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
A69095	The third part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholike against Doct. Bishops Second part of the Reformation of a Catholike, as the same was first guilefully published vnder that name, conteining only a large and most malicious preface to the reader, and an answer to M. Perkins his aduertisement to Romane Catholicks, &c. Whereunto is added an aduertisement for the time concerning the said Doct. Bishops reproofe, lately published against a little piece of the answer to his epistle to the King, with an answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. T. Higgons latley become a proselyte of the Church of Rome. By R. Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.; Defence of the Reformed Catholicke of M. W. Perkins. Part 3	Abbot, Robert, 1560-1618.	1609 (1609)	STC 50.5; ESTC S100538	452,861	494

Bishop here pretendeth that they haue more cause to complaine of vs than we of them for he saith that wee haue defrauded the poore people of both body and blood of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breakefast of a morsell of bread and a sup of wine Which words hee vseth rather of malice then for that he knoweth not that wee affirme in the due participation of this Sacrament a heauenly riches of grace and of the communion of the body and blood of Christ Tell vs M. Bishop when Gelasius saith that q Gelas cont Eutych Nestor Certè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguin●● domini diuina resest per illa diumae consortes ●fficimur naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the Sacraments which we receiue of the body and blood of Christ are a diuine thing and we are thereby made partakers of the diuine nature yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine did hee make the Sacrament to be no more but a morsell of bread and a sup of wine If wee respect the nature of the outward and visible elements it is true that we receiue in the Sacrament a morsell of bread and a sup of wine for these creatures r Theodoret. dialog 2. Manent in priore substantia figura forma c. remaine still as Theodoret saith in their former substance but if we respect them in their vse and effect this bread is heauenly bread and this cup is the cup of saluation and life eternall And as he is a mad man who hauing a rich gift confirmed vnto him by his Princes seale will vilifie the seale and say it is but a peece of wax euen so is he as mad who of the Sacrament of Christ which is ſ Rom. 4.11 the seale of the righteousnesse of faith the pledge of the remission of sinnes the meanes whereby grace and life through faith are deriued vnto vs will say either in baptisme that it is but a handfull of water or in the Lords supper that it is but a morsell of bread and a sup of wine But of this and of his fiue other sacraments as he hath spoken before so I haue answered him t Preface to the Reader sect 20. before and I refer the reader to that that is there said where he shall easily see that he hath no cause to account himselfe vnfortunate for following vs but rather to hold them for vnfortunate fooles that yeeld themselues to bee guided by such fancies 56. W. BISHOP Let this be the first The state of the new Testament which is more perfect then the old requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection than the old had they had Manna which for substance and taste far passed our bread and in signification was equall to it Wherefore either we must grant our Sacrament of bread and wine to be inferior to theirs of the old Testament or else acknowledge and confesse it to be the true body and bloud of Christ which doth surpasse theirs exceedingly as the body doth the shadow This argument is confirmed by our Sauiour himselfe who in expresse termes doth preferre the meat that he was to giue to his disciples before that of Manna Ioh. 6.48.49 which their Fathers had eaten in the wildernesse R. ABBOT If this argument be good it prooueth reall presence in Baptisme as well as it doth in the Lords supper If in Baptisme without any reall presence there be greater grace perfection as in a Sacrament of the new testament then there was in the Sacraments of the old then nothing hindreth but that in the Lords supper the like also may bee neither can M. Bishop alleage any reason to prooue it necessary in the one that shall not prooue it in the other also The preeminence of the state of the new testament aboue the old standeth in cleerenesse of light not in difference of faith in the performance of promises not in any diuerse effect of them a 2. Cor. 4.13 Wee haue the same spirit of faith and a little to turne the Apostles words b Act. 15.11 they hoped to bee saued by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ euen as wee doe c Aug de nat grat cap 44. Ea fides iustos sanauit antiquos quae sanat nos id est mediatoris dei et hominum hominis Iesu Christi fides sanguinis eius fides crucis eius fides mortis resurrectionis eius The same faith saith S. Austin saued the iust of old time that saueth vs euen the faith of the Mediatour betwixt God and man the man Iesus Christ the faith of his bloud the faith of his crosse the faith of his death and resurrection To them he was to come to vs hee is already come he hath stood as it were in the middest betwixt vs they looked vpon him forward we looke vpon him backward but both receiue from him the same grace Accordingly therefore the Sacraments of the old and new testament though in outward forme and administration they differ much yet in inward power and effect they are the same d Aug. ep 118. Leus iugo suo nos subdidit sarcinae leui vnde sacramentis numero paucissimis obseruatione facillimis significatione praestantissimis societatem noui populi colligauit Christ as S. Austin noteth hath laid vpon vs an easie yoke by Sacraments in number very few in obseruation most easie and in signification most excellent they were forced to attend to many types and figures and encumbred with infinite operositie of manifold obseruations and ceremonies Our state therefore is better than theirs for that wee with more ease are partakers of the same effects of grace which with greater labour and difficultie God so disposing they did atteine vnto but otherwise what benefit we receiue by our Sacraments towards eternall life they also receiued by theirs For why doth the Apostle say that the Israelites e 1. Cor 10.2 were baptised in the cloud and in the sea but to signifie that in these types and figures they were made partakers of the same spirituall blessing and grace that in baptisme is ministred vnto vs. And why doth he say that they did eat the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke but to giue to vnderstand that they also did f Ioh. 6.54 eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud that they might liue thereby for if wee respect the outward signes they did not eat the same or drinke the same that we do It must needs therefore bee as touching the spirituall and inward meate and drinke which is the body and bloud of Christ And so the Apostle saith that they dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christ g Amb. de Sp. Sanct lib. 1. in

answer and yet in this booke there is no such chapter where his answer should be found But touching the reall presence M. Perkins argueth out of the words of Christ to this effect that Christ brake that which he tooke and that which hee tooke was bread and not his body and therefore that it was bread and not really his body which hee brake it being absurd that Christ should bee said to breake himselfe and therefore remaining that that which hee brake was the Sacrament only and not himselfe To answer this M. Bishop wee see is somewhat hardly bestead and forceth the words of Christ to another order than the Euangelists and S. Paul haue obserued in the deliuering of them Yea hee crosseth the Canon of the Masse of rather setteth the Canon of the Masse at variance with the institution of Christ In a word hee saith hee knoweth not what and and cannot tell what to say The Euangelists and the Apostle constantly and with one consent put blessing before breaking but he saith that Christ first brake and then blessed He saith that it was bread which Christ brake but if it were bread which Christ brake then what is it which the Priest breaketh If it be bread then there is no transubstantiation If it be not bread then he swarueth from Christs institution Hee maketh Christ to breake the host before consecration but the Masse-priest breaketh it not till after consecration How then shall the Masse-book and the Gospell be thought to agree together All this it seemeth he runneth into because he cannot tell how it should be said that Christ did breake himselfe which was the thing that M. Perkins vrged But let him reconcile these differences and then send vs a more perfect answer otherwise we must hold him for a simple man that could not auoid such a simple ouerthrow 48. W. BISHOP Againe M. Per. 2. Christ said not vnder the forme of bread or in bread but this that is bread is my body Answ It is false to say that this word Hoc This doth demonstrate bread for it is of a different gender from it both in Latin and Greeke and if he had said that that bread had been his body his word was so omnipotent that it had beene of force to make it his body so that M. Perkins maketh a false constraction which nothing helpeth his error R. ABBOT His exception as touching the different gender is excepted against I will not say by his Grammar rules for I will not shame him so much as to send him to his Grammar but by their glosse of the Canon law which telleth him that a Extravag de schismat c. dudum in glossa Neutrum adiectiuum de omni genere praedicatur the adiectiue in the neuter gender is spoken of euery gender Though therefore the particle demonstratiue This be in the neuter gender in the Greeke and Latin tongue yet that hindereth not but that bread being of the masculine gender may bee demonstrated thereby And so the ancient fathers vnderstood it that b Tertul. cont Marcionem l 4. Panem corpus suum appellans Christ called bread his body euen c Cyprian l. 1. epist 6. Corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorū adunatione congestum bread made of many cornes he calleth his body that d Theodoret. Dialog 1. symbola signa quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit he honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and blood that e Orig. de rectae in deum fide Corporu sanguinis signa imagines ● anem poculum ministrauit he ministred bread and wine for signes and tokens of his body and bloud that f Cyprian de vnct Chris In mensa in quae vitimum cum Aposto●is participauit conuiuiū proprijs manibus tradidit panem vinum he gaue to his Apostles at his last supper bread and wine and in a word that g Aug. ser ad Infant Quod autem fides postulat instruenda panis est corpus Christi bread is the body of Christ. Now if there be no bread then it cannot bee said that bread is the body or that it is called the body of Christ If bread be called the body of Christ then is it necessarily imported that there is bread which is so called Which because it cannot be before consecration therfore after consecration there must be bread to be and to be called the body of Christ And beyond this the omnipotent force of the word of Christ doth not extend it selfe Hee thereby maketh the bread his body not as h Iohn 2.9 of water hee made wine so as to be no longer water but as i Iohn 1.14 the word was made flesh and yet still continued to be the word k Theodoret. vt supra Non naturam mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens not changing nature as Theodoret expresseth it but adding grace vnto nature Albeit to dispute here what the word of Christ had been of force to doe is fantasticall and idle what hee did intend to doe is manifest and plaine vnto vs. He purposed to institute a Sacrament and l Aug. epi. 23. si sacramenta similitudinem quandam non haberent earum rerū quarum sunt sacramenta omninò sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque rerū ipsarū nomina acci●iunt sacraments haue a resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments and by reason of that resemblance they commonly take the names of the things themselues Christ therefore according to this accustomed maner calleth the Sacrament of his body and bloud by the name of his bodie and bloud and saith of bread This is my body and of the Cuppe This is my bloud and not in name enely but m Cyprian de resurrect Christi Quod videtur nomine virtute Christi corpus censetur in power and effect they are to the faithfull receiuer the same that they are called Heerein the force of Christs word is seene that to so weake and simple creatures he addeth so rich and vnspeakable grace and by so slender meanes worketh so great effects whereby he maketh vs poore creatures of the earth to become one with himselfe in heauen But if M. Bishop will deny the meaning to be This bread is my body we desire him to declare a better meaning and to tell vs certainly whereto to refer This which if he can define we will hold him for a wiser man than any hitherto hath been amongst them After much tossing this matter to and fro needlesse here to be stood vpon their great Master Bellarmine commeth to strike the matter dead and telleth vs that the meaning is n Bellar. de sacram Eucharist l. 1. c. 11. Hoc id est substantia sub his spectebus contenta This that is the substance contained vnder these formes But his wisedome might haue seene that the question

trust in our Lady for the sweetnesse of the mercy of her name Because I haue trusted in thy grace thou hast taken away from me euerlasting reproch O our Lady thou art our refuge in all our necessity O Lady saue mee by thy name And whereas M. Bishop saith that our beleeuing in God is the giuing of our whole heart vnto him they yeeld the same to our Lady also saying I confesse vnto thee ſ Ibid. Psal 9. Confitebor tibi Domina in toto corde meo Psal 102. Omnia praecordia mea glorificate nomen eius O Lady with my whole heart let all my hartstrings glorifiy her name By these and infinite other such speeches it appeareth that by their beleeuing in Saints they commit idolatry and doe giue that honour to the Saints which belongeth to God onely 4. W. BISHOP He chargeth vs first with the breach of the third article Conceiued by the holy Ghost Which saith he is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Masse into the body and blood of Christ for heere wee are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ beginning in his conception and neuer ending afterward Answ Heere is a strange exposition of the Creed Is Christs incarnation perpetuall and not yet ended then it is true to say that Christ is not yet incarnate as we may say truely that a man is not borne vntill his birth be accomplished and ended But to the present purpose because Christs incarnation began at his conception cannot bread be turned afterward into his body how hangeth this together Belike he meanes that Christs body was but once conceiued and that was by the holy Ghost in his mothers wombe therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing This to be his meaning he declares in the question of the Sacrament but it is too too simple and childish For we hold him not to be so conceiued by bread as he was by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but that the same body that was conceiued by the holy Ghost is made really present in the Sacrament by transubstantiation of bread into it which hath no opposition at all with this article as I haue more largely prooued in the for said question And whereas he saith farther cleane besides the purpose of this article that Christs body hath the essentiall properties of a true body standing of flesh and bone we grant the same but when he addeth that locall circumscription cannot be seuered from a body he is deceiued for the greatest body of all others which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no other body without it whose extremities might compasse in and circumscribe that body of the highest heauen And when he saith that to be circumscribed in place is an essential property of euery quantity and that quantity is the common essence of euery body he makes himselfe but a common mocking-stocke vnto euery simple Legician who knoweth that no accident such as euery quantity is can be of the essence and nature of a substance such as Christs body is Neither would any man say that cared what he said that to be circumscribed in a place is essential to euery quantity when all numbers that be quantities haue no relation vnto any place neither is it of the essence of any quantity to be actually circumscribed by a place but it is a property flowing out of the essence of one only kinde of quantitie to be apt and fit to be circumscribed and compassed about with a place And naturally all bodies except the highest heauen haue one place out of which they passe as Saint Austin said when they come into another but by the omnipotent power of God any body may be separated from his place or be in as many places at once as it shall please God to seate it because to be circumscribed with a place actually is a meere accident vnto a substantiall body and without the nature of quantity and God may not without blasphemy be disabled to separate a substance from an accident R. ABBOT M. Bishop saue that he was disposed to cauill knew well enough what M. PERKINS meant by the perpetuall incarnation of Christ The truth of Christs body destroied by Popish transubstantiation that whereby he tooke flesh once for all and to continue man for eu●r Now it is true that because Christ hath but one only body and that body was perfect by that incarnation therefore bread which hath his being after cannot be said to be turned into the body which was before For when one thing is turned into another the latter is not till it be produced of the former neither hath the one beginning but by the ending of the other Aarons rod was turned into a serpent but the serpent was not till of the rod there became a serpent Our Sauiour Christ turned water into wine but the wine was not till of water there became wine And absurd it is that one and the same thing being fully and perfectly made already should yet be said to be made of any other thing As for M. Bishops exception it is childish and impertinent because we doe not charge them to hold that the body of Christ is so conceiued by bread as it was conceiued by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but we say that sith the body of Christ by the power of the holy Ghost was conceiued and made of the substance of the Virgin Mary and thereby became a consummate and perfect body it is therefore absurd to affirme that the same body is now to be made of any other thing But this is not the thing that M. PER. aimed at it is the condition and nature of a true body whereof he argueth which we professe to beleeue that Christ tooke in his conception and incarnation but is ouerthrowen by Popish transubstantiation He saith that Christs body hath all things in it which by order of creation belong to a body which hee namely specifieth in local circumscription which he saith can no way be seuered from a body it remaining a body implying that the Papists affirming the body of Christ without locall circumscription doe thereby destro● the truth of his body M. Bishop answereth that M. PER. heerein is deceiued For saith he the greatest body of all other which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no body without it to circumscribe it Well but yet it hath dimension and position and distance of parts and motion accordingly and therefore quantum inse it is locally circumscribed the only defect is that it hath not a body without it to be circumscribed thereby Yea we may truely say that it hath a kinde of locall circumscription by the superficiall clausure and determination of it owne substance In as much therefore as in it selfe it hath euery way the condition of

purpose he misinforceth the testimony of Epiphanius whereby he would exempt Aerius from the crime of heresie iustly laied vnto his charge by S. Austin and many others But I answer him that though as a man I may be deceiued yet God hath giuen me more grace than that in these matters I will willingly deceiue my selfe In this matter of Epiphanius I do not take my selfe in any sort to be deceiued His conclusion against Aerius as touching praier for the dead is this r Epiphan haer 75. Ecclesia necess●r●ò hoc perficit traditione à patribus accepta quis autem poterit staturum matris dissoluere aut legem patris velut Solomon dicit Audi fili fermones patris tui ne repudies statuta matris tuae ostendens per hoc quòd in scriptu sine scripto decuit pater mater autem nostra ecclesia habet statuta in se posita indissolubilia quae dissolui non p●ssunt●● Cùm itaque ordi nata sint in ecclesia statuta benè se habeant omnia mirab●ittèr fiant confuta●us est tursus etiam hic seductor The Church necessarily doth this by tradition receiued from the Fathers and who may dissolue the statute of his mother or the law of his Father as Solomon saith My sonne heare thy Fathers words and refuse not thy Mothers statutes heereby shewing that both in writing and without writing the Father hath taught and our Mother the Church hath statutes set downe in her which are inuiolable and may not be broken Seeing then saith hee that there are statutes ordeined in the Church and they are well and all things are admirably done this seducer is confuted Now then doe I say that praier for the dead is a tradition Epiphanius saith the same that the Church doth it by tradition from the Fathers Doe I say that he maketh it a statute or ordinance of the Church He himselfe expresly calleth it so and finally presseth the authority of the Church onely for the confuting of Aerius He alleageth no Scripture his words import that he hath none to alledge Onely to grace the ordinances of the Church he wresteth a saying of Salomon nothing pertinent thereto as if we were taught that God without scripture teacheth vs by the Church And if he meane any otherwise but that it is the ordinance of the Church very vainly and idlely doth he heere name the ordinance of the Church But M. Higgons will say that though Epiphanius name it thus a tradition and an ordinance of the Church yet he meaneth it to be such a tradition and ordinance as is from the Apostles But let him meane what he will yet so long as he maketh it a tradition without Scripture my words stand good which I vsed to M. Bishop ſ Answer to Doct. Bishops epistle sect 10. pag. 79. 80. Epiphanius resolueth vs that praier for the dead is a matter of tradition and an ordinance of the Church and therefore freeth vs from any trespasse against any thing that Moses or the Prophets or Christ and his Apostles in the Scriptures haue deliuered vnto vs. If it be no matter of Scripture with Epiphanius then I say rightly that he cleereth vs from impugning therein any thing that is deliuered in the Scriptures Albeit because it is by Epiphanius his confession a tradition without Scripture therefore we resolue vndoubtedly that it came not from the Apostles because whatsoeuer they taught concerning faith and saluation is conteined in the Scriptures as before hath beene shewed at large Yea and how vnsoundly Epiphanius vrgeth Apostolike tradition is to be seene in the point which he speaketh of immediately before where he saith that t Epiphan haer 75. Decreuerunt Apostoli quarta prosabbato ieiunium per omnia excepta Pentecoste de sex diebus Paschatis praecipiunt nihil omninò accipere quàm panem salem aquam the Apostles decreed a fast vpon Wednesdaies and Fridaies continually saue betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide and that six daies before Easter men should receiue nothing but bread and salt and water whereas S. Austin professeth that u Aug. epist 86. Quibus diebus non oporteat ieiunare quibus oporteat praecepto Domini vel Apostolorum non inuenio de finitum what daies to fast or what daies not to fast he findeth it not defined or set downe by any commandement of Christ or his Apostles and by Tertullian it appeareth that the Primitiue Church alledged against the Montanists x Tertul. de ieiunio sic Apostolos obsernasse nullum aliud imponentes iugum certorū in cōmune ●mnibus obeundorum ●etunorum that the Apostles imposed no yoke of standing and common fasts and of the Lent-fast Socrates resolueth that y Socrat. hist. li. 5. c. 21. Quoniam nemo de ea praeceptum literarum monumentis proditum potest ostēdere perspicuum est Apostolos liberam potestatem in eadem cuiusque menti arbitrio permisisse vt quisque nec metu nec necessitate inductus quod bonum est faceret because no man can shew any written commandement thereof it is manifest that the Apostles left it free to euery mans will and discretion that without feare or necessity euery man should doe what good is Now we cannot wonder that he that would thus vnaduisedly name Apostolike tradition for the one should do the same for the other also Albeit if M. Higgons can iustifie praier for the dead according to Docter Fields rule we will not sticke with him to grant it to be an Apostolicall tradition But he might haue seene that I had put it without the compasse of that rule if he had been desirous to know the truth and had not resolued first vpon other occasions to fall away and afterwards to seeke shifts to excuse his fall I shewed by Origen that the Church at first vsed no praier for the dead by the authour of the ecclesiasticall Hierarchy that when it was first vsed it was vsed onely for iust and holy men of whose soules they were resolued that they were in heauen for what causes I haue expressed there by Epiphanius that they added afterwards to pray for euill men also and publicke offenders by Austin that there was not knowen any definite and certaine vse and effect of praiers and offerings for the dead and that many in his time did plead that if any good were to be done for the soule after death it should rather be by it owne confession of sinnes than by offerings procured by other men And lastly whereas praier for the dead by M. Higgons confession dependeth vpon Purgatory I shewed by Austins expresse words that he had no certaine beleefe or knowledge of any such place which are more cleere to that purpose than that by any Popish sophistications they can be shifted or deluded 36. Albeit I did not only alledge him doubting of Purgatory but also plainly excluding it vpon occasion by denying any third place