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
A52905	Three sermons upon the sacrament in which transubstantiation is impartially considered, as to reason, scripture, and tradition to which is added a sermon upon the feast of S. George / by N.N. ... Preacher in ordinary to Their Majesties.	N. N., Preacher in Ordinary to Their Majesties.	1688 (1688)	Wing N60; ESTC R11075	101,855	264

Our Saviour dos not say This is Wine S. Paul dos not contradict our Saviour nor dos our Saviour contradict himself Why then do they call it bread and wine The Answer is obvious Not because it was bread wine then but because it was bread wine before Nothing is more familiar in Scripture than this way of speaking S. Iohn in the 9. ch of his Ghospel relating the miraculous cure of the man that was born blind tells us in the 7. v. He went his way washt came seeing and yet afterwards in the 17. v. he calls him blind and tells us what they say to the blind man again Why dos the Scripture call him blind after his sight was restord The reason is not because he was blind then but because he was blind before Turn to the 7. ch of S. Luke and in the 22. v. you 'l read these words of our Saviour The blind see the lame walk the deaf hear he says they see and yet he calls them blind he says they walk yet he calls them lame he says they hear yet he calls them deaf Why dos he call them blind lame deaf when he himself bears witness that they see walk hear The Answer lies before you He calls them so not because they were so then but because they were so before In the 2. ch of S. Iohn the substantial change of water into wine was much the same as Transubstantiation therefore the example is fitter for the purpose In the 9 v. you read that the Ruler of the Feast tasted the water that was made wine You cannot but observe how plainly the Scripture says it was made wine and at the same time plainly calls it water Will any man deny this miracle and say it was not really truly wine because the Scripture calls it water after it was made wine No no 't is clear that when the miracle was done the Scripture calls it water not because it was water then but because it was water before Read the 7. ch of Exodus you 'l find in the 10. v. Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh it became a Serpent in the 11. v. The Magicians of Egypt also did in like manner in the 12. v. They cast down every man his rod but Aaron's rod swallowd up their rods Pause here one moment The Scripture plainly tells us that these rods were all chang'd into Serpents and yet after the change the Scripture calls them rods not because they were rods then but because they were rods before If any of our Adversaries have a mind to say these rods were not chang'd into Serpents that Christ never chang'd water into wine that when he told S. Iohn's disciples the blind see the lame walk the deaf hear he sent them back to their master with so many lies in their mouths if they have a mind to say our Saviour never cur'd the man born blind then they may have the same pretence to magnifie this trifling argument But if they are the men which I would willingly believe they are if they are candid sincere if they submit their judgment fairly to the word of God as it is plainly written in their own translation of of the Bible they cannot but ingenuously confess that Transubstantiation is not any way repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture but that Scripture it self contutes the best of all their arguments which they produce against it I will not say t is ignorance but I am sure 't is either that or want of ingenuity which makes men argue that because there are some metaphors in Scripture Therefore the words of Consecration are a Metaphor or Figure No man denies but that we often meet with metaphors in Scripture but then either the common phrase of speaking evidently marks them out or else they are explaind by what fore-runs or follows the expression so explaind that no judicious Reader doubts the meaning of them When in the 6. of S. Iohn our Saviour says I am the bread of life He adds he that comes to me shall never hunger When in the 8. He says I am the light of the world He adds he that follows me shall have the light of life When in the 10. He says I am the door He adds by me if any man enter he shall be saved When in the 14. He says I am the way He adds no man comes to my Father but by me When in the 15. He says I am the Vine He adds he that abides in me brings forth much fruit So when S. Paul tells the Ephesians 5. ch 30. v. We are members of his body of his flesh of his bones He explicared it in the 23. v. that this Body which Christ is the Head and Saviour of is the Church And when he mentions flesh bones he only carries on the metaphor by a mysterious allusion to the 2. of Genesis because as Eve's Body drew its Being from the side of the first Adam when he slept in Paradise so also the Church derives the grace which animates it from the side the flesh bones of the last Adam when he slept his mortal sleep upon the Cross The verse which follows leads directly to the place and gives us word for word the 24. v. of the 2. of Genesis that we may evidently know the Sense and Ground of the Comparison In the same manner no less care is taken in the 1. to the Cor. 10. ch 4. v. to explicate these words That Rock was Christ S. Paul seems to write with as much caution as if he had forseen how much these words would be abused by those who now compare them with the words of Consecration Lest any man might think that when he said that rock was Christ he took the word rock in the literal sense he plainly says he speaks of spiritual meat spiritual drink he says in the same verse they drank of that spiritual rock which followd them and that rock that is that spiritual rock was Christ What could a man say more to acquaint the world with the true meaning of his words give us an assurance that it is not literal but only figurative metaphorical Some people are willing to believe that because Christ's body blood are only metaphorically broken shed for us in the Sacrament therefore they are not really his body blood As if because one word is figurative in a sentence therefore all the rest must be so too meerly for keeping it company or as if we were oblig'd to believe that because Christ's sitting at the right hand of his Father is a meer metaphor therefore he did not really ascend to Heaven When in S. Luke in the 1 Cor. we read these words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood the Cup is one metaphor the Testament is another but hence it dos not follow that the blood of Christ is meerly metaphorical For in the common