Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	bread_n	lord_n	wine_n	3,679	5	7.3104	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19178	A reply to Dr. Mortons generall Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the surplice, crosse in baptisme, and kneeling at the receiving of the sacramentall elements of bread and wine.	Ames, William, 1576-1633.; Calderwood, David, 1575-1650, attributed name.	1622 (1622)	STC 559; ESTC S100126	108,813	126

properly because there is ceremoniall doctrine as vvell as morall or substantiall 4 To vvhich of these points vvill the Def referre the Hierarchie of Bishops or are they no points of Religion For the negatiue part of this answer that ceremoniall points of Religion are not revealed in the Scripture but left to the libertie of the Church it is too too nakedly set down for to beare any colour of truth vvith it For 1 vvas this true before the comming of Christ then all the ceremoniall law is Apocriphall 2 is this true universally as it is heere set down in the new Testament then vvater in baptisme and bread and wine in the Lords Supper are no ceremoniall points of Religion 3 the caution that is given Deut. 4. 2 and such like did they not conteyne in them ceremoniall points of Religion then it vvas lawfull for the Iewes to adde detract and alter the ceremonies according to their pleasure and doth not that law binde us as vvell as the Iewes then vve doe the Papists wrong in putting them to so much trouble as vve doe in finding out shifts to avoide the dint vvhich such places giue them But to leaue this mishapen distinction An answer is given at length to the place alledged out of Heb. 3. 2 concerning the comparison betwixt Christ and Moses sect 4 5. SECT IIII. IN this Section comparison is made betwixt Christ and Moses in reall faithfulnes as he calleth it But this sufficeth not to loose the knot For Moses vvas faithfull in all the house of God and Christ vvas not inferiour but in all parts of his office Propheticall concerning all points of Religion vvas no doubt as faithfull as Moses SECT V. HEre the Defendant can find nothing to bring out of Scripure for Christs faithfulnesse in rituall ordinances but as Moses appointed ceremonies so Christ removed them Is not this a proper explication of Scripture to interpret a similitude by a dissimilitude The Scripture maketh Christ like unto Moses this Defendant expoundeth the likenesse to be in this that Christ pulled down that which Moses had set up Out of M. Calvin Instit. lib. 4. c. 10. S. 30. he taketh upon him to decide this question But he should haue dealt more plainly and according to the scope of his author if he had cited Bellarmine de pont l. 4. c. 17. where the same words are according to his meaning For in that place of Calvin there is nothing at all which vvithout grosse aequivocation will serve the Defendants purpose For Calvins meaning was nothing lesse then to teach that Christ had given libertie unto men for to prescribe at their discretion mysticall signes in the Church but onely to dispose of such circumstances as in their kind are necessarie but in particular determination doe varie He instanceth in the next section in the circumstance of time vvhat houre the congregation should meet in the place how large or in what fashion the Church should bee built in meere order what Psalmes should be sung at one time and what another time These and such like circumstances of order and comelinesse equally necessary in civill and religious actions are understood by Calvin not significant ceremonies proper unto religious worship such as ours are now in controversie This allegation therefore borroweth all the shew it hath from the ambiguous meaning of the word ceremonies The same deceit is in the known case which the Defendant adjoyneth to Calvins words For if by Rites he meaneth such circumstances of order and decencie as were before mentioned then I grant all he saith but if by Rites he meaneth ceremonies properly of religious nature use and signification such as the crosse in baptisme and surplice are knowne to be then there is no reason in his speech For 1. there is no necessitie that in any nation the Churches should haue any religious ceremonie of spirituall signification beside those which Christ hath appointed to all and if the Defendant can shew any such necessitie then I would desire him also to shew by what rules and for vvhat cause these religious ceremonies imposed upon us in England are fitter for us or tend more to our edification then other ceremonies would or then they would in any other nation under heaven Except both these positions be proved the words of this section are all but wind and proved I am sure they never were nor will be SECT VI. VII THe second place of Scripture handled by the defendant is 2. Sam. 7. 7. Where I cannot but marvell why so resolute a disputer would passe by in silence Deu. 4. 2. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Lev. 10. 12. all which places are alledged by the Lincolnshire ministers against whom he professeth principally to write choose this place which they bring in after the former Was there not a cause But to take him as we finde him he professeth plainly that it vvas lawfull for David vvithout speciall vvarrant to build a house unto God and in this he is so peremptory that he condemneth the contrary opinion of notable precipitancie and presumeth to make this example a ground of confutation against his adversaries disputing as he pedantically speaketh first by extortion and then by retortion out of this place But if his extortion bee meere torting and torturing of the text we need not feare his retortion Now that the purpose of David vvas partly condemned appeareth plainly 1. because it vvas prohibited as here the Defendant in his answer expressely granteth 2. Because as honorable M. Calvi● well observeth on Act. 7. 46. It was not lawfull for man to choose a place for Gods Name Ark but it was to be placed in that place which God himselfe should shew as Moses doth often admonish Neither durst David himselfe bring the Ark into the threshing floore of Arauna vntill the Lord by an Angel from heaven had witnessed unto him that that was the place chosen by himselfe 2. Sam. 24. 11. 3. Because it cannot bee absolutely excused from some mixture of rashnesse vvith zeal that he should resolue absolutely to build an house unto God before he knew either vvhat manner of house God vvould haue built or when or by whom seeing vvithout the especiall direction and assistance of Gods spirit nothing of this kind could bee well done How could David haue built a house except the Lord had filled vvith the spirit of vvisedome Bezaliel and Aboliab or some such The Arguments brought by the Defendant for the contrary opinion are nothing worth 1. Nathan sayth he had allowed the purpose of David v. 3. But iudicious Iunius answereth in his notes upon that place that so Samuel out of humane infirmitie said that Eliab vvas the man vvhom God vvould haue king 1. Sam. 16. 7. 2. God calleth Da●id his servant which hee never doth in reproofe Which is not true though the reproofe be for a thing simply evill as is plainly to be seen Isa. 1. 3 ●er 2. 13. and in many such places vvhere