Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist, Imprimatur – Preface
Imprimatur,
Liber cui titulus [A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church, relating to the Euchariſt, &c.]
H. Maurice, Reverndiſſimo in Chriſto P. D. Wilhelmo Archiepiſcopo Cant. à Sacris. Octob. 6. 1687.
A FULL VIEW OF THE Doctrines and Practices OF THE Ancient Church Relating to the EUCHARIST.
Wholly different from thoſe of The Preſent ROMAN CHURCH, And inconſiſtent with the Belief of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
BEING A ſufficient Confutation of Conſenſus Veterum, Nubes Teſtium, and other Late Collections of the Fathers, pretending the contrary.
Rectum eſt Index ſui & Obliqui.
LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiſwell at the Roſe and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard. MDCLXXXVIII.
A PREFACE to the READER.
THAT which is here offered to thy Peruſal, was occaſioned by ſome late Pamphlets *Succeſſion of Church and Sacraments. Conſenſus Veterum. Nubes Teſtium., that appeared, much about the ſame time, in Print, pretending by a Heap of Teſtimonies from the Fathers to prove, as in ſome other Doctrines, ſo particularly in that of the Corporal Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, That the Ancient Church, and the preſent Roman, are at a good Agreement.
It is very hard for Us to believe this, and ſcarce credible that they themſelves did ſo, when we ſee ſo much Unſincerity in their Allegations; ſuch Deceit and contrived diſguiſing the Senſe of the Fathers, in their Tranſlations; ſuch late, uncertain, and ſuppoſititious Writings cited by them, under the Venerable Names of Ancient Authors: When the way that Procruſtes took, of ſtretching Limbs, or chopping them off, to make all agree to his Bed who were to be laid in it, is uſed to make the Ancient and the Preſent Church to agree, a Conſent thus procured can occaſion but a ſhort and a ſorry Triumph. Yet thoſe Performances have been cry'd up, and they are look'd upon as Storehouſes and Repoſitories, whence any Champion of theirs who enters the Liſts, may be furniſh'd from the Fathers, either with what is neceſſary for his own Defence, or the aſſailing of an Adverſary. The Repreſenter, ſince that, made great uſe of them, in a brisk Attaque he made upon the Dublin Letter, tho' the Succeſs, I believe, did not anſwer his Expectation. The Convert of Putney's Performance (who in his Conſenſus Veterum made the largeſt Shew of Fathers on behalf of Tranſubſtantiation) has had a particular Conſideration given it, by his worthy Anſwerer *Veteres Vindicati.: And ſo all the other Teſtimonies in the reſt of them, that are of any ſeeming ſtrength and moment, have received Anſwers to them from other Hands; particularly from the Learned Author of The Doctrine of the Trinity and Tranſubſtantiation compared, Part 1.
If any thing, after all, ſeems to be wanting on our Part, it is this; That as our Adverſaries have made a Shew of Fathers (for I can give it no better name) pretended to countenance their Doctrines of the Corporal Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation; ſo we alſo ought to have our Collection of Teſtimonies from the Ancients, made faithfully and impartially, wherein their true Senſe in theſe Matters may be clearly ſeen and viewed, and thereby their Diſſent from this Church appear plainly, in thoſe things that either conſtitute this Doctrine, or are neceſſary Conſequents of it. And this is that which I have undertaken in the following Papers; wherein as the Uſefulneſs of the Deſign has encourag'd me to take ſome Pains, ſo I ſhall think them well beſtowed, if the Reader will bring an honeſt and unprejudic'd Mind to the Peruſal of them, and ſuffer himſelf to be determin'd in his Opinions concerning this Controverſie, according to the Evidence of Truth here offered for his Conviction. If the Differences (which the annexed Contents of the Chapters give an Account of) are of ſuch a Nature, and ſtand at ſuch a wide Diſtance, that it's impoſſible ever to bring Tranſubſtantiation to ſhake Hands with them as Friends; and if the two Churches, the Ancient and the Preſent Roman, are really divided and diſagreeing, as I pretend to have demonſtrated, in thoſe Points, it will then I hope hereafter be ridiculous, to talk confidently of a Conſent of Fathers, and of a Cloud of Witneſſes on their Side.
But if I am herein miſtaken, I am ſo little tender of my Reputation, compared with Truth, that I heartily deſire to be confuted and made a Convert; for I am conſcious to my ſelf of no falſe Fathers I have cited for true ones; of no diſguiſing or perverting their Senſe, by an Ill Tranſlation of their Words; (which I have therefore ſet down in their own Language) of no impoſing upon the Reader a Senſe of my own making, contrary to what I believe that they intended.
I have but one Requeſt more to make to the unknown Author of a Book intituled, Reaſon and Authority, &c. who mentioning the Defence of the Dublin Letter *Pag. 119.(for which I have ſome reaſon to be concern'd) ſays, That the Authorities of the Fathers there urged are, as he conceives, in the Senſe of them, either miſtaken or miſapplied, and that he ſhall endeavour to reconcile them to other Expreſſions of the Fathers, and to (that which he calls) the Catholick Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation. I humbly deſire, when he is about this Reconciling Work, and his Hand is in, that he would go on to reconcile alſo the Differences urged in the following Papers. Which if he ſhall do to any purpoſe, I promiſe to return the Complements he has paſs'd upon that Defender with Intereſt, and to alter my preſent Opinion of him, upon his Performances in that Book.
Farewell.