Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	aaron_n	become_v	magician_n	39	3	11.3860	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41592	An answer to A discourse against transubstantiation	Gother, John, d. 1704.	1687 (1687)	Wing G1326; ESTC R30310	67,227	82

Sense understand this to be meant of true Bread Others notwithstanding this natural Exposition in the behalf of the Roman Catholic Assertion will have the word Communion to signifie the Substance of Bread. If it must signifie Substance let us deal fairly and in the place of Communion substitute the word Substance and so we shall easily see to what this Substance belongs The Bread which we break is it not the Substance of the Body of Christ Neither can the Church of Rome as well argue from the following Verse 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body that all Christians are substantially chang'd first into Bread and then into the Natural Body of Christ as you will have it Because we see no Reason in the World for this And the Divine Apostle instructs us otherwise declaring the precise and only Reason of this Unity For we are all Partakers of the same Body 'T is Participation not any Substantial Change in our selves makes us one in Christ Nor is a pressing Example wanting in the Apostle to the same purpose are not they the Pagans which eat of the Sacrifices Partakers of the Altar You instance the same Apostle speaking of the Consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three Verses together This is Acute and Subtile But each Witty Contrivance is not true It is not true St. Paul calls the Consecrated Elements the Bread and the Wine We read indeed in three Verses together the bare word of Bread attributed to the Eucharist as often as you eat this Bread and this is all we read which may be said without any prejudice to the Substantial Change. And this for two Reasons both dictated by the Holy Ghost First By reason of the outward appearance of Bread. Secondly Because it formerly was Bread. The First Reason St. Luke authorises in the Acts. Behold two Men stood by them in white apparel Here the bare Name of Man is attributed to Angels and Angels are only Men in appearance The Second Reason is deduced from two Substantial Conversions We read in Exodus They cast down every Man his Rod and they became Serpents but Aaron's Rod swallowed up the Rods of the Magicians And in St. John when the Ruler of the Feast had tasted the Water that was Wine He tasted Water and the Water was Wine The Serpent is called a Rod and was a Serpent because the Serpent and the Wine were formerly a Rod and Water It is then true that the bare Name of bread may be attributed to the Eucharist without any prejudice of the Substantial Change of Bread into the true Body of Christ And if it be not true that St. Paul says the Consecrated Elements are Bread and Wine it is true that St. Paul calls the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body Jesus took Bread and when he had given thanks brake it and said take eat this is my Body which is broken for you So does St. Chrysostom What is the Bread the Body of Christ So does St. Ambrose This Bread is Flesh You resume this is my Body which is broken cannot be literally understood of his Natural Body broken because his Body was then whole and unbroken I answer how can you contradict our Saviour who says this is my Body which is broken And if it be Christ's Body 't is his real Body for he had no Phantasm or imaginary Body Nor did I ever hear that Christ had two real Bodies But the same Body may have two different existences a Natural and Supernatural Existence For if God can give a Natural Existence to what is not can what is hinder God from adding a Supernatural Existence Now these Words which is broken cannot be understood of the Natural Existence of our Saviour's Body hanging on the Cross for there his Body was unbroken whence that of St. Chrysistom we may see this in the Eucharist and the contrary on the Cross His bones shall not be broken Nor is it hard to conceive how the Body of Christ may be said to be broken in the Sacrament For as a Substance is said to be visible by reason of the visible accidents which environ it Thus we commonly say I saw a Man and yet nor Soul nor Substance of the Body but only the shape and outward appearance of the Substance was the object of the Eye So likewise Christ's Body in the Sacrament takes the denomination of broken from the Species of Bread which is truly divided Article V. The Silence of the Apostles at the Institution YOU ought not to be surprised if the Disciples frequently full of Questions and Objections should make no difficulty of this matter when our Saviour instituted the Sacrament not so much as ask our Saviour How can these things be or tell him We see this to be Bread and Wine and thy Body distinct from both My reason is because when the Jews and the Disciples were blamed for these inquiries at the promise of our Saviour the Apostles assisted with Divine Grace gave credit to our Saviour's Words And if they believed the Promise why should they be disquieted at the Institution We read after these words in St. John where the Promise of Christ in the Sacrament is given The Bread which I will give is my Flesh This Passage the Jews therefore strove amongst themselves saying how can this man give us his Flesh to eat This Jewish Opposition was seconded with the murmur of Christ's Disciples many therefore of his Disciples when they had heard this said This is an hard saying who can hear it This murmur after all our Saviour's Arguments to settle the Jews in the belief of what was promised ended in a plain desertion or leaving of Jesus from that time many of his Disciples went and walked no more with him Here is the reluctancy you sought for and the Objections you demanded in the Apostles But do you think this Resistance was laudable in the Jews Do you believe this Opposition was commendable in the Disciples Or rather to be disturbed at our Saviour's Ordination and Assertion Is it not the beginning of Incredulity And yet for all this you raise Sense and erect it as an Idol to the Peoples Devotions Bewitching Sense whose Allurements intice the greatest Integrity of Noblest Souls and would win too their Thoughts if less than a God interposed Hence this Speech of St. Hilary that great Persecutor of Arianism There is folly in declaring for Jesus Christ had we not received from him this Lesson of Truth Jesus says the Bread is truly Flesh and the Wine is truly Blood after this Declaration ther 's left no place to doubt of the verity of his Flesh and Blood. St. Ambrose opposes to the restless importunity of Sense the prerogative of the Deity Lest asking of God what we expect from man reason of things we should entrench upon Divine Prerogatives And what more unworthy than to believe men