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
A64363	Mr. Pulton consider'd in his sincerity, reasonings, authorities, or, A just answer to what he hath hitherto published in his True account, his True and full account of a conference, &c. by the said Tho. Tenison.	Tenison, Thomas, 1636-1715.	1687 (1687)	Wing T703; ESTC R241	65,495	114

Iohn said There are three that bear record in Heaven he should have told us there are but three 5. He charges me with three Calumnies upon my telling the story of Abbot Theodore tho it be told by me out of the Acts of his Council of Nice as published by his Brethren Labbe and Cossart whose very Pages are cited 6. He has found in one of his Store-houses i.e. in the Guide in Controversie that the Rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek is in the Syriack Kypha which is of the Masculine Gender as if the Primitive Translator if Saint Matthew's Gospel was Translated out of Hebrew could have better render'd his sense by a word of the Masculine than of the Feminine Gender If that had been his opinion he would have done it 7. He formerly reflected on the Greeks as Lyars and Hereticks Now he professes † that he said it not in his own but in my opinion This is for the sweetning of the Greeks in the Morea He is very politick in nicking of Junctures 8. He says I mistake when I assert That the Roman Church proves her being and Authority out of the Scriptures To say that they can or do prove it out of the Scriptures is a mistake I am not apt to be guilty of but to say that they attempt to do it is none for to this purpose they alledg so very often Hear the Church and Thou art Peter c. 9. He calls for our Catalogue of Witnesses against their Errors Yet he had heard of the Works of Illyricus and others of this nature And I am not ashamed to own that I published in the English Tongue divers Months ago the Testimonies of Writers in the several Ages of Christianity against Transubstantiation 10. He pull'd a Book of written Collections together with his Breviary out of his Pocket as sure as he put my Paper into it and there were eyes enough to discern it and now he denies he ever produced it perhaps he never read out of it or according to his Evasion about shewing Luther's works he never produc'd it in the Pulpit 11. He mentions a place in St. Ambrose which in his Opinion is evidently against me and which he says I refused to hear It was not worth either my Attention or my Answer for I had before told him the true Meaning of all such Places viz. That Consecration altered Sacramental Elements from common to Sacred things in use and benefit and that the Fathers used the same Expressions about the Water in Baptism as about Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper whilst no body imagines the Substance of the Water is by the most powerful benediction remov'd In that very Chapter a fragment of which is cited by Mr. P. St. Ambrose compares the Change in the Lords Supper upon Consecration with that in Baptism and proves the Change of Baptismal Regeneration by that with which he had just before illustrated the Change in the Eucharist the Miraculous Conception of Christ in the Blessed Virgins Body Disputants who like unsatisfied Beggars will still ask on extort a Reproof instead of a Grant. 12. He Charges me with a Reflection upon the Apostles who preached in rich and warm Countries because I took notice tho from Balzac a Papist that Missionaries chose such places rather than Nova Zembla But he takes no notice of the Argument it self That the talk of Conversions and of Places and Numbers and Qualities is insignificant unless it be first prov'd that men are not made Proselytes as the Scribes and Pharisees made them but converted to True Religion But enough if not too much has been said in Answer to Objections which are not real Difficulties Perhaps my Readers have already taken Compassion on themselves and left off some Pages before they have come at this And I think it is time to relieve my self after having been concern'd in a Controversial matter which in the nature of it I do not much relish and which by the length of it has created in me a most ungrateful Satiety FINIS ERRATA PAge 20. l. 15. for Homouslon read Homousion Marg. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 21. Marg. l. 9. f. At r Aut p. 26. l. 30. f. it must be r. they would have it be p. 29. l. 39. f. design r. designs p. 33. and often elsewhere Objection f. Objections p. 52. l. 27. f. Churches r. Church There are other mistakes which are left to the Correction of the Judicious Reader ADVERTISEMENT WHereas there has been a Paper cry'd by some Hawkers as a Sermon preached by D. T. at the Funeral of M. E. Gwynn this may Certify that that Paper is the Forgery of some Mercinary people (a) Mr. Pulton's Remarks p. 38. (b) Concl. of Pax Vobis (c) Reason and Antiquity p. 45. (d) A Reply to the Def. of the Expos. of the Church of England (a) Mr. P's Rem p. 32. (a) Advice to the Pulpits p. 26 27 28 29. (b) See his Rem p. 36. (a) 2 Mr. P's Rem p. 35. (a) M. P's True and full Account Ep. to the Reader (b) M. P's Full Account p. 11. (b) See his Letter here published chap. 7. (a) D. T 's Ac. p. 82. Parag. 17 18. (a) Dr. H. H. Works Vol. 2. at the end of his Dispatcher dispatch'd or Third Defence of his Book of Schism against S. W. p. 253 415. NOTE This S. W. has been generally supposed to be the same Person with I. S. who at this present writes the Pamphlets call'd the Catholick Letters (a) I. B's Life of Luther S. Omers 1624. p. 17 29 39 44 52 c. (b) Mr. P's Full Account p. 11. (a) Fioreti de la Bibia Vulgari Historiati c. Novamente stampati in Milano C. 170. An. 1524. (a) Mr. P's Rem p. 8. (b) Luth. contra Latom Homousion quod Hieronymus optavit aboleri (c) Luth. cont Latom. Etsi Ariani malè senserunt in fide hoc tamen optimè sive malo sive bono animo exegerunt ne vocem profanam Novam in Regulis fidei usurpare liceret * Bell. Pref. ad l. de Chr. p. 227. M. L. contra Jac. Latomum Scribens Anima mea inquit odit hoc verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Mr. P's Rem p. 8. * L. Op. Tom. 3. fol. 231. Liber multis nominibus dignus qui omnium manibus tereretur fol. 232. Relig. causâ sordidissimè victitârunt Neque enim contemnit faelicitèr mundum qui vivit solitarius at qui abstinet à pecuniis ut Franciscani sed qui in mediis rebus versatur neabque tamen earum affectibus rapitur (b) Mr. P's Rem p. 9 10. (c) Conc. Decr. Synod S. Rotomag Eccles. Const. Gall. Capitul 1. p. 209. Moneantur quoque ne MATRES vel Uxores aliasque conjunctas personas secum habeant cum quibus etsi nihil saevi criminis faedus naturale existimari permittat tamen frequenter suggerente

the 2d Commandment Scholar Explain I pray you by some Example How it may be possible for our Lords Body to be in so many Hosties as many as are found upon so very many Altars Master It is written in the Life of St. Anthony of Padua That when he was preaching in one of the Cities of Italy he was by means of the Divine Grace at the same time in Portugal and there did another good Work. Now therefore if God could bring it to pass that St. Anthony should be in his own form in two such distinct places at such distance how should it not agree to his Power to effect it that Christ should be in many Hosties under the shew of the same Hosties This is my Story from Bellarmin who forgat to prove it Now Mr. Pulton if he pleaseth may call it Impertinent But here is Catechism for Catechism and Allen for Rodriguez And here is the Cardinal in his Cloyster setling the Doctrine of Transubstantiation with St. Anthony here and St. Anthony there and St. Anthony at the same time in his own figure in both places And here is the Parish Priest settling the matter about Looseness and Relicks with the Tax of Pope Leo and the Probe of St. Germain And if his Doctorship ought not to have told the latter the former might have been let alone by the Cardinal Seeing there are such Tales and they themselves tell them why may not I when I can so pertinently do it be a Rehearser of them Is not their own Angelinus Gazoeus a Teller of Tales And does he not give his Book the Title of Pia Hilaria or Pious Merriments Have not Capgrave Alford Cressey told Tales in abundance Was not the Liber Festivalis read here in Churches in K. Hen. VII time a book of stories Ex. gr It speaks of Adam and Eve standing for Penance in the Water till they were as Green as Glass And whilst one has written the Golden Legend another has taken the freedom to write the Wooden one ACCUS 4. D. T. has like E. S. from whom he has borrowed quoted St. Cyril most DISINGENUOUSLY leaving out that Text which if cited would have left no place of doubting but that he makes for the Roman Catholick Tenet part of it is as follows That which seems Bread is not Bread although to the Taste it appears to be so but is the Body of Christ He that cavils about such a Text has doubtless great humility of soul and notable dispositions of Faith. Note That not one word was quoted out of St. Cyril in the Conference ANSWER Answer This NOTE has a little of the Aequivocator in it He did not cite in Terms at length therefore 't was not produced at the Conference EXCELLENTLY WELL as his word was to me as often as I had answered and he began to reply the plain truth is this he named St. Cyril's Catechism for the proof of his Corporal Presence I did prevent his repeating the words by saying that I knew them and that they needed no Answer from me being answered already at the end of a certain Printed Conference to which he replied that there was a Printed Answer to that Account of the Conference betwixt Mr. S. c. and that he would shew it me now that Famous Answer I could never yet hear of any more than I could hear of the Famous Paper Mr. Pulton promised to print last Monday Seven-night for the clearing the Certificate of Katherine in the Clouds Well but the Answer was borrow'd from E. S. just as a man borrows when he promises you a Citation out of St. Austin and truly cites his words But when I have occasion to borrow I should as soon borrow of the Reverend E. S. as of any man for he has a mighty Stock of good Learning and he is very Communicative I would not so soon go to Mr. P. notwithstanding he has read all Ecclesiastical History he says it himself and he is an Oracle and has Volumes of Notes relating to it But where is my Disingenuity in leaving out words which were not in the place I promised to repeat And what need was there of adding those words The sense of them was enough shew'd in the words produc'd to wit that the Consecrated Bread was no more mere Bread than the Consecrated Water is meer Water And for the disingenuity of the Reverend D. S. if Mr. P. can shew us it it is a new discovery I suppose that this which follows will satisfy the just Reader that the disingenuity is in the Accuser and not in him who is unworthily reflected on To D. T. c. SIR HAVING the Curiosity to turn over Mr. P's Remarks I found my self remark'd upon in his Postscript with wonderful Civility and Kindness of which I thought fit to give you this Account He charges me with most disingenuous leaving out some words of St. Cyril which if cited would have left no place of doubting that he makes for the Catholick Tenet Whereas the Design of that part of the Discourse was to answer this very Quotation of S. Cyril which was urged by M. W. in the Conference His Words are But to Theodoret he would oppose S. Cyril who in his Fourth Myst. Catech. says expressly Tho thou see it to be bread yet believe it is the Flesh and the Blood of the Lord Iesus doubt it not since he hath said This is my Body Our Business was to answer the Testimony produced by them and I do not remember the least omission as to the strength and force of it and those words Mr. P. produces signifie no more than the other unless he thinks the Sense of Tasting more Emphatical than that of Seeing But I suppose his meaning is that there is omitted that Clause That which seems Bread is not Bread altho to the Taste it appears to be so But this is the very same difficulty in Sense which was answered For if tho we see it to be Bread yet we are to believe it to be the Body of Christ then according to him the meaning is though we see it to be bread it is not bread but the body of Christ. To which it was truly answer'd That in this fourth Catech. he bids them not to consider it as meer bread As if a man should break in pieces the Kings Broad Seal and another to aggravate his fault should tell him That which you have broken is not Wax but the Kings Broad Seal would not any one understand this not to be denying it to be truly Wax but that it was something far beyond that by the Impression of the Royal Seal Or as if a Judg setting forth the Crime of a Clipper should tell him that what he clipt was not silver but the Kings Coin who would need an Infallible Interpreter to tell him that by silver he meant common silver If St. Cyril had deliver'd any such Doctrine in any other

place that the substance of the Elements doth cease upon Consecration or that nothing but the Accidents remain there might have been some colour for his urging this place for the Roman Tenet But I desire St Cyril may interpret himself and I think he knew his own meaning better than Mr. P. In the very same Catech. he saith Regard not therefore these as meer Bread and Wine for they are the Body and Blood of Christ according to our Lords Word Are not these as plainly St. Cyril's expressions as the other and going before them to prevent misinterpreting that which follows And if they are not to be look'd on as meer bread and wine I think they are to be look'd on as Bread and Wine still As if Christ be not to be look'd on as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a meer man I think it follows that he is to be look'd on as a true man but as one much more than a man so whatever St. Cyril superadds by vertue of a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he calls it upon Consecration yet he cannot be understood so as to destroy the substance of the Elements which if I mistake not is the Roman Tenet And in this parallel place St. Cyril uses the like expressions as to seeing and tasting Although thy sense suggest that to thee viz. that they are meer Bread and Wine yet let faith establish thee judg not this matter by thy Tast. What was here to be judged by the Tast whether it were real Bread and Wine That he doth not in the least question that I can find but whether there be nothing else but Bread and Wine And as to this he saith Sense is not to be Iudg but Faith. And so say we Bellarmin I remember distinguisheth between the positive Argument from sense and the Negative the positive Argument he saith is good This is handled and seen therefore it is a body but not the Negative this is not handled or seen therefore it is not a Body So say I here according to St. Cyril The Affirmative judgment of sense was true and to be relied upon that which we see and tast to be Bread and Wine is really Bread and Wine but the Negative judgment is not i.e. we are not to judg by our Sight and Tast that they are nothing else but meer Bread and Wine for besides what was discerned by the Senses they were according to our Saviour's word the Body and Blood of Christ. To make this yet more plain to be St. Cyril's meaning we have another Parallel place in the foregoing Discourse where he speaks concerning the Holy Chrism Look not on this saith he as meer Ointment Why not For as the Bread of the Eucharist after Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer common Bread but the Body of Christ so this Holy Ointment is no longer meer or common Ointment after Consecration but the Gift of Christ and by the Presence of the Holy Ghost hath a Divine Efficacy Can any thing be plainer than that St. Cyril meant the Bread after Consecration was no longer common Bread Would any man now be thought to hold the Roman Tenet who should talk at this rate And that which he saith oftenest and plainest ought to be taken for his true meaning The same thing he saith concerning the Water in Baptism in his other Catechetical Discourses Come not to Baptism as to common Water but as to the Spiritual Grace which is given with it which he repeats soon after and saith It is not to be regarded as meer Water but as that by which the Holy Ghost doth operate Here is such a similitude of Expressions as may make it most reasonable for us to assert that he understood them in the same manner But it may be objected That he no where saith It is not Water in Baptism as he doth here it is not Bread but the Body of Christ. I answer That he saith It is not meer Water and that is as much as he means as to the Bread in the Eucharist And that he doth not so make the Bread to be the Body of Christ as to destroy the substance of the Bread I shall further prove from St. Cyril himself 1. Cardinal Bellarmin lays down this Rule That saying This Bread is my Body the Proposition must be either figurative or absurd and impossible for the Bread cannot be the Body of Christ. The like is affirmed both by Suarez and Vasquez If now St. Cyril in plain terms affirms this Then he cannot speak according to the Roman Tenet but his Words are express That Christ spake of the Bread when he said This is my Body And this is in the very same Discourse with the other passage and therefore if his words be taken in the strict and literal sense St. Cyril must speak that which was false and impossible for he affirms of the very Bread that it was the Body of Christ. Bellarmin saith St. Cyril doth not speak of material but of consecrated Bread which is material to appearance but in substance is Coelestial Bread. If this be true St. Cyril talked very impertinently for he speaks of the Bread which Christ took into his hand and Consecrated I desire Mr. P. to tell us what sort of Bread that was if it were Coelestial Bread as he calls it then the Transubstantiation was made before Consecration which I think is not agreeable to the Roman Tenet But if it were the substance of Bread when Christ took it then Bellarmin's sense cannot hold And withal the Proposition would be Identical i.e. Ridiculous for then the sense would be This Bread is my Body i.e. My body is my body for that Coelestial bread is the very body of Christ 2. The Roman Tenet is That there is a total change of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ. But I can find nothing in St. Cyril which implies any such Change He doth indeed affirm That the Bread after invocation of the Holy Spirit by its Presence and Efficacy is made the body of Christ. But he might suppose this to be done as the body of Christ was produced in the Womb of the Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost and yet Christ had true Human Nature in him being born of the Virgin as well as conceived by the Holy Ghost So here the true Substance of the Bread might remain yet by the Operative Power of the Holy Ghost that Bread might become the Body of Christ not by being changed into the substance of that Body which was born of the blessed Virgin but by an immediate presence of the Spirit of Christ in it And to this purpose St. Cyril speaks in those Catechetical Discourses For he saith The Church prays God to send his Holy Spirit to make the Bread the Body of Christ. And so the Bread is changed not from being Bread to be none but from being