Skip to main content

'They eat not his flesh, and they drink not his blood': Jeremy Taylor's rejection of the manducatio impiorum

Jeremy Taylor in The Worthy Communicant - Chapter III, Section V 'Of the proper and specific Work of Faith in the Reception of the Holy Communion' - providing a robust statement of a distinctive of Reformed eucharistic theology, the rejection of the manducatio impiorum:

If the manducation of Christ's flesh and drinking his blood be spiritual, and done by faith, and is effected by the Spirit, and that this faith signifies an entire dedition [i.e. surrender] of ourselves to Christ, and sanctification of the whole man to the service of Christ, then it follows, that the wicked do not communicate with Christ, they eat not his flesh, and they drink not his blood: they eat and drink indeed; but it is gravel in their teeth, and death in their belly; they eat and drink damnation to themselves. For unless a man be a member of Christ, unless Christ dwells in him by a living faith, he does not eat the bread that came down from heaven. "They lick the rock," saith St. Cyprian, "but drink not the waters of its emanation"; "They receive the skin of the sacrament, and the bran of the flesh", saith St. Bernard. But it is in this divine nutriment, as it is in some fruits; the skin is bitterness, and the inward juice is salutary and pleasant; the outward symbols never bring life, but they can bring death; and they of whom it can be said according to the expression of St. Austin, "they eat no spiritual meat, but they eat the sign of Christ," must also remember what old Simeon said of his prophecy of Christ, "He is a sign, set for the fall of many;" but his flesh and blood, spiritually eaten, is resurrection from the dead.

Taylor's final words in this extract emphasise the 'high' sacramental meaning of the Reformed denial of manducatio impiorum. Those "void of a lively faith" do not partake of Christ in the Lord's Supper precisely because feeding on Him in the Sacrament "is resurrection from the dead" - it is impossible to partake of Christ and not know salvation, resurrection, and life everlasting.

Labels:

Comments

  1. Clint26 October 2025 at 17:47

    If the priest has to have the intent to confect the sacrament for it to be valid, why not the recipient?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. laudable Practice7 November 2025 at 14:41

      Thanks, Clint. It is an interesting perspective and one definitely worth reflecting upon. Another way of looking at it is by emphasising how the Sacrament is dependent upon the Word of Christ. Just as that Word of Christ spoken by the ordained minister assures us of the truth and reality of the Sacraments, so it is also precisely because that Word is sure and faithful, that partaking of Christ in the Sacrament must necessarily mean the forgiveness of the sins, renewal, and healing for communicants.

      Brian.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders.  With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter.  The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition).  Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical).  Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...
25 comments
Read more

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.  A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics".  Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics.  What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition.  Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...
19 comments
Read more

1928 practices and the 1979 book: unthinking conservatism or popular piety?

Those responsible for Earth & Altar - a new blog emanating from a group within TEC - are to be congratulated for an excellent contribution to wider Anglican discussion and debate. The commitment to "an expansively conceived credal orthodoxy as fully compatible with LGBTQ inclusion, gender equality, and racial justice" is an important part of a wider retrieval of creedal orthodoxy within what we might call the post-liberal generation. It is in this spirit that I want to respond to a recent post on the site by Andrew McGowan , Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and Professor of Anglican Studies at Yale Divinity School.  Against the background of another round of "ill-defined" liturgical revision in TEC, he understandably urges that a fuller reception of the 1979 BCP should occur before further reforms. In doing so, however, he takes aim at what he describes as "clinging to the ritual structures of 1928" while using the text of 1979.  We ...
2 comments
Read more