Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	apple_n	call_v	pigeon_n	40	3	16.7156	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A71177	Symbolon theologikon, or, A collection of polemicall discourses wherein the Church of England, in its worst as well as more flourishing condition, is defended in many material points, against the attempts of the papists on one hand, and the fanaticks on the other : together with some additional pieces addressed to the promotion of practical religion and daily devotion / by Jer. Taylor ...	Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667.	1674 (1674)	Wing T399; ESTC R17669	1,679,274	1,048

called of Adam bone of his bone and the rods changed into serpents are still called rods or else because it sometimes was bread therefore so it is called after just as we say The blind see the lame walk the harlots enter into the kingdome of heaven Which answer although Bellarmine mislikes yet lest any others should be pleased with it I have this certain confutation of it that by the Roman Doctrine the bread is wholly annihilated and nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the holy body and the holy body never was bread not so much as the matter of bread remaining in the change It cannot therefore be called bread unless it be bread at least not for this reason For if the body of Christ be not bread then neither ever was it bread neither was it made of bread and therefore these cannot be the reasons because they are not true But in the instances alledged the denomination still remains because the change was made in the same remaining matter or in the same person or they were to be so again as they were before nothing of which can be affirmed of the Eucharist by their doctrine therefore these instances are not pertinent 2. Others answer that the holy Body is called Bread because it seems to be so just as the effigies and forms of Pomegranates of Bulls of Serpents of Cherubims are called by the names of those creatures whom they do resemble I reply that well they may because there is there no danger of being deceived by such appellations no man will suppose them other than the pictures and so to speak is usual and common But in the matter of the holy Eucharist it ought not to be called bread for the likeness to bread unless it were bread indeed because such likeness and such appellation are both of them a temptation against that which these men call an article of faith but rather because it is like bread and all the world are apt to take it for such it ought to have been described with caution and affirmed to be Christ and God and not to be bread though it seem so But when it is often called Bread in Scripture which name the Church of Rome does not at all use in the mystery and is never called in Scripture the Son of God or God or Christ which words the Church of Rome does often use in the mystery it is certain that it is called bread not because it is like bread but because it is so indeed * And indeed upon such an answer as this it is easie to affirm an apple to be a Pigeon and no apple for if it be urged that all the world calls it an apple it may be replyed then as now It is true they call it an apple because it is like an apple but indeed it is a Pigeon 3. Some of them say when it is called bread it is not meant that particular kind of nourishment but in general it means any food and so only represents Christs body as a celestial divine thing intended some way to be our food Just as in S. John 6. Christ is called the bread that came down from heaven not meaning material bread but divine nourishment But this is the weakest of all because this which is called bread is broken is eaten hath the accidents of bread and all the signs of his proper nature and it were a strange violence that it should here signify any manner of food to which it is not like and not signify that to which it is so like * Besides this bread here signifies as wine or chalice does in the following words now that did signifie the fruit of the Vine that special manner of drink Christ himself being the Interpreter and therefore so must this mean that special manner of food 9. Sixthly If after the blessing the bread doth not remain but as they affirm be wholly annihilated then by blessing God destroys a creature which indeed is a strange kind of blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When God blesses he confirms his words with deeds and gives all sorts of good to that which he blesses And certain it is that although blessing can change it it must yet change it to the better and so we affirm he does for the bread besides the natural being by being blessed becomes the body of Christ in a sacramental manner but then it must remain bread still or else it receives not that increase and change but if it be annihilated and becomes nothing it is not Christs body in any sence nor in any sence can pretend to be blessed To which add the words of S. Austin Ille ad quem non esse non pertinet non est causa deficiendi id est tendendi ad non esse He that is the fountain of all being is not the cause of not being much less can his blessing cause any thing not to be It follows therefore that by blessing the bread becomes better but therefore it still remains 10. Seventhly That it is bread of which Christ affirmed This is my body and that it is bread after consecration was the doctrine of the Fathers in the Primitive Church I begin with the words of a whole Council of Fathers In Trullo at Constantinople decreeing thus against the Aquarii In Sanctis nihil plus quàm corpus Christi offeratur ut ipse dominus tradidit hoc est panis vinúm aquâ mixtum In the holy places or offices let nothing more be offered but the body of Christ as the Lord himself delivered that is bread and wine mingled with water So Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are taught that the food made eucharistical the food which by change nourishes our flesh and bloud is the flesh and bloud of Jesus incarnate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not receive it as common bread No for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is made Sacramental and Eucharistical and so it is sublimed to become the body of Christ. But it is natural food still and that for two reasons 1. Because still he calls it bread not common bread but extraordinary yet bread still Card. Perron says it follows not to say it is not common bread therefore it is bread so as of those which appeared as men to Abraham we might say they were not common men but it follows not that they were men at all So the Holy Ghost descending like a Dove upon the blessed Jesus was no common Dove and yet it follows not it was a Dove at all I reply to this that of whatsoever you can say it is extraordinary in his kind of that you may also affirm it to be of that kind as concerning the richest scarlet if you say this is no ordinary colour you suppose it to be a colour so the Corinthian brass was no common brass and the Colossus was no common Statue and Christmas day is no