Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	baptism_n	spirit_n	word_n	4,420	5	4.7104	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61458	The church of Rome not sufficiently defended from her apostacy, heresie, and schisme as appears by an answer to certain quæries, printed in a book entituled Fiat Lux, and sent transcribed (as 'tis suppos'd) from thence by a Romanist to a priest of the Church of England. Whereunto are annexed the Romanist's reply to the Protestant's Answer, and the Protestant's rejoynder to that reply. By P.S. D.D.	Samways, Peter, 1615-1693.	1663 (1663)	Wing S545B; ESTC R222361	39,609	116

at this day maintaine against the Catholicks all the world over out of their own Communion Is it not evident by St. Cyprian 63. Epist that the people received the Cup (z) Quorum quidem vel ignorantèr vel simplicitèr in calice Domino sanctificando plaebi administrando non hoc faciunt quod Iesus Christu● Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus Author Doctor fecit docuit religiosum paritèr necestarium duxi de hoc ad vos literas facere Cipt. Ep. 63. ad Coecilum Because some either out of Ignorance or Simplicity doe not that in consecrating the Eucharisticall Cup and administring it to the people mark no halfe communion served the people in that holy Bishops dayes which Jesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Teacher of this sacrifice did and taught therefore I accounted it both a matter of religion and necessity to write to them concerning this businesse And is it not as clear by St. Aug. that the opinion of Trans-substantiation was not own'd in his dayes heare him speaking against the corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament now so shamefully defended by the Romanists in his Exposition of the 98. Psal for in treating of Christs words in the 6. Cap. of St. John and the mistake of such as tooke his Speech as the Trent-faith now doth he saith expounding Christs words in his own Person that spake them (a) Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum non hoc Corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum fanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi spiritualter intellectū vivificabit vos etsi necesse est illnd visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi Aug. in Ps 98 pag. 1105. edit froben Understand spiritually that which I have spoken unto you you are not to eat the Body which you see nor to drink that Blood which they will shed who will crucifie me I have commended a certaine Sacrament unto you being spiritually understood it will quicken you though it be necessary that it be visibly celebrated yet it is behovefull that it be invisibly conceived Doth not St. Ambrose as plainly teach that what mutation is wrought by consecration is mysticall and not such as the Romanists fancy grosse and corpoporeall when speaking of the operative vertue of Christs words he saith (b) Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini lesu ut inciperent esse quae nō erant quātò magis operatorius est ut fint quae crant in aliud cōmutentur Ambr. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4. If therefore there be so great efficacie in the speech of the Lord Jesus that those things which were not by vertue thereof should begin to be how much more effectuall is it to cause the things that were to be and yet to be changed into somewhat else id est to continue naturally what they were before the consecration and yet also after the consecration Mystically and Sacramentally to become the body and blood of Christ which place in St. Ambrose was so distastefull to those of the new faith in the Romish-communion that whereas some of them beat their brains in finding away how to make the Bread and Wire in the Sacrament like the beast in the Revelation * Revel 17.8 that was and is not and yet is others as the late reverend Primate of Ireland observ'd in his ans to the Jesuits challenge p. 14. tooke a ready course to untye the Gordian knot by paring cleane away in their Roman Edition followed also in that of Paris Anno 1603. those words that so much troubled them and letting the rest run smoothly after this manner * Quantò magis operatorius est ut quae erant in aliud commutentur how much more is the speech of the Lord powerfull to make that those things which were should be changed into another thing To this purpose also speaks St. Cyprian in the fore-cited Epistle (c) Invenimus calicem mix tū suiffe quem Dominus obtulit vinū suisse quod fanguinem fnum dixit Cyp. Epist 65. we find that the Cup was mixed the epistle was wri● against the Aquarii that celebrated the Eucharist with water alone which the Lord offered and that it was Wine which he called his Blood St. Iraeneus lived not farre from the Apostolicke times and he clearly asserteth the substance of bread to continue in the Eucharist after the consecration for thus he writeth concerning that Mysterie (d) Quemadmodum qui est â terrâ panis percipiens vocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenâ coelesti sic corpora nostra spercipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Iren Lib. 4. C. 34. As the Earthly bread by the institution or command of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an Earthly and an Heavenly so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having hope of the Resurrection When therefore we meet with expression in the Fathers that seem to imply a Trans-substantiation they are nothing but a Catachresis an abuse of words or hyperbolicall elevations familiar to all sorts of Writers not unusuall among the Ancients when they speak of the other Sacrament of Baptisme as hath been largely prov'd by the late learned and Reverend Bishop of Duresme If Justin and Iraeneus say of the Eucharist that it is no longer after the consecration common bread St. Chrissest and Greg Nussen say also of Baptisme Non est aqua communis it is not common water and Cyril of Alexandria expresly useth the word trans-elementated by the efficacy of the spirit the sensible water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is changed into another element It appears hence that the Fathers condemned the present judgement of the Roman-Church as to the above-named controversies between the Catholiques of the Reformed Churches and the Papists in the Roman separation who divided themselves from the Communion of the Primitive profession before the Protestants departed from them or rather were forced and driven from them As to my assertion schisme is theirs who cause it he thinkes to say only let that passe a valid confutation and excepts against my instance when I say when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the heretiques made the schism● This is contrary as he pretends to 1 Jo 2.19 who speaking of certain he retiques saith exierunt a nobis whic● if true saith he then the Orthodox w 〈…〉 the Arrtans and Heretiques and t● Arrians and the Heretiques were Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This acute Replyer is able to peirce the eye● of a Jackdaw as infallibly as any on● I ever heard of as if departure it sel● did imply a crime without reference to the Society which a man leaveth b● his departure Is departure from the blessed