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
A81339	A discourse of proper sacrifice, in way of answer to A.B.C. Jesuite, another anonymus of Rome: whereunto the reason of the now publication, and many observable passages relating to these times are prefixed by way of preface: by Sr. Edvvard Dering Knight and baronet.	Dering, Edward, Sir, 1598-1644.; Glover, George, b. ca. 1618.; Jansson van Ceulen, Cornelius, b. 1593.	1644 (1644)	Wing D1108A; Thomason E51_13; ESTC R22886	86,894	157

will conclude that he did not as your Priests do who have nor bread nor wine in your Sacrifice But you argue out of Cyprian who saith that in Genesi per Melchisedec Imago sacrificii Christi in pane vino constituta c. The bread and wine of Melchisedec wherewith he refreshed Abraham was an image of that bread and wine wherewith our Saviour refresheth the faithfull Be it so but you will say that Cyprian calleth here the Sacramentall bread and wine Sacrificium Christi Christs sacrifice that is no news you have it confessed and allowed before that the Eucharist may be said to be sacrificall multis modis but when will you prove it to be so properly This is that which you have undertaken and is indeed the onely question Concerning this and the rest of Cyprians authorities here alledged it must be remembred as was said before that his intendment is to prove that the Sacrament ought to be celebrated in wine not in water alone this is his whole intention through this Epistle without dream or thought of your then unknown and unheard of Transubstantiated presence Concerning Melchisedec and his offering I shall have fuller cause to close with you anon CHAP. V. A. B. C. WHich point of the time when our Saviour did so offer as also of his offering of bread wine as aforesaid in Sacrifice is expressely averred by S. Cyprian in the words following to wit that the holy Ghost did by Solomon foreshew a type of our Lords Sacrifice Typum Dominici Sacrificii making mention of an immolated host or Sacrifice and of bread and of wine and also of an altar and of the Apostles They are all S. Cyprians words who citing the place of the 9. of the Proverbs taketh hold of the last words Bibite vinum quod miscui vobis Drink the wine which I have mingled for you thus he declareth the wine to be mingled that is he doth foretell prophetically that our Saviours chalice was to be mingled with water and wine that it may appear that that was done in the passion of our Lord that is at the time or beginning of our Saviours passion which was foretold Here you see again a clear proof of our Saviours sacrifice whereof Solomons bread and wine was a type or figure and likewise of the practice of the Church in offering both water and wine in the Chalice Sr. EDWARD DERING Every proof of our Saviours Sacrifice shall passe for clear whether it be such or not because whether you do mean his propitiatory and proper Sacrifice of the Crosse or the Eucharisticall Sacrifice or Commemoration of a sacrifice instituted in his last supper both wayes we confesse Christs Sacrifice what need you therefore prove that which is not denied But I espie another aim in your last line you would inferre the antiquity of your practice of celebrating in your mingled wine and water This is no more incident to your theam then water is necessary to the wine These {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} shall passe by me without trouble yet let me ask you what your faith is in this point when the substance of wine is turned into the substance of Christs bloud as you believe what then becomes of the substance of water which you beforehand did mingle with the wine CHAP. VI A. B. C. ANd lastly to conclude with S. Cyprian in this matter answering an objection made or which might be made out of the practice of some who formerly did think that water onely was to be offered in the Chalice he rejects that practice saying In Sacrificio quod Christus obtulit non nisi Christus sequendus est In the Sacrifice which Christ offered no man is to be followed but Christ So as nothing can be more clear then that in his opinion Christ did institute and offer a true and proper Sacrifice in his last supper and that of his own body and bloud under the forms of bread and wine and that he did ordain that the Apostles and other preists suceeding them should do the same and that the Church did so practice and teach in S. Cyprians time Nor do I see what can be said against the authoritie of his person or work by me cited or the edition or reading or what doubt can be made of the sense or his meaning Sr. EDWARD DERING Your close of every period comes roundly off You know what you would have and you are sure to call for it in every conclusion though nothing be in the premises from whence to inferre it I will represent unto you Cyprians argument and your own Thus S. Cyprian In sacrificio quod c. In the Sacrifice which Christ did offer no man is to be followed but Christ Therefore no Sacrifice or celebration of the Lords supper without wine Your Argument runnes thus In Sacrificio quod c. In the Sacrifice which Christ did offer no man is to be followed but Christ Therefore it is clear that Christ did institute a true and proper Sacrifice Cyprians argument is good yours is no argument at all CHAP. VII A. B. C. THe next is Eusebius Caesariensis in his work de Demonstratione Evangelica lib. 1. cap. 10. The title whereof is this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is Why was it not delivered unto us to offer incense and Sacrifice to God things of the earth as the ancients or those of former times that is the Jews did and discoursing largely of the reason why they did offer beasts in Sacrifice he saith That they were signes or shadows of that great Sacrifice which was to be offered for expiation of the sinnes of the whole world which was Christ of whom he saith that the proph●ts did foretell that he was to be led to the slaughter like a sheep and like an innocent lambe who being so offered and thereby paying the ransome due for the sinnes of the whole world both Jews and Grecians or gentiles With great reason saith he his words are these {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is With great reason we daily celebrating the remembrance of his body and bloud and being made worthy of a better Sacrifice and preistly function then that of our ancestours cannot deem it fit to fall back to the former and weak elements which were but signes or shadows not containing the truth it self or the substance Of which I may say that almost every word is a pregnant proof of what I intend that is of the truth and property of our Sacrifice for first c. Sr. EDWARD DERING 2. Almost every word a proof and that a pregnant one also How dull am I that cannot find and feel this quicknesse In the mean time I observe that although the word priestly priestly function be like to do you no service here at all yet to make a shew you have helped that into your English which you cannot find a fair and full authority for

may be strange that so Sainted a Doctour in so vast a summe of all Divinity should forget your highest mysterie of a proper Sacrifice even there where he is treating of the Sacrament and how it may be called a Sacrifice You may take his conclusion which is but this Hujus Sacramenti celebratio convenienter dicitur Christi immolatio the celebration of this Sacrament is conveniently called the Sacrifice of Christ He doth not say it is so really properly but it is conveniently called so so I go on to your testimony out of S. Cyprian 3. This ancient Father arguing the right celebration of the Lords supper from the example of our Saviour the Authour thereof who onely is herein to be followed doth proceed to these words by you alledged Si Jesus Christus c. If Jesus Christ our Lord and God be himself the high preist of God the father he did offer Sacrifice first and commanded this to be done in remembrance of him verily that preist doth truly perform the place of Christ who doth imitate that which Christ did do and doth then offer a true and fall Sacrifice in the Church to God the father if he begin so to offer according to what he seeth Christ himself to have offered What of this here are the words Sacrifice and Preist I know no quarrel between us upon these words nor would there be any if you did not adde your sense of propriety to them both Cyprian here calleth either our Saviours death upon the crosse or els the remembrance thereof the Lords supper which was instituted to shew the Lords death or both of them a Sacrifice Be it so What can be from hence inferred more then that which in the first of my seaven inferences before was by anticipation prevented We confesse the name of Sacrifice Preist and Altar to be frequent with the ancient Fathers but ever in a borrowed and tropicall sense never properly Here the preist is said to imitate that which Christ did so the x Preists and Ministers call them which you will in the reformed Church This imitation is called a true and full Sacrifice but not a proper Sacrifice You saw before 2. that I shewed you perfect sacrifices which were not proper sacrifices of which you may also see a whole Chapter in S. Augustine de vero perfectóque sacrificio and yet no word of your Missall sacrifice 4. If you will go no further then these Fathers and Doctours I will go with you Call the signe by the name of the thing signified call the representation as you do the thing resembled call the picture by the name of the person whose it is who will quarrel unlesse for the Consequence being dangerous or for fear of scandall Call the image of your Pope the Pope your self well knows that then you speak improperly yet who will argue you of falshood When you see the picture of King Charles if you say this is the King who will lay treason to your charge But think not that a few forced places picked and chosen out of the voluminous labours of the holy Fathers can make your phansie substantiall When in ancient Churchmen you papists do find the word Sacrifice straightway your ears are up and you flatter your selves that the chime strikes the same tune that runs in your head like the mad Athenian who will not be perswaded but that all the ships in the harbour are his If one or two Fathers in their zeal to God and for honour to the pretious and venerable sacrament should in the extollment of it passe an earnest word thereby more deeply to imprint the passion of our Lord into the minds of Christians and to raise up our devotion and reverence to this holy and heavenly Communion calling it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a dreadfull secret fearfull terrible most formidable unspeakable venerable honourable divine holy immaculate immortall celestiall supercelestiall above the world life-giving mystery yet will you never find any word sentence or sense in them whereby to approve your proper sacrifice but thousands of places that cannot well consist with such a construction whereof you shall have some after I have runne through these your allegations I have been the more plentifull in this first part because the grounds here laid the authorities here vouched and the clear truth of our orthodox belief in point of Sacrifice being thus presented these very reasons and authorities may well serve to answer all or almost all that is remaining in discussion whereof I will endeavour brevity 5. Let me return unto your Cyprian for Cyprian and I will passe to another chapter Look in his epistle to nine pious Christians whom he calleth his fellow-Bishops and Martyrs condemned in chains unto the mines and there you shall find that having named unto them an humble and a contrite spirit he presently addeth y Hoc vos sacrificium Deo offertis hoc sacr●ficium sine intermissione die nocte celebratis hostiae facti deo vosmet ipsos sanctas atque immaculatas victimas exhibentes Hoc est quod praecipuè Deo placeat This sacrifice you offer unto God this sacrifice without intermission day and night you celebrate you being made sacrifices to God presenting your selves holy and unspotted offerings This is that which principally may please God This is daily sacrifice with S. Cyprian to offer up one self he concludeth that this doth principally please God Principally that is above all other Sacrifices in this world Did not Cyprian here forget your Missal sacrifice 6. Secondly in this very Epistle by you cited he saith Sanguis Christi non aqua est utique sed vinum the bloud of Christ is not water verily but wine Is our Saviours bloud wine very true it is so and he himself as Cyprian there voucheth vitis vera a true vine But this is true in a comfortable metaphor not by conversion of substances for the bloud of our Saviour is not really transubstantiated into wine no man ever thought so And why then should you obtrude that because the sacramentall wine is called his bloud it is therefore without all figure and metaphor his very bloud by the conversion of the very substance of wine into the substance of his bloud Nec potest videri sanguis ejus quo redempti vivificati sumus esse in calice quando vinum desit calici quo Christi sanguis ostenditur neither can his bloud wherewith we are redeemed and quickened be seen to be in the Chalice when wine is not in the chalice whereby the bloud of Christ is shewen From hence I argue that S. Cyprian knew not your Transubstantiation For allowing the Sacramentall wine to be the bloud of Christ and so we confesse it he saith There is no bloud to be seen when the wine is gone but with you there is no bloud at all untill the wine be gone If you say that indeed the substance

of wine is gone but the species or accidents of colour c. are there I reply that Cyprian would no more call those accidents wine then you do now had he been either a Philosopher of your schools or a Divine of your Religion But mark the last words quo Christi sanguis ostenditur By the wine Christ his bloud is shewen He saith not that the wine is bloud or turned into bloud but the bloud is shewen by the wine yet the bloud with you is seen without wine Again Miror satis unde aqua offeratur in Dominico calice qu● sola Christi sanguinem non possit exprimere I wonder enough from whence water should be offered in the Lords Chalice which cannot alone expresse the bloud of Christ Was the bloud of Christ then to be expressed and signified it seems S. Cyprian did forget that the bloud it self was there to expresse and signifie it self Or rather he was unacquainted with your late faith of Transubstantiation But you will say I am now in another theam what is this to sacrifice Yes as a foundation to a building This being gone your work is down for you say that you do not sacrifice bread but the body of Christ made of bread z Corpus Domini ex pane confectum If then no Transubstantiation it follows in your Doctrine by consequence no Sacrifice 7. Lastly I observe also that Cyprian doth call the bread a Sacrifice and that before any consecration thereof He taxing a rich dame for eating the consecrated bread which poorer persons as was customary there had presented and not bringing of her own to be consecrated hath this reprehension Matrona locuples dives quae in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis quae partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulit sumis Are you a rich and wealthy matrone who come into the Lords house without a sacrifice who take part of that sacrifice which some poore body hath offered Here is Sacrifice and that before consecration and that offered by the poore and expected from a woman These places do evidently conclude that figurative and metaphoricall sacrifices were all that were known unto S. Cyprian in whom your self cannot find one passage whereby to evince your proper sacrifice 8. To return and in a word more to shut you quite from all authority out of Cyprian let any man with heed and judgement reade this Epistle written onely against the errour of the Aquarians who ministred the holy Communion in water onely without wine and he may easily find what Cyprian drives at and if he be sensible he will offer to conclude no more then Cyprian himself did undertake to prove This holy Martyr with much earnestnesse in severall places of this Epistle doth presse the example of our Saviour as our all-sufficient rule and guide herein In this very period whence you take this passage which is the eleventh in this Epistle he saith Non nisi Christus sequendus solus Christus audiendus quid Christus prior fecerit c. Wherein In what point is this example urged even in those things ad ipsum Dominicae passionis nostrae redemptionis Sacramentum pertinentia which concern the sacrament so comes he to your words that the Priest should imita●e Christ and if he will offer a true and full sacrifice he must offer how Secundùm quod according to that he seeth Christ himself to have offered According to that How so what is secundùm quod but as before according to the example of Christ His example what example and wherein doth Cyprian here mean plainly against the Aquarians who in the administration of the Cup used water and therein did not imitate Christ by whose example we are taught to celebrate in wine And this I will abide by to be the true plain and full scope and sense of this Father in this your choice alledged place CHAP. III. A. B. C. HEre I might as well have followed the Edition of Pamelius which saith Sacrificium Patri seipsum primus obtulit He offered himself a sacrifice first as that of Erasmus which leaves out the word seipsum but onely to avoid all exception and the rather for that the sense is clearly enough the same without that word at least for my purpose which is to shew that Christ did institute a proper Sacrifice which was to continue in his Church Sr. EDWARD DERING Since that you inferre nothing out of the differencie of Editions I have therefore no cause of answer to this piece But if you had vouched that of Pamelius and argued upon his seipsum you knew well that I have the much elder Edition by Erasmus which is enough to controll Pamelius CHAP. IIII. A. B. C. ANd besides S. Cyprian in this same Epistle had said the same thing and in a manner the same words for proving his intent by the example of Melchisedec his Sacrifice he saith thus Quis magis sacerdos Dei summi quàm Dominus noster Jesus Christus qui Sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedec obtulerat id est panem vinum suum scilicet corpus sanguinem Who is more the priest of the most high God then our Lord Jesus Christ who did offer a Sacrifice to God the Father and offered the same which Melchisedec had offered that is bread and wine to wit his body and bloud Now to offer his body and bloud is the same as to offer himself and in this place I find no variety of readings so as here again it is clear that our Saviour did offer a proper Sacrifice such as Melthisedecs But lest any man should think our Saviours bread and wine to be no more then Melchisedecs ●e explicateth himself that our Saviours bread and wine was his body and bloud and a little after compareth them together calling the sacrifice of Melehisedec the image and resemblance of the other and that this resemblance did consist in bread and wine imago Sacrificii saith he in pane vino constituta and that our Saviour did perfect and fulfill the same when he offered bread and wine which was the night before his passion when he took bread and blessed it and gave it to his Disciples and the rest as followeth in the Gospel Sr. EDWARD DERING The place needs no variety of readings it is plain enough except for your interpretation wherewith you do obscure it by inferring more then you have ground for You conclude for your advantage but you want proof for your Conclusion You say our Saviour did offer a proper sacrifice Who ever denied it You say this Sacrifice was himself It is confessed But this that the Sacramentall bread and wine being converted into our Saviours body and bloud was sacrificed which I see you intend in the last words He offered bread and wine when will you prove it or rather why do you disprove it For whilest you say he offered bread and wine you do against your