignatius: "There is one bread
broken to all, xai tv for^iov ro?$ 0X0/5 8ia,vsfir}6iv, and one
chalice distributed to all :" and '* there is no difference in
this between the priest and the people," said St. Chrysostom ;P
and it is evident that St. Paul gives the same commandment
of drinking the chalice, as of eating the bread; six times dis-
tinctly mentioning both the symbols, and directing the rule
and the precepts of eating and drinking " to all that are sanc-
tified in Christ Jesus, " q even to all who are to examine
themselves; for 'Met a man examine himself, and so let
him eat of that bread and drink of that cup:" r and that it
was so the custom of the Church, and their doctrine, that all
are to receive the chalice, that there was no scruple made by
the Church concerning it, we are fairly induced to a belief, by
the addition made to the Greek text of 1 Cor. x. 17, by the
vulgar Latin; for whereas it is in the Greek "We all partake
of the same bread," the vulgar Latin adds, "et de uno calice,
and of the same cup." This I the rather note, because the

k Matt. xxvi. 41. ' Matt, xviii. 3. m In 1 Cor. xi.

n Ration, lib. iv. c. 1. Ep. ad Pbilad.

f Sup. 1 Cor. xi. et sup. 2 Cor. horn. 18. <> 1 Cor. i. 1, 2. '1 Cor.xi.



OF THE LAWS OF JESUS CHRIST. 23

Jesuits of Cologne did use this for an argument of the half-
communion ; ' because, when St. Paul had spoken of the con-
secration, he mentions breaking bread, and drinking the cup;
but when he speaks of sumption or participation, he only
mentions the bread :' now supposing that, yet that defect is
supplied by the vulgar Latin, the author of which, knowing
the universal custom of the Church and the doctrine of it,
supplied that out of the sentence of the Church which is not
in the Greek text. Though if it had not been, yet the argu-
ment would have been just nothing, as being a conclusion
drawn from a particular negative in one place; and against
his custom in other places, and besides the institution.

13. For the doctrine and practice of the Church are so no-
torious in this article, that, in the Greek Church, there was
never any variety in it; and to this day it is used, as it was
in the beginning, and in all the intermedial ages : and in the
Latin Church for a thousand years it was not altered ; nay, to
this day the Church of Rome sings in the hymn upon Corpus
Christi day,

Dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum,
Dedit et tristibus salutis poculum,
Dicens, ' Accipite quod trado vasculum :
Omnes ex eo bibite.'

" He gave his body to be the food of the weak, and the cup
of salvation to the sorrowful, saying, ' Take this vessel that
reach unto you, Drink ye all of this.' " Indeed it was often
attempted to be changed upon the interest of divers heresies,
and superstitious fancies, and rare emergencies. For,

14. (1 .) It was attempted to be omitted in the time of St.
Cyprian, when some impertinent people would have water
only ; but not the chalice of the Lord's institution in the
fruit of the vine; but these men's folly went not far, for
being confuted and reproved by St. Cyprian 5 in a letter to his
brother Caecilius, I find no mention of them afterward.

15. (2.) It was attempted to be changed upon occasion
of the Eremites, who, coming but seldom to church, could
but seldom receive the chalice, but desiring more frequently
to communicate, they carried the consecrated bread with
them into their cells; and when they had a mind to it, in
that imperfect manner did imitate the Lord's supper. That

Lib. ii. ep. 3.



24 OF THE INTERPRETATION AND OBLIGATION

they did so is certain, that they had no warrant for so doing
is as certain; and therefore their doing so can be no warrant
to us to do as they did, much less ought it to be pretended
in justification of the denying the chalice to the whole laity,
when they desire it and may have it. However, this unwar-
rantable custom of the Eremites was taken away by the first
Council of Toledo in the year 390, and afterward again for-
bidden in the year 500, by the fathers met in council at
Caesar Augusta. The words of the Council of Toledo* are
these ; " Si quis autem acceptam a sacerdote eucharistiam
non sumpserit, velut sacrilegus propellatur:" but this is more
fully explicated in that of Caesar Augusta; " Eucharistiae
gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in
ecclesia, anathema sit in perpetuum :" so that under the
pain of a perpetual curse, and under the crime of sacrilege,
they were commanded to spend the eucharistical symbols in
the church; and this took from them all pretence of the
necessity in some case of not receiving the chalice.

16. (3.) In the time of Pope Leo I. the Manichees, who
abstained from wine as an abomination, would yet thrust
themselves into the societies of the faithful, and pretend to
be right believers; but St. Leo" discovered them by their
not receiving the chalice in the holy eucharist ; and whereas
they would have received in one kind only, he calls it sacri-
lege; and reproves them with the words of St. Paul; v
" Mark them which cause divisions amongst you, and offences
contrary to the doctrine which ye have received." This was
about the year 449.

17. (4.) Awhile after, about the year 490, some had got-
ten some superstitious fancy by the end ; and, out of reve-
rence to the holy sacrament, or some other device of their
own, they thought it fit to abstain from the consecrated cha-
lice : but Pope Gelasius made short work with them ; he
condemned their superstition, and gave sentence,* " Aut
integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur,"
* Either all or none:' drive them from the holy bread, if they
refuse the sacrament of the Lord's blood.

18. (5.) The Church had sometime, in extraordinary
cases, as in communicating infants or dying people, dipped

1 Can. 14. u Serin. 4. quadragesim.

T Rom. xvi. 17. " Can. Comper. de Consecrat. dist. 2.



OF THE LAWS OF JESUS CHRIST. 25

the holy bread into the chalice, and so ministered the sacra-
ment : upon occasion of which some fell in love with the
trick, and would have had it so in ordinary ministrations:
we find it mentioned in the history of Serapion in Eusebius,
and in St. Cyprian ' 4. de Lapsis,' and in Prosper." But
against this breach Pope Julius opposed himself and stood
in the gap, declaring it to be against the Divine order and
apostolical institutions, and contrary to the doctrine of the
Gospel and of the apostles and the custom of the Church ;
and his words y are remarkable to shew from whence this
article is to be adjusted and determined : " Non difficile hoc
ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur, in qua ordinata ipsa sacra-
mentorum mysteria processerunt ; The very ordination
or institution of the sacrament is the fountain from whence
we are to derive the truth in this inquiry." But when this
superstition was again revived about the year 5SO, the now-
mentioned decree of Pope Julius \vas repeated in the third
Council of Braccara, and all set right again according to the
perpetual custom of the Church, and the institution of our
blessed Lord, and their pretence (which was lest they should
spill any thing of the holy chalice) laid aside as trifling and
superstitious.

19. (6.) And yet after all these motions made by heretics
and superstitious persons, and so many cautions, suppres-
sions, and decrees, against them ; about the year 920, the
order of Cluniac monks did communicate with the bread
dipped in the chalice, as Cassander 2 reports : and about the
year 1120, it was permitted in some churches so to do: for
by this time the world was so rude and ignorant, that they
knew little of the mysteries of religion, and cared less ; so
that, for the danger of effusion of the holy wine, they in some
places chose that expedient : which although it was upon
great reason condemned by Pope Julius and the Council of
Braccara, yet it is a great argument that they still believed
it necessary to communicate under both symbols.

20. (7.) But about the time that the schoolmen began to
rule the chair, this danger of spilling the chalice wrought so
much in their wise heads, that they began, about the year

* De Premiss, c. vi. et xxvi. q. 6, c. 15. in Deer.

i Ep. ad Episc. /Egypt, de Consecrat. dist. 2. can. Cum omne.

1 Lib. ii. c. 35.



26 OF THE INTERPRETATION AND OBLIGATION

1250, in some churches, to leave out all use of the chalice,
excepting to the priests, and some great men who would be
careful not to spill. This was but in ' some churches,' said
Aquinas ; a and it was permitted to all the priests present,
" de quibus prsesumitur quod magis sint cauti :" and to some
grandees of the people too for the same reason, as we find in
Richard Middleton, Innocent IV., and Petrus de Tarantasia.

21. (8.) But by little and little the abuse went further,
and grew confirmed, and miracles pretended and invented,
as Alexander of Ales reports, to stop the outcries of certain
religious, who were extremely troubled at the loss of the
chalice : and now at last it became the general custom of the
Western churches ; and it grew scandalous to desire it ; and
it was established into a doctrine in the Council of Con-
stance, and the institution of Christ and the custom of the
Primitive Church were openly defied, taken notice of, and so
laid aside, and anathema pronounced on them that should
insist upon their right, or deny whole Christ to be under
each kind, in the Council of Trent; and so it abides at this
day.

22. The -question being now reduced to this short issue,
' Whether, under each kind, whole Christ be received?' it is
not unworthy a short inquiry concerning the truth, and
concerning the consequence of it.

23. (1.) For the truth. I consider that the effect of
external rituals and ceremonials cannot be disputed philo-
sophically ; as we inquire into the portions of effect which
every herb hath in an infusion ; but we are to take and use
them in the simplicity of their institution ; leaving them
under that secrecy of their own mysteriousness, in which
they were left in their first appointment and publication.
The apostle explicating the mysteries of our religion, saith,
that " Christ was delivered" (meaning unto death) " for our
sins, and was raised again for our justification ;" b and yet
that " we are justified by his blood. " c Upon these accounts
we can say, that, by Christ's death and by his resurrection,
we are justified, and therefore we are to be partakers of
both ; but because we are 'justified by faith in his blood,' it
will at no hand follow, we may let alone our faith, or neglect

3. part. sum. q. 80. art. it. 4. lib. Sent. dist. 11. art. t. q. 1.
b Rom. iv. 25. c R om . v . 9.



OF THE LAWS OF JESUS CHRIST. 27

to procure our part in his resurrection. So it is in the sym-
bols eucharistical : supposing it had been said of the bread,
* This is Christ,' or ' This is the death of Christ,' and the
same said of the chalice ; yet one alone is not sufficient to be
received, when both are instituted : for as all the mysteries
of our redemption are effective to our pardon and salvation ;
so are both the symbols of the eucharist to our reception of
Christ ; and baptism or absolution may better be pretended
to the exclusion of the whole eucharist than the sufficiency
of bread to the exclusion of the chalice ; for remission of
sins is perfectly the grace of baptism ; and those sins return
not, but in the case of apostasy : but what is the effect of
bread alone, is nowhere told ; but that it is the commemo-
ration or remembrance of the broken body of Christ, and
the communication of that body : but then the chalice is
also the remembrance of Christ's blood poured forth, and
the exhibition of that which is for the remission of sins :
and how these two do work that in us which we hope for,
we know not, but that they work as mysteries and sacra-
ments do work, but not as herbs, or natural agents, that we
may believe.

24. (2.) I consider, that, when Christr appointed to the
two symbols two distinct significations, and that we believe
that the sacraments exhibit to worthy communicants what
they represent to all, it must be certain that all Christ,
that is, that all the benefits of Christ, are not conveyed by
each, which are conveyed by both, because, as they signify,
so they exhibit; but they do not each signify what both
together do. The breaking of the body does not signify the
effusion of the blood; neither does the shedding of the blood
signify the breaking of the body : and to think that the re-
duplication of the symbols is superfluous, is to charge Christ
with impertinence ; and if it be not superfluous, then there
is something of real advantage by both, that is not in each.
I will not venture to assign to each their portion of effect :
for what they have, they have not naturally, but by Divine
donation and appointment; and therefore I will not take
notice, that the same chalice is representative and effective
of union and charity (though that is usual enough in societies
and friendships,

Pylades, Marce, bibebat idem*),

d Mart. vi. 11.



28 OF THE INTERPRETATION AND OBLIGATION

but this I shall observe, that the whole effect of the sacra-
ment is equally attributed to the worthy receiving the chalice
as to that of the bread ; and therefore St. Re my caused these
verses to be written on the chalice,

Hauriat bine populus vitam de sanguine sacro,
InBicto jeternus quern fudit vulnere Christus :

"Let the people from hence draw life issuing from the wounds
of Christ :" now whatsoever effect is attributed to one, is
not in exclusion of the other, but in concomitance with it :
and therefore, as it would be a strange folly to dispute what
benefit we receive by Christ's flesh distinctly, and how much
of our redemption is wrought by his blood, and it could have
no use and no certainty ; so it would be as strange to say
there is so much distinctly in the holy bread, so much in the
wine : and it is worse to attribute to one that which can be
employed to exclude the other : and it is certain there can
be nothing said of advantage that either one or the other
hath: and therefore the chalice may exclude the bread, as
well as the holy bread the chalice, both alike, that is, indeed
neither.

25. But it isto be observed, that, in this inquiry, the
question cannot be concerning the receiving Christ ; but of
receiving the sacraments of Christ, of his body and of his
blood. For we receive Christ in baptism, and we receive
Christ by faith ; and yet nevertheless we are to receive the
sacraments of Christ's body and blood : and therefore sup-



Online LibraryJeremy TaylorThe whole works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor (Volume 13) → online text (page 3 of 61)