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
A41553	A request to Roman Catholicks to answer the queries upon these their following tenets ... by a moderate son of the Church of England.	Gordon, James, 1640?-1714.	1687 (1687)	Wing G1282; ESTC R9547	37,191	48

those cruel Opiniators be justly termed Step-fathers of Infants as St. Augustin was named Durus Pater Infantum SECT XI Of Transubstantiation Qu. 1. SInce the most eminent of the Roman School-men such as Scotus Durandus Alphonsus a Castro Suarez Vasquez Alliado Biel Canus Occam Cajetan and Bellarmine himself confess that the Doctrine of Transubstantion cannot be evidently proved from Scripture and that there is no absolute necessity of understanding our Saviour's Words in that Sense may it not be pertinently demanded is there not a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise seeing that strange Sense is so directly repugnant to the Senses of all that are endued with an animal Life 2. Since there be so many parallel places in Scripture which every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal and absurd Sense as where the Lamb is called the Passover Circumcision God's Covenant the Church Christ's Body the Rock which followed the Israelites called Christ Christ calls himself the Door the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumphed in if he had said this is my true Body wherefore may we not also understand these Words This is my Body in a Metaphorical Sense especially considering that it is impossible to make Sense of the whole Words of the Institution without more Figures than one 3. Can it rationally be presumed that any sensible Man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded on these Words This is my Body would upon reading the Institution of the Eucharist ever have imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in these words but rather that this Bread signifies my Body and this Cup my Blood and this which ye see me now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me Far less would it have entred into any Mans Mind not blinded with gross Error or Prejudice to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his Hand and did eat himself and that he gave away himself from himself with his own Hands especially if it be further considered that our Saviour having pronounced these words This is my Body which is broken and my Blood which is shed before his Passion this could not be true in a literal Sense for his Body was then unbroken and his Blood unshed unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered Nor could the Apostles understand these words literally since they both saw and tasted what he gave them to be Bread and Wine and that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given Whence any rational Man may infer that St. Augustin's Phrase in his Enarrations on the Psalms Christus portavit se manibus suis is to be understood figuratively according to his own Rule for interpreting Scripture given Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. cap. 16. 4. May not the Church of Rome as well conclude from 1 Cor. 10. 17. that all Christians are substantially changed into one Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by the participation of the Sacrament because they are said to be one Bread and one Body as to infer Transubstantiation from the Verse immediately foregoing or from any other place of Scripture 5. Suppose Iustin Martyr who lived An. 150. Ireneus who lived An. 180. Tertullian who lived An. 206. Origen who lived An. 230. St. Cyprian who lived An. 250. Theodoret who lived An. 450. P. Gelasius who also lived in the Fifth Century and Facundus the African Bishop who lived in the Sixth had not written any thing against Transubstantiation as it is simply impossible to make sense of their Writings if they believed that Doctrine and not to speak of many other Testimonies of St. Augustin against Transubstantiation I would demand if any Man in his right Wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered such a Testimony against it as we find lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. cap. 16. already cited where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If says he the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous Crime or commanding us to do good it is not figurative but if it seem to command any heinous wickedness or to forbid that which is profitable to others its figurative for Example Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you this seems to command an heinous Wickedness therefore it s a Figure commanding us to Communicate of the Passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucify'd and wounded for us 6. Since Bellarmin in lib. descript Eccles. an 118. tells us that Paschasius Rabertus Abbot of Corbey was the first who did write seriously concerning the Truth of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist it may be demanded very pertinently if any of the Fathers before him wrote in jest concerning such a sublime Mystery 7. Since some of the Fathers have as high Elegies of the Sacrament of Baptism as of the Eucharist notwithstanding the Popish Schoolmen grant there is no substantial Change made in that consecrated Water and yet that the Divine Blessing accompanying the Institution it may be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration what reason can be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divine Blessing accompanying this Institution make all the worthy Receivers Partakers of all the Spiritual Comfort designed to us thereby without any substantial Change made in those Elements since our Saviour hath told us that verily the Flesh profiteth nothing 8. If the Canibals be abhorred as Inhuman for eating the Flesh of their Enemies must it not be great Inhumanity to eat the Flesh of a Friend and the best in the World If none can read without horrour the Stories of Tereus Thyestes and Harpagus their eating of their own Children though ignorantly how much more horrible must it be to feed upon the very Body of the Son of God that was Born of the Virgin knowingly Deum suum primo conficiunt deinde devorant said Averrhoes justly deriding that prodigious Doctrine which a little before his time began to be publickly taught in the Roman Church and with what Face could the Primitive Apologists upbraid the Heathen with one of their Gods who did eat his own Children if the Christians had believed at that time that they did Eat their own God and that no such thing being then objected by the Pagans to the Christians is to a Wise Man instead of a Thousand Demonstrations that no such Doctrine was then believed for the Impiety and Barbarousness of the thing as it is believed and practised in the Roman Church is not in truth extenuated but only the appearance of it by being done under the Species of Bread and Wine for the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe they verily