Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist, Table of contents – Errata
THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS.
BEING A Summary of the DIFFERENCES betwixt the FAITH and PRACTICES of the Two Churches.
CHAP. I. The Firſt Difference. The Roman Church aſſerts perpetual Miracles in the Euchariſt: The Ancient Church owns none but thoſe of God's Grace, working Changes in us, not in the Subſtance of the Elements. Page 1
CHAP. II. The Second Difference. They differ in determining what that Thing is which Chriſt calls My Body; which the Ancient Church ſays is Bread, but the Roman Church denies it. Page 7
CHAP. III. The Third Difference. The Roman Church believes, That Accidents ſubſiſt in the Euchariſt without any Subject: This the Fathers deny. Page 12
CHAP. IV, The Fourth Difference. The Roman Church uſes the Word Species, to ſignifie thoſe ſelf-ſubſiſting Accidents: the Fathers never take Species in this Senſe. Page 16
CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference. The Fathers differ from this Church about the Properties of Bodies; as,
1. They aſſert, That every organiz'd Body, even that of Chriſt, is viſible and palpable. Page 21
2. That every Body poſſeſſes a Place, and is commenſurate to it, and cannot be in more Places than one, nor be entire in one Part, nor exiſt after the manner of a Spirit. All which Tranſubſtantiation denies. Page 22
3. That it is impoſſible for one to dwell in himſelf, or partake of ones ſelf; this inferring Penetration of Dimenſions, and that a greater Body may be contained in a leſſer; which the Fathers deny. Page 29
CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference. The Roman Church teaches us to disbelieve the Report of our Senſes, which tell us, That Bread and Wine remain in the Euchariſt: The Fathers urge this Evidence, even with relation to Chriſt's true Body. Page 31
Object. The Fathers call upon us not to believe our Senſes in the Caſe of the Eucharist.
Anſw.
1. The Fathers appeal to our Senſes in this Caſe. Page 39
2. They call upon Men not to regard their Information, in Matters wherein none queſtion the Truth of their Information. ibid.
3. The true Reaſon why the Fathers call us off from liſtning to our Senſes, is, to make us regard and attend to things beyond their Information. Page 40
A Place of S. Cyril of Jeruſalem, and another of S. Chryſoſtome, explain'd. Page 42
CHAP. VII. The Seventh Difference. When the Fathers call the Euchariſt Chriſt's Body and Blood, the Roman Church underſtands it of Chriſts Natural Body; but the Fathers mean it commonly of the Bread and Wine. Several Obſervables from the Fathers, to explain and prove this; as,
1 Obſ. They tell us of their ſtudiouſly concealing the Myſteries from ſome Perſons. Page 44
2 Obſ. The Fathers, in their manner of ſpeaking concerning Chriſt's Body, point at another thing than his Natural Body. Page 46
3 Obſ. They ſpeak of Christ's Body with Terms of Reſtriction and Diminution. Page 48
4 Obſ. They give us Reaſons why it is call'd Chriſt's Body, (which none do for calling things by their Proper Names) from its Reſemblance and Repreſentation. Page 49
5 Obſ. What they call Chriſt's Body, they ſay is without Life or Senſe. Page 51
6 Obſ. They ſpeak of Diviſions and Parts of it, not to be affirmed of his Natural Body. Page 52
7 Obſ. They ſpeak of making Chriſt's Body, differently from the Senſe of the Roman Church. Page 54
They affirm, 1. That whatſoever is made, was not before it was made. Page 55
2. That Bread is made his Body, and that it is made of Bread and Wine Page 55, 56
They call it ſometimes Myſtical Bread, ſometimes Chriſt's Myſtical Body. Page 57
8 Obſ. They ſpeak of Chriſt's Body as ſanctified and ſacrificed in the Euchariſt, which is only true of his Typical Body. Page 58
The Natural Body of Christ cannot be ſanctified nor ſacrificed properly. Page 59
CHAP. VIII. The Eighth Difference. When the Fathers mention a Change and Converſion in the Euchariſt, the Roman Church underſtands ſuch a Change as aboliſhes the Subſtance of Bread and Wine: The Fathers never underſtand it ſo. Page 62
Several Aſſertions of the Fathers to explain this.
1 Aſſert. They diſtinguiſh between the Converſion of a thing, and its aboliſhing. ibid.
2 Aſſert. When they ſpeak of a Converſion into what was before, they ſuppoſe an Acceſſion and Augmentation of that into which the Change is made. Page 63
3 Aſſert. The Fathers uſe the ſame Terms of Converſion, Paſſing into, Becoming another thing, &c. in other Caſes beſides that of the Euchariſt, wherein all confeſs no Change of Subſtances is made. Page 65
Some Axioms of the Fathers to this purpoſe. ibid.
Their Inſtances of ſuch Changes given, in Nature, in Regeneration, in Christ's Incarnation, our Reſurrection, in Baptiſm, wherein the Change, however expreſt, can be only in Qualities. Page 65, 66, 67
4 Aſſert. The Fathers, by a Change in the Euchariſt, mean either a Change into a Sacrament, or that of Efficacy and Virtue, by infuſing and adding Grace. Page 69, 70
5 Aſſert. They expreſs as fully, and in the ſame mann…r, our ſubſtantial Change into Chriſt's Body, as of the Bread into Chriſt's Body. Page 72
CHAP. IX. The Ninth Difference. The Roman Church aſſerts a ſubſtantial Preſence of Chriſt's Natural Body in the Euchariſt, which the Fathers deny. Page 74
Several Poſitions of the Fathers to this purpoſe.
1 Poſ. The Fathers look upon Chriſt's Body as abſent from Earth ſince his Aſcenſion; tho' in another ſenſe he is preſent still. ibid.
2 Poſ. They diſtinguiſh the preſence of Chriſts Body from the Sacrament of it, which they make to be a memorial of him as gone away. Page 77, 78
3 Poſ. Whatſoever preſence of Chriſt the Fathers ſpeak of in the Euchariſt, they acknowledge the ſame in Baptiſm, and as fully. Page 79, 80
They ſpeak of thoſe Waters as turned into Blood, of our being Baptized in Blood, and yet neither they, nor any elſe, dream'd of Tranſubſtantiation. Page 82
4 Poſ. They ſo conſider the preſence of Chriſts Body in the Euchariſt, as can no way agree to his glorified Body. Page 83
5 Poſ. According to them, the Preſence of Christs Body to us now, is a preſence to our Faith, a preſence of Union, Efficacy and Grace. Page 85
What foul play the Romaniſts have uſed with an Author that deny'd this. Page 90
An Account of a late Learned Diſſertation concerning Chriſts Body and Blood, occaſion'd by a doubt propoſed to S. Auſtin. Page 91
CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference. The Fathers aſſert poſitively, that the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine remain after Conſecration, which the R. Church denies. Page 93
Proved by their aſſerting, that Chriſt offered the ſame oblation with Melchiſedek. Page 101
Fraction in the Euchariſt can only agree to the Bread. Page 103
CHAP. XI. The Eleventh Difference. The Fathers make the Bread and Wine to be the Sacrament, Sign, Figure, Type, Antitype, Image, &c. of Chriſts Body and Blood, which Tranſubſtantiation contradicts. Page 105
Inſtances of the particulars. Their calling it a Sacrament. ibid. Signs. 106. Types. 107. Antitypes. ibid. A Figure. 108. Image. 110.
Further Remarks of the Fathers confirming the Argument, as
1 Remark. They ſay an Image, Figure, &c. cannot be the thing it ſelf. Page 111
2 Rem. That an Image, Type, &c. must viſibly demonſtrate that, of which it is an Image, Type, &c. Page 112
3 Rem. They make the Elements to be the Signs, Symbols, &c. of Chriſt as abſent. Page 113
Some Paſſages out of the old Liturgy in Bertram's time. Page 114
The Doctrine of the Chriſtians of St. Thomas in the Eaſt-Indies, confirming the ſame. Page 115
CHAP. XII. The Twelfth Difference. The Fathers aſſert that Christs Body is not eaten Corporally and Carnally, but only ſpiritually. Whereas the Rom. Church teaches a Corporal Eating of Chriſts Body. Page 116
Berengarius's Recantation ſuppoſes this in the most literal ſenſe. ibid.
Tho' this ſenſe was oppoſed afterwards. 117. Yet all Rom. agree that Chriſts Natural Body is taken into ours. 118. How long they aſſert it makes its ſtay there. ibid. Horrid Caſes how reſolved. 119. What the Fathers call underſtanding things Carnally. 120. That they oppoſed the literal and carnal eating of Christ's Body. Page 121, 122, 123.
Conſiderations proving they did not ſo underſtand it.
1 Conſid. They ſay we partake of Christs Body in Baptiſm, which can be only ſpiritually. Page 125
2 Conſid. They distinguiſh eating Christs true Body from the Sacramental. Page 126
3 Conſid. They aſſert, that the Fathers under the Old Teſt. did eat the ſame ſpiritual meat with us, becauſe they ate it by Faith. Page 127
4 Conſid. They repreſent Chriſts Body as dead, and that ſo it muſt be taken: Ergo ſpiritually. Page 128
Two remarkable ſayings of S. Auſtin to prove all this. Page 130
CHAP. XIII. The Thirteenth Difference. The Fathers aſſert, that the Faithful only eat Chriſts Body and drink his Blood, not the wicked: the Ro. Church extends it to both. Page 131
The Church of Rome will have not only the wicked but bruit Creatures to eat it. Page 132
The Cautions of the Maſs ſuppoſe this. ibid.
The Fathers will not allow the wicked to partake of Chriſts Body. Page 133
Two remarkable Teſtimonies of St. Auſtin. Page 136
CHAP. XIV. The Fourteenth Difference. The different practices and uſages of the two Churches, argue their different opinions about the Euchariſt. Page 137
Eight Inſtances of their differing practices given.
1 Inſtance. The Ancient Church excluded Catechumens Penitents, &c. from being preſent at the Myſteries, enjoining all preſent to communicate. ibid.
In the Ro. Ch. any may be Spectators, tho' none receive but the Prieſt. Page 139
2 Inſt. The old practice was to give the Communion in both kinds. Page 140
Tranſubſtantiation made this practice ceaſe. 141. New devices for ſecurity againſt profaning Chriſts Blood. Page 142
No reaſon why the Fathers have not been as cautious in this as the Ro. Church, but their different belief. Page 143
3 Inſt. The Elevation of the Hoſt that all may adore it, the Roman practice. Page 145
This not uſed in the firſt Ages at all; when uſed afterwards, not for Adoration. Page 145, 146
4. Inſt. The Rom. Church allows not the people to receive the Sacrament with their Hands, but all is put by the Prieſt into their Mouths, contrary to the Ancient Practice. Page 147
5 Inſt. The Anc. Church uſed Glaſs Cups for the Wine; which would be criminal now. Page 148
6 Inſt. They mixed of old the Conſecr. Wine with Ink, which would now be abhorr'd. Page 149
7 Inſt. In the Reſervation of the Euchariſt: Three differences herein conſider'd.
1 Difference. The Anc. Church took no care to reſerve what was not received in the Euchariſt: but the Ro. Church reſerves all. 151, &c. 2 Differ. What had been publickly received, the Anc. Church allowed liberty to reſerve privately. 156. The preſent Ch. in no caſe allows ſuch private reſervation. 157. 3. Differ. They put what was ſo reſerved to ſuch uſes of old, as the Ro. Church would think profane. Page 157, 158, &c.
8 Inſt. The infinite ſollicitous caution to prevent accidents in the adminiſtration of the Sacrament; their frights and ſtrange expiations when they happen, all unknown, and ſtrangers to the Ancient Church. 160, &c. Which is proved poſitively, from the continued practice of Communicating Infants, till Tranſubſtantiation aboliſhed it. Page 165
This ſtill a practice in the Eastern Churches, that ſubmit not to the Roman Church. Page 167
CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference. About their Prayers in two particulars. 1. That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Maſs, agree not with the Faith of the now Ro. Church. Page 168
2. That their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no Example in the Anc. Church. Page 175
CHAP. XVI. The Sixteenth Difference. That our ancient Saxon Church differ'd from the preſent Rom. Church in the Article of the corporal preſence. Page 182, &c.
The Saxon Eaſter-Sermon produc'd as a Teſtimony againſt them. Page 183, 184, &c.
Two Epiſtles of Elfric the Abbot, declare againſt that Doctrine. Page 187, 188.
A Remarkable Teſtimony alſo of Rabanus Archbiſhop of Mentz alledged. Page 189
CHAP. XVII. The Concluſion of the whole. Shewing, that Heathens and Jews reproached not the Ancient Chriſtians about the Euchariſt. 191. Tranſubſtantiation occaſion'd new Calumnies from both. 194. The Jew's Converſion ſeems to be hopeleſs, whilſt this is believed by them to be the common Faith of Chriſtians. 195. That the Jews have better explained Chriſts words of Inſtitution; agreed better with the Ancient Church in underſtanding the Sacrament in a figurative ſenſe; and have confuted Tranſubſtantiation by unanſwerable Arguments, proved by Inſtances, from p. 196. to the end.
Faults Eſcaped.
PAge 5. line 16. marg. r. Serm. 5. p. 10. l. 7. marg. r. foreign, p. 39. l. 11. r. ſuppoſes, p. 53. l. 2. marg. r. foreign, p. 68. l. 26. marg. r. Serm. 5, p. 69. l. 10. r. thou art wholly changed in the inward Man, Ibid. l. 12. marg. r. totus in interiore homine mutatus es, p. 73. l. 6. marg. r. qui, p. 98. l. 5. à fine r. foreign, p. 149. l. 26. r. Paten, p. 152. l. 10. r. Evagrius, p. 171. l. 23. r. that of Abel.