|Author:||Patrick, Simon, 1626-1707.|
|Title:||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 transubstatiation : being a sufficient confutation of Consensus veterum, Nubes testium, and other late collections of the fathers, pretending the contrary.|
|Publication info:||Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Digital Library Production Service
2011 December (TCP phase 2)
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at firstname.lastname@example.org for further information or permissions.
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 transubstatiation : being a sufficient confutation of Consensus veterum, Nubes testium, and other late collections of the fathers, pretending the contrary.
Patrick, Simon, 1626-1707.
London: Printed for Richard Chiswell ..., MDCLXXXVIII 
Errata: p. 
Reproduction of original in the Harvard University Library.
Lord's Supper -- History.
A PREFACE to the READER.
THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS.
CHAP. I. The First Difference. The Church of Rome is forced to assert a continued Series of Miracles to justifie her Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But the Fathers never mention any Miracles in the Eucha∣rist, save only the Effects of God's powerful Grace, work∣ing great Changes in us, and advancing the Elements in the use of them thereunto, without changing their Nature and Substance.
CHAP. II. The Second Difference. The Church of Rome differs from the Fathers, in determi∣ning what that thing is which Christ calls MY BODY.
CHAP. III. The Third Difference. The Church of Rome believes, That Accidents in the Eucharist subsist without a Subject; but the Fathers say the contrary, That Accidents cannot subsist with∣out a Subject, and yet never except the Eucharist.
CHAP. IV. The Fourth Difference. The Church of Rome has brought in the Word SPECIES, to signifie those Accidents without any Subject: But the Fathers never take it in this Sense.
CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference. The Fathers differ from the Roman Church, in their Assertions about the Nature and Properties of Bodies.
1 Assertion. They assert, That every Organiz'd Body, not excepting the Body of Christ, is visible and palpable.
2 Assertion. The Fathers assert, That every Body is quan∣tum, and as it ahs Quantity, possesses a Place or Space, and is commensurate to it: That a Body cannot be in more than one Place, nor be intire in one Part, nor exist after the manner of a Spirit. All which are false, if Transubstantiation be true.
3 Assertion. That is it impossible for one to dwell in him∣self, or to partake of, and have ones own Body in himself; because whatsoever contains, must be great∣er than that which is contained in it; and there would be a Penetration of Dimensions, which they deny.
CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference. The Church of Rome (suitably to the strange Doctrine it teaches about Christ's Body and Blood) teaches us not to be∣lieve the Report our Senses make, That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament; but to pass a contrary Judgment to what they inform us herein. But the Fathers teach the contrary, That we may securely relie upon the Evidence of our Senses, as to any Body, even as to the true Body of Christ.
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 given there. But the Fathers do not so; but understand it most com∣monly of the Elements of Bread and Wine, even when they call them the Body of Christ, and give us the reasons why they so call them.
1. Not sanctified properly.
2. Not sacrificed properly.
CHAP. VIII. The Eighth Difference. The Church of Rome in all Sayings of the Fathers-that mention a Change and Conversion in the Eucharist, understand it of such a Change as abolishes the Substance of Bread and Wine, the Ac∣cidents only remaining: But the Fathers never use these Phrases in this Sense.
1. Of Miraculous Changes in Nature.
2. Of the Change by the Fall.
3. Of the Change by Regeneration.
4. Of the Change in the Incarnation of Christ, and the Resurrection.
5. Of the Change in Baptism.
CHAP. IX. The Ninth Difference. The Fathers differ from the Church of Rome, in their Belief of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist. The Church of Rome as∣serts the substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body there; but the Fathers deny it.
1 Position. The Fathers ever since Christ's departure and Ascension into Heaven, look upon his Body as absent from Earth, tho' in another sense he is still present.
2 Position. The Fathers distinguish the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament of it, which they make to Page 78be a Memorial and Pledge of Christ, as gone away and absent.
3 Position. Whatsoever Presence of Christ the Fathers speak of in the Eucharist, they acknowledge the same in Bap∣tism, Page 80and in as full Expressions. So that if we will fol∣low the Fathers, we may as well assert a Substantial Presence of Christ's Body in Baptism, as in the Eu∣charist. But this on all hands is denied.
4. Position. The Fathers so consider the Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, as can no way agree to the Pre∣sence of his natural and glorified Body there.
5 Position. That according to the Fathers, the Presence of Christ's Body to us now, is a Presence to our Faith and Minds, a Presence of Union, of Efficacy and Grace.
CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference. The Fathers assert positively, that the substance of the Elements re∣main after Consecration; that Bread and Wine are taken, eaten and drunk in the Sacrament: which all that believe Transub∣stantiation must deny.
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. They of the Church of Rome, make either the Accidents subsist∣ing without a Subject, or the Body of Christ latent under those Accidents, to be the Sacrament, Sign, Figure, &c. and not the substance of Bread and Wine, which they say is abolished. There∣fore they have no Sacrament such as the Fathers assert.
CHAP. XII. The Twelfth Difference. The Fathers assert, That Christ's Body is not eaten corporally and carnally, but only spiritually. But the Church of Rome teaches a Corporal Eating, a Descent of Christ's Natural Body into ours, and understands the Eating of Christ's Body literally and car∣nally.
1 Consideration. It appears there is no necessity to understand eating and drinking Christ's Body in the Eucharist, of his natural Body received into ours; because the Fathers say, We eat and drink, and partake of Christ's Body and Blood in Baptism, which, by the confession of all, can be done only spiritually there.
2 Consideration. The Fathers, with reference to Eating and Drinking, distinguish Christ's True Body from his Sacra∣mental one; which they could not do, if Christ's True and Natural Body and Blood were eat and drunk in a proper sense in the Sacrament.
3 Consideration. They say, That the Fathers under the Old Testament did eat the same spiritual Meat with us; and give this as the Reason why it is spiritual Meat, Because it is not eaten corporally, but by Faith. Therefore both they and we must eat the same Meat only spiritually, not corporally.
4 Consideration. The Body and Blood are to be eaten and drunk, and to be received, as they are represented and set before us in the Sacrament. But there the Body of Christ (according to the Fathers as well as the Scriptures) is set before us as broken and dead, and his Blood as poured out of his Veins. Therefore it can be eaten and drunk by us only figuratively and spiritually.
CHAP. XIII. The Thirteenth Difference. The Fathers assert, That the Faithful only eat Christs Body, and drink his Blood in the Eucharist, not the wicked. Whereas they of the present Roman Church extend it to both.
CHAP. XIV. The Fourteenth Difference. Several Ʋsages and Practices of the Fathers relating to the Eu∣charist, declare, That they did not believe Transubstantiation, or the Presence of Christ's Natural Body there; whose con∣trary practices or forbearance of them, in the Roman Church, are the Consequences of that belief. As also some things the present Roman Church practises, because they believe Transub∣stantiation, and the Corporal Presence, and dare not neglect to practise, so believing; which yet the Ancient Church did for∣bear the practice of, not knowing any obligation thereto; which plainly argues their different Sentiments about the Eucharist in those Points.
CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference. The Old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass concerning the Sacra∣ment, agree not with the present Faith of the Roman Church: And their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no countenance from the Ancient Church.
CHAP. XVI. The Sixteenth Difference. Our Ancient Roman-Saxon Church differred from the present Ro∣man Church, in the Article of Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence.
CHAP. XVII. The CONCLUSION. That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has given a new occasion to the Enemies of Christian Religion to blaspheme. It is so great a stumbling-block to the Jews, that their Conversion is hopeless, whilst this is believed by them to be the Common Faith of Christians. That tho' the Church of Rome will not hearken to us, yet they may be provoked to emulation by the Jews themselves, who have given a better account of Christ's Words of Institu∣tion, and more agreeable to the Fathers, than this Church has; and raised unanswerable Objections against its Doctrine.
Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell.