Sacraments and Eucharist · Lexicon

From the book

The Anatomy of Melancholy

Robert Burton · Diotimos Editions · 2026

Orientation

At a Glance

The wordSacraments are sacred rites in these passages.
In the Anatomy of MelancholySacramental language does not always introduce doctrinal controversy.
In this editionThe original English “pyx” remains “pyx”; Latin “pixidem auream” becomes “golden pyx.”
A place to readnumerical identity explicitly negated in the river comparison; sacraments as a hypothetical clerical purpose; American rites compared with the Christian pair; pyx, ridicule and pity.

Meaning

Sacraments are sacred rites in these passages. Burton names “ours of Baptism and the Lords Supper” when comparing reported American ceremonies with Christian practice. The Lord’s Supper is the rite at issue in the later discussion of consecrated bread, its container and bodily presence. Eucharist is used here as an explanatory subject name, supported by the edition’s identification of the host as eucharistic bread; it is not presented as an original English word printed in those passages.

The objects and grammatical forms must remain distinct. A pyx is the vessel; the host is the consecrated bread it contains. The Latin paragraph prints “pixidem auream,” golden pyx, and “hostiæ,” of the host. This hostia sense differs from sacrificial victim elsewhere. “Integer” means whole, while “idem corpus numero” identifies the selfsame body, not merely another body of the same kind. The ensuing question joins wholeness in each particle to presence in many locations. (compare)

Use in the book

Sacramental language does not always introduce doctrinal controversy. In the jealousy discussion Burton imagines seeing a monk or friar climb through a bedroom window at midnight and says he would hardly suppose the purpose was to administer sacraments or hear confession. The if and hardly think make this a hypothetical inference, not a witnessed offence. The passage supplies the ordinary clerical-ministration sense while making no systematic statement about the number or classification of sacraments.

The comparison with American rites is quite different. Burton invokes Acosta for temples, priests, sacrifices and ceremonies resembling Christian baptism and the Lord’s Supper, then treats the parallels as the Devil’s imitation of biblical institutions. The likeness is part of his polemical explanatory scheme. European reports are not independent proof of either a supernatural counterfeit or identical meanings in the communities described. The succeeding travellers catalogue gives authorities for reports, not a new definition of sacrament.

The pyx first appears amid a deliberately double response. Burton says he laughs at such practices as kissing it, then weeps at the same people’s self-torment. The next paragraph alternates ridicule of rites and pity for misery, and the next extends that pity to bloodshed. The word identifies a concrete object in the account, but does not make the hostile judgments surrounding it neutral descriptions of the religious traditions grouped together.

Before the sacramental objections, Burton defends mysteries of what he calls true religion: the Trinity, Incarnation and resurrection are apprehended by faith. Gerhard’s “Mirari non rimari” contrasts wondering with probing, and its margin cites a meditation on the Lord’s Supper. Julian’s charge that Christians make understanding slavishly subject to faith is then answered, not endorsed. Burton allows good grounds for belief while denying that faith must wait for certain demonstration. This surrounding argument prevents his later refusal from becoming a general rejection of religious mystery.

The decisive turn is “I will not justifie”: he will not defend “pontificial consubstantiation.” Pontificial here is papal. The wording must remain visible even though the edition explains that the Roman Catholic doctrine under attack is ordinarily called transubstantiation. Burton’s later catalogue actually prints “transubstantions,” which the modern column renders “transubstantiations.” These are two source readings with different local roles, not permission to silently repair the first or claim that the terms are doctrinally interchangeable.

He says Muslims and Jews justly object, and introduces Campanella’s description of the doctrine as most difficult and exceptionally exposed to hostile criticism. The subsequent “Deum in pane manducari,” that God should be eaten in bread, is what those objectors hold impossible. It is an indirect statement, not an instruction to eat. “Vide gentem comedentem Deum suum,” look at a people eating their own God, is assigned to a certain Moor. That particular attribution does not establish that every ensuing Latin objection was spoken by the same person.

The longer objection begins with vulnerability: flies and worms foul and devour, fire and water threaten, thieves steal and throw down the golden vessel. Its grammar distinguishes the pyx from what it contains. It then asks how the deity can be whole “in singulis hostiæ particulis,” in every particle of the host. Every matters: the challenge is not about one privileged fragment or presence in the whole collection alone. The next compressed phrase asks about the numerically same body in so many places, in heaven and on earth. These are reported attacks on bodily presence, not the article’s endorsement of their premises or a complete account of Catholic sacramental teaching.

The distinction between numerical identity and similarity has an instructive comparison elsewhere. In the symptom discussion the place in a river can remain the same while the “numericall water” does not: the water is not the selfsame particular water. That lexical distinction clarifies numero here without making the river an argument Burton explicitly offers against the sacrament. After the Eucharistic objections, he resumes a broad attack on religious texts and traditions and announces a return to particular symptoms. His local change of subject supplies no separate reasoned solution to the question of many locations.

The later dispute over practice also uses the name Communion. Burton attacks rigorists within his own religious camp who reject kneeling at Communion and the sign of the cross at baptism. His objection here is to the removal of those ceremonies, not to the rite of Communion itself. This internal conflict complicates a simple opposition between every Catholic practice condemned and every Protestant objection endorsed. The neighbouring catalogue groups distinct opponents together and includes more limited claims about some of them.

Related entries

Religion and superstition (Religion and superstition), Intellect (Intellect), Reason (Reason), Apprehension (Apprehension), and Sorrow (Sorrow), all Batch 1; Inseparable and individual (Inseparable and individual), Batch 3. Faith, assurance and presumption (Faith, assurance and presumption), Sacrifice, oblation and donaries (Sacrifice, oblation and donaries), and Scripture and interpretation (Scripture and interpretation), Batch 4, distinguish faith from proof, sacrificial victims from consecrated bread, and authority from interpretive distortion.

Places to read

In this edition

The original English “pyx” remains “pyx”; Latin “pixidem auream” becomes “golden pyx.” The latter is an object thrown down, while “hostiæ” supplies “of the host” in the phrase about particles. “Singulis” contributes “every,” “integer” contributes “whole,” and “idem corpus numero” becomes “the selfsame body.” Numero marks particular identity rather than quantity. None of these components alone translates the whole objection.

The original margin “de cœna domin.” becomes “on the Lord’s Supper.” The abbreviation stays printed as an abbreviation; the expanded citation form is only a lookup aid. “Consubstantiation” remains unchanged, with the doctrinal-name problem explained in the note, while “transubstantions” is regularized in the modern column at its own later occurrence. The host-and-pyx definitions and the identification of the book Mus exenteratus are editorial apparatus, not additions to Burton’s Latin. The supplied note warns that the latter work’s attribution does not simply confirm the printed “Hossman.”

sacrament

A sacred rite: Burton names baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the Christian pair to which he compares reported American rites; elsewhere the plural names clerical ministrations in a hypothetical suspicion.

Grammar: English plural noun Sacraments, object of administer or head of a comparison introduced by like.

Access scope (take her confession): Separate equal-scope components in their specific attestations: take her confession/hear her confession is the coordinated clerical action at 146-79; like/resembling and ours/our belong to the comparison at 153-24.

Access scope (like): Separate equal-scope components in their specific attestations: take her confession/hear her confession is the coordinated clerical action at 146-79; like/resembling and ours/our belong to the comparison at 153-24.

Access scope (ours): Separate equal-scope components in their specific attestations: take her confession/hear her confession is the coordinated clerical action at 146-79; like/resembling and ours/our belong to the comparison at 153-24.

Access scope (hear her confession): Separate equal-scope components in their specific attestations: take her confession/hear her confession is the coordinated clerical action at 146-79; like/resembling and ours/our belong to the comparison at 153-24.

Access scope (resembling): Separate equal-scope components in their specific attestations: take her confession/hear her confession is the coordinated clerical action at 146-79; like/resembling and ours/our belong to the comparison at 153-24.

Access scope (our): Separate equal-scope components in their specific attestations: take her confession/hear her confession is the coordinated clerical action at 146-79; like/resembling and ours/our belong to the comparison at 153-24.

Original text: “I shall hardly think he then goes to administer the Sacraments, or to take her confession”. In the modern column: “I shall hardly think he is going there to administer the sacraments or hear her confession”. A supposed monk’s midnight entry by ladder is treated as a reason for suspicion rather than a credible pastoral visit. If I shall see establishes a hypothetical case and hardly think a skeptical inference. It is not a verified event or a doctrinal classification of confession. Sacraments remains sacraments; administer means perform the rites here. Take her confession becomes hear her confession, a separate coordinated action.

Original text: “What strange Sacraments, like ours of Baptism and the Lords Supper”. In the modern column: “What strange sacraments resembling our baptism and the Lord’s Supper”. Burton uses the Christian pair as the standard of comparison for reported American rites. The Acosta-attributed report is folded into Burton’s accusation that the Devil imitates biblical institutions. An accompanying note distinguishes European descriptions from proof of that supernatural explanation. Like becomes resembling; ours becomes our before the two named rites. Resemblance does not establish identical theology or ritual.

the Lord’s Supper

The Christian rite named beside baptism and used as the reference point for the subsequent debate about consecrated bread and bodily presence. Eucharist is a modern access term for this article’s subject, not an original English token asserted at this passage.

Grammar: English possessive noun phrase printed the Lords Supper; coordinated with Baptism. Also English rite-name Communion after at, within a list of allegedly rejected ceremonial practices.

Access scope (Eucharist): Modern subject access supported by the edition’s sacramental identification; not asserted as this passage’s printed original English.

Access scope (Cross in Baptism): The sign accompanying baptism, not a definition of baptism as a whole.

Access scope (sign of the cross at baptism): The sign accompanying baptism, not a definition of baptism as a whole.

Access scope (Cross): The sign accompanying baptism in the negative ceremonial list at 160-15, not a definition of baptism as a whole or the Communion rite.

Access scope (sign of the cross): The sign accompanying baptism in the negative ceremonial list at 160-15, not a definition of baptism as a whole or the Communion rite.

Original text: “ours of Baptism and the Lords Supper”. In the modern column: “our baptism and the Lord’s Supper”. The two Christian rites supply the comparison, not a claim that every rite described has the same meaning. Burton’s Christian first-person our distinguishes his own rites from the rituals he condemns. The Lords Supper corresponds to the Lord’s Supper; Baptism corresponds only to baptism. Eucharist is an editorial access synonym supported by the later note’s eucharistic bread, not a printed word in this quotation.

Original text: “no Cross in Baptism, kneeling at Communion”. In the modern column: “no sign of the cross at baptism, no kneeling at Communion”. Communion names the rite whose kneeling posture Burton says religious rigorists reject; the sign of the cross at baptism is the adjoining separate practice. Burton attacks opponents even within his own religious camp at 160-14. He opposes the alleged rejection of ceremonies, not the sacrament itself; the later some and distinct groups keep the catalogue from a precise universal creed. Communion is retained. The modern repeats no before kneeling to make the negative list explicit; Cross becomes sign of the cross, not the entire baptismal rite.

cœna Domini: Lord’s Supper

The Lord’s Supper, here the subject of Gerhard’s cited meditation.

Grammar: Latin title phrase after de: cœna is ablative singular; domin. is a printed abbreviation of the Lord-reference, not the fully printed form Domini.

Access scope (cœna Domini): Expanded citation form; original prints de cœna domin.

Access scope (Meditat.19.): Bibliographic component identifies Meditation 19; it does not translate cœna or domin.

Access scope (Meditation 19): Bibliographic component identifies Meditation 19; it does not translate cœna or domin.

Original margin: “Meditat.19. de cœna domin.” Supplied note translation or expansion: “Meditation 19, on the Lord’s Supper”. The marginal title places the preceding maxim about wonder and inquiry in a meditation on the sacrament. Original marginal quotation within a Burton-labelled note. The following translation is editorial; the accompanying note identifies Gerhard’s Sacred Meditations without authenticating all the subsequent unnamed Father’s words. The whole bibliography is retained contextually. De gives on, cœna Supper and domin. the Lord’s; Meditat.19. identifies Meditation 19 rather than translating any component of cœna.

pyx

A vessel holding the consecrated host, here an object kissed in a devotional action Burton ridicules.

Grammar: English singular count noun pyx, object of kiss with definite article.

Original text: “to see them kiss the pyx”. In the modern column: “see people kiss the pyx”. The container is named as an object of ritual veneration in Burton’s contrast between religious folly and suffering. Burton’s ridicule shifts in the same sentence to grief at self-torment. The next units continue laughter/pity and violence; the confessional labels are his. Pyx remains pyx; the modern makes people explicit for them. An accompanying note supplies the object’s definition, not an additional assertion by Burton.

pixis

A pyx or container for consecrated bread, here the golden vessel thrown down in a reported objection about the host’s vulnerability.

Grammar: Latin feminine noun pixis, printed accusative singular pixidem as object of prosternunt, with agreeing adjective auream.

Access scope (pixis): Dictionary headword; original here prints accusative pixidem.

Original text: “pixidem auream humi prosternunt”. In the modern column: “throw the golden pyx to the ground”. Thieves are the continuing subject of the action; the pyx is the vessel, not the bread inside it. The whole paragraph is a hostile reported objection, not an eyewitness description. The preceding thieves steal him is distinguished from their throwing down the container. Pixidem gives pyx, auream golden, humi to the ground and prosternunt throw. The English article the is supplied.

hostia: consecrated bread

The consecrated eucharistic bread, distinct here from hostia as a sacrificial victim in a different passage.

Grammar: Latin genitive singular hostiæ dependent on particulis, particles of the host.

Access scope (eucharistic bread): Modern subject access supported by the edition’s sacramental identification; not asserted as this passage’s printed original English.

Original text: “in singulis hostiæ particulis”. In the modern column: “in every particle of the host”. The objection asks how the divine presence can be whole in each small part of the consecrated bread. The question is reported as an objection, not Burton’s neutral explanation of sacramental doctrine. The existing Sacrifice, oblation and donaries record treats hostias as slaughtered victims at 158-21. Hostiæ corresponds to of the host, not to the entire every-particle phrase. An accompanying note defines the host; singulis and particulis carry the distribution over parts.

pontificial consubstantiation

The printed name Burton gives the papal sacramental doctrine he refuses to defend; the edition flags that the Roman Catholic doctrine under attack is ordinarily termed transubstantiation.

Grammar: English noun consubstantiation modified by adjective pontificial; object of the negative I will not justifie.

Access scope (justifie): Justifie means defend in the explicit negative I will not justifie; it is not a claim that Burton defends this doctrine.

Access scope (defend): Justifie means defend in the explicit negative I will not justifie; it is not a claim that Burton defends this doctrine.

Original text: “I will not justifie that pontificial consubstantiation”. In the modern column: “I will not defend that papal consubstantiation”. The refusal follows a defence of Christian mysteries received by faith. The word is preserved as printed. An accompanying note identifies the mismatch with the doctrine ordinarily called transubstantiation; this record is not a generalized account of either term’s full historical theology. Justifie gives defend, pontificial papal, and consubstantiation is deliberately retained rather than silently emended.

transubstantions

The printed shortened or irregular form rendered transubstantiations in the edition, appearing among doctrines Burton alleges scholastic defenders protect by ingenious argument.

Grammar: English plural noun transubstantions in a coordinated object list after defend.

Access scope (transubstantiation): Normalized lookup route, not the printed form at 160-06.

Access scope (transubstantiations): Normalized lookup route, not the printed form at 160-06.

Original text: “miracles, transubstantions, traditions, Popes pardons, Purgatories, Masses, impossibilities”. In the modern column: “miracles, transubstantiations, traditions, papal pardons, purgatories, masses, impossibilities”. The later catalogue provides a distinct printed form rather than a correction inserted into 157-28. An accompanying note explicitly retains the source form on the original side. Burton’s inclusion among impossibilities is polemical, not the lexicon’s evaluation. Transubstantions alone corresponds to transubstantiations; adjacent doctrines and insults remain separate items.

eating God: reported objection

Two related constructions state the objectors’ claim that the sacrament involves eating God and their mocking invitation to look at its practitioners.

Grammar: Latin accusative-and-infinitive Deum... manducari, with Deum as subject of passive infinitive; separate imperative vide governs gentem with active participle comedentem and object Deum suum.

Original text: “Deum in pane manducari”. In the modern column: “that God should be eaten in bread”. The construction is the proposition the preceding they hold impossible. They refers to the opponents introduced in 157-28. Their impossibility claim is reported by Burton after his own refusal to defend the doctrine. Deum is the subject of should be eaten, in pane gives in bread. The passive should be eaten renders manducari within the English indirect statement, not an instruction that anyone should eat.

Original text: “vide gentem comedentem Deum suum”. In the modern column: “Look at a people eating their own God”. A certain Moor is named as the speaker of this mocking imperative. Quidam specifies an unnamed individual, not all Muslims. The next Latin paragraph continues objections, but is not securely assigned throughout to that same speaker. Vide gives Look at, gentem a people, comedentem eating, and Deum suum their own God; own marks the relation to the people, not to the observer.

integer in singulis hostiæ particulis

Whole in every individual particle of the host: the distribution of an undivided presence over all the parts questioned by the objector.

Grammar: Latin predicate adjective integer with subjunctive sit under Qui fieri potest ut; singulis is distributive ablative plural agreeing with particulis.

Original text: “Qui fieri potest, ut sit integer in singulis hostiæ particulis”. In the modern column: “How can he be whole in every particle of the host”. The objection concerns wholeness in each part, not merely presence somewhere in the collected bread. The interrogative challenges possibility and must not be recast as Burton’s unqualified doctrinal assertion. The quoted deity is the subject of sit; hostiæ is genitive, not its subject. Integer gives whole; singulis contributes every, particulis particle, and hostiæ of the host. English singular particle idiomatically renders the Latin distributive plural.

idem corpus numero

The numerically same body, the selfsame individual body rather than several bodies of one kind.

Grammar: Latin neuter nominative singular idem corpus, with numero as an ablative of respect, in number or numerical identity.

Access scope (cœlo): Separate place components within the question about bodily location: cœlo gives in heaven; terra gives on earth.

Access scope (terra): Separate place components within the question about bodily location: cœlo gives in heaven; terra gives on earth.

Access scope (in heaven): Separate place components within the question about bodily location: cœlo gives in heaven; terra gives on earth.

Access scope (on earth): Separate place components within the question about bodily location: cœlo gives in heaven; terra gives on earth.

Original text: “idem corpus numero, tam multis locis, cœlo, terra”. In the modern column: “the selfsame body in so many places, in heaven and on earth”. After the whole-in-each-particle question, the objection challenges one body’s presence at many locations. The Latin has no repeated finite verb in this compressed continuation; the modern connects it to the preceding question with a dash. The distinct river example elsewhere negates selfsame water and is not an attestation of this Eucharistic claim. Idem corpus numero together gives the selfsame body; numero sharpens identity, not a number of bodies. Tam multis locis gives in so many places; cœlo, terra names heaven and earth.

mirari non rimari

To wonder rather than probe: the maxim contrasts reverent admiration with searching examination in matters of faith.

Grammar: Latin present deponent infinitives mirari and rimari; non negates rimari in the corrective wordplay, and sapientia vera est supplies the predicate.

Original text: “Mirari non rimari sapientia vera est”. In the modern column: “To wonder, not to probe, is true wisdom”. Gerhard’s maxim supports Burton’s defence of mysteries accepted by faith before the later sacramental refusal. The marginal source names a meditation on the Lord’s Supper. The following good Father is unnamed and should not automatically be identified with Gerhard. Burton later also affirms good reasons for belief. Mirari gives to wonder and rimari to probe; non belongs to the second term. True wisdom corresponds to sapientia vera, not to either infinitive alone.

Earlier explanation: apprehended alone by faith

Earlier explanation: apprehend · apprehended · local use 1

For apprehended alone by faith, see Apprehension.

Earlier explanation: intellectum

Earlier explanation: intellectus · intellectum · local use 1

For intellectum, see Intellect.

Earlier explanation: good reasons

Earlier explanation: reason · reasons · local use 2

For good reasons, see Reason.

Earlier explanation: condole their misery

Earlier explanation: condole

For condole their misery, see Sorrow.

Earlier explanation: numericall

Earlier explanation: numerical

For numericall, see Inseparable and individual.

Access scope (numericall): River comparison only: same place but not the selfsame water. Not an assertion that the Eucharistic body changes like river water.

Access scope (numerical): River comparison only: same place but not the selfsame water. Not an assertion that the Eucharistic body changes like river water.

Access scope (the same numericall water): River comparison only: same place but not the selfsame water. Not an assertion that the Eucharistic body changes like river water.

Access scope (the very same water): River comparison only: same place but not the selfsame water. Not an assertion that the Eucharistic body changes like river water.

For hostias, see Sacrifice, oblation and donaries.

Access scope (hostias): Sacrificial victims at 158-21, not the consecrated-bread sense at 157-30.

Access scope (victims): Sacrificial victims at 158-21, not the consecrated-bread sense at 157-30.

Access scope (sacrificial victims): Sacrificial victims at 158-21, not the consecrated-bread sense at 157-30.