The Lords Supper When Bread or Wine is Wanting, Part 1 – Part 2
An application of the Precedent Obſervations to the particular Caſe propoſed, concerning the Partie that cannot take the bread of the Sacrament.
IN this diſcuſſion of the different opinions, concerning the receiving of the Sacrament, where either the matter (wherein it was at the Inſtitution firſt Adminiſtred) cannot be had, or the meanes of orall eating or drinking is denyed; I have beene the more large: becauſe all that I have met withall (who have medled with the doubt) I have found too ſhort, to give an inquiſitive minde, or a ſcrupulous conſcience, due ſatisfaction: and for that (beſides the particular Quaere, touching the Maid that can take no bread) there be other difficulties, concerning imperfect Communion, which may perplexe others, as much as this doth her, and which (being cleared) prepare the way of reſolution for the point in hand: touching which, the reſultancie of the precedent diſcourſe, drawne up in particular obſervations may be this,
That though there be moſt diſpute betwixt us and the Papiſts, upon the with-holding of the Cuppe of the holy Communion, in the thing it ſelf, there is no more neceſſitie held (by either ſide) of the uſe of the one element, then of the other: nor is Chriſt leſſe preſent to the faithfull, in the one, then in the other, though methinks (beſides other advantages on our part) this is of no ſmall moment, that they have made choice of the bread rather then the wine in their halfe Communion: whereas (with more probabilitie of reaſon) they might have pleaded for an halfe communion in wine, then in bread, both becauſe,
Our Saviour ſaid expreſſely, Mat. 26.27.Drinke ye all of this, and ſaid not ſo of the bread, Eat ye all of this, (though he meant no leſſe.)
Becauſe that the Blood of Chriſt (not ſo much as it is in the body, as let out of the Veines, and made potable liquor) is the proper meanes of the remiſſion of our ſinnes, Heb. 9.22.without which there is no remiſſion.
Becauſe in the blood, is the life of the creature, yea, it is called life it ſelf, and is diffuſed all over the body, being the purer part of the nouriſhment (which we receive) whereof are produced the Spirits, which quicken the whole man in the motion and operation of all his parts, and faculties: ſo that (in this reſpect) her caſe is in my conceit more comfortable (who can take no bread, if ſhee can drinke the wine) then theirs, who (contrariwiſe) are diſpoſed to a drie Communion, and not to a moiſt, who can eate the bread, but cannot drink the wine of the Sacrament.
That what is reſolved to be lawfully done, in the want of either bread, or wine, the ſame may be done by way of reliefe to thoſe whoſe Antipathy or diſabilitie to receive, maketh it all one to them, as if it could not be had at all.
That if the partie cannot take ordinary Sacramentall bread, but can take Almond bread (which is the beſt of thoſe things that are Analoga to bread of Corne, and is compoſed of feweſt ſimples, and which (as in quantitie, ſo in uſe) is many times made like our uſuall bread, and preſented with wine for preſent entertainment of gueſts or friends: and Laſtly, which is for the chiefe matter of it: the iAlmonds are of good temperature, for heat and moyſture, and of wholſome and pure juice. Venner, via recta, ad vitam longam. pag. 136.Almond is much commended by the Phiſitian, or ordinary Communion bread moiſtned with wine (as in the Communion of the ſicke, hath been anciently allowed, as before I have ſhewed) I make no great doubt, but that kind of bread, and the wine of the Communion Cup, would become ſufficient materialls for both a lawfull and comfortable Sacrament to the receiver.
But that, wherein I am more confident (upon ſerious penſitation of all particulars) is, that it were beſt for her (if indeed ſhe be ſo averſe from all uſe of bread) to take and taſte of the Cup onelyonly, and to take the bread into her hand, and thereby, and therewithall to teſtifie, that nothing but her Antipathy to bread, keepeth her from conformitie with the preſent Church: which anſwereth the ſecond part of the Canon of the French Church, concerning this matter. But it will not be ſafe for the Miniſter to take up ſuch a new manner of Adminiſtration of the Sacrament, without conſulting with the Biſhop of the Dioceſſe, who is to give leave and order, for that I have conceived to be convenient in this caſe, if he approve it, which I conceive hee will.
Becauſe (as before hath been obſerved) to debarre any from the Communion wholly (who earneſtly deſire it) becauſe they can take it, but in part, ſeemeth not to ſuite with the charitie of the Church.
I ſuppoſe, he will not be forward to ſubſtitute an other Element, in ſtead of that which cannot be had, or cannot be taken, and if neither of theſe, the third will follow.
For ſuch receiving in one kinde only, I think he will reſolve the rather, becauſe though the Communion be a common union of the faithfull, with Chriſt, and of Chriſtians, with one another, and ſo neceſſarily require a number, to Communicate with the miniſter, that except there be foure, or three (at the leaſt) to joyne with him, there muſt be no communion, by the direction of the Rubrick: yet (in caſe of neceſſitie) the Church diſpenſeth with the defect of that (indeed too) ſmall number, and thus reſolveth in the Communion of the ſick, In time of Plague, ſweate, or ſuch other like contagious times of Sickneſſe, or Diſeaſes, when none of the pariſh, or neighbors can be gotten, to Communicate with the ſick, in their houſes (for feare of infection) upon ſpeciall requeſt of the diſeaſed, the Miniſter may be a lonely Communicant with him: and as by a neceſſary defect of number, one Miniſter (in this caſe) ſtands for three others, ſo by the like neceſſitie, one element may ſtand for two: and this rather then that, becauſe whole Chriſt is preſent to the faithfull, in receiving either of the Elements, but three Laie-men are not, nor can be preſent in one perſon, whether Miniſter, or any other.
But if for all this, upon ſome eſpeciall reaſon (which my ſhallowneſſe doth not conceive) all participation of the Sacrament ſhould be forbidden, or denied, to ſuch a one as cannot entirely take it in both Elements, as others doe: yet the partie needeth not be troubled, ſince our Church her ſelfe hath reſolved in the Communion of the Sick, that if any perſon, by extremitie of ſickneſſe, or for want of warning to the Curate in due time, or for lacke of companie to receive with him, or by any other juſt impediment, doe not receive the Sacrament of Chriſts bodie and blood, if he truly repent him of all his ſinnes, and ſtedfaſtly beleeve that Chriſt ſuffered for him: hee doth eate and drinke the body and blood of Chriſt profitably to his ſouls health, although he doe not receive the Sacrament with his mouth.
Of Manus Chriſti.
THerefore no need of Manus Chriſti for Corpus Chriſti, and as I conceive, there is no warrant for it, becauſe it is compounded of many Ingredients (none of which is either bread, or any thing that is Analogicall to it, as Sugar, Roſewater, prepared Pearle, and leafe Gold) Chriſts Word, any his Churches word is better warrant, Manus Chriſti.then Chriſts hand (in this ſence) to reſolve the conſcience of ſuch as doubt: to the ſatisfaction whereof, if that I have ſaid doe any ſervice, let praiſe be given to God; and a prayer put up for him whom he is pleaſed to uſe (though a weake and unworthy inſtrument:) to ſuch a purpoſe.
Cheſter: Monday 16. of January. 1636. Yours much obliged in love and obſervance. J. L.
Feb. 9. 1640.
Imprimatur,
THO. WYKES.
End of the text · John Ley, The Lords Supper When Bread or Wine is Wanting (1641)