Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	body_n	bread_n	wine_n	10,358	5	8.3741	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A60243	The Romish priest turn'd protestant with the reasons of his conversion, wherin the true Church is exposed to the view of Christians and derived out of the Holy Scriptures, sound reason, and the ancient fathers : humbly presented to both houses of Parliament / by James Salago.	Salgado, James, fl. 1680.	1679 (1679)	Wing S380; ESTC R28844	30,919	39

the promise for which belonging of the promise Peter was willing to confer Baptism upon some Converts as we may see out of the fore-mentioned place Act. 2.38 39. Act. 2.38 39. as against the Papists denying to the Children albeit they be under the promise and the Covenant of Grace dying without being baptized the life everlasting by reason he that is in the Covenant of Grace or under the promises is in Christ he that is in Christ Eph. 2.12 Act. 4. must necessarily be saved Therefore he that is under the promise of life or in the Covenant of Grace as Children are must necessarily be saved But they have an argument against us Obj. Verily I say unto you except a man he born of water Joh. 3.6 and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Out of which words they conclude that baptism is of that efficacy that none can be saved without it But I answer Resp It is a vain exception because by this water and spirit is nothing else to be understood but the Holy Ghost himself who is of the same nature as water is as to the ablution of our sins Another like expression is to be found in the Gospel of Matthew Mat. 3.11 He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire that is the Holy Ghost who is of a fiery nature in cleansing as Gold seven times refined in the fire Therefore such expressions are metaphorical or figurative and improper and are call'd Hendiadis a like expression there is in Virgil Poculis libamus auro Virgil. We drink out of Cups of Gold Aeneid 1. Arma virumque cano id est armatum virum Joh. 3.3 that is out of golden Cups so that to be born of water and spirit is nothing else but to be born out of a watery or out of a fiery spirit Hence what Christ saith here by way of Hendiadis he expresseth the same in its own proper words a little higher Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. So that hence we may inter by the authority and explaining of our Saviour himself in this place to be understood only the spiritual Regeneration and not the external Ablution of the water As to the second we do utterly deny the Baptism performed by Women to be lawful and irrevocable They have nothing else to alledg only the example of Zipporah Obj. that circumcised her Son Exod. 4.25 26. and so they think a Woman may as lawfully baptize as circumcise I will not answer according to the usual answer of some Divines Ans that Zipporah sinned in doing so because I believe the Almighty God doth never bless men for sin as he did Moses for that doing of Zippora But I answer thus that in the Old Testament circumcision was indifferently performed by any byreason it was not so strictly joyned with the office of Preaching as Baptism is in the New Testament made so by Christ himself Go and teach all Nations baptizing them c. Mat 28.19 So that now it is unlawful for any one to administer the holy Baptism besides him who is ordained for Preaching Now we are minded to speak of the second Sacrament for we will not regard their assertion of the rest of their five Sacraments which have no ground neither in Scriptures nor in the ancient Fathers which is the Lords-Supper This according to the true Doctrine is nothing else but only a visible sign of an invisible grace by which visible sign that is Bread and Wine 1 Cor. 10.16 17. we receive the body and blood of our Saviour as a seal of the Covenant of Grace tending unto our salvation We do not deny the body and blood of Christ to be really present in this holy Sacrament But we deny the same 1. To be there corporally because the body of our Saviour being circumscriptive and in heavens is not everywhere And then 2. We deny this Supper of our Lord to be a sacrifice for the living and the dead Which is my greatest point in this case and I accordingly will endeavour to declare it As to the first the Papists do urge very much their Transubstantiation It is a question and a Controversie very well known but I hope to add some light to it I go on By this Transubstantiation they understand nothing else but the corporal presence of the body and blood of our Saviour under the accidents of Bread and Wine So that they think the substance of those Elements to be turned into the first nothing out of which they were formerly created and the accidents only to remain which acts in the senses of our sight feeling and taste This is the description or 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation upon which we say the same to be quite false and erroneous 1. The name of it nor the matter in it contained is not to be found in Scriptures 1 Cor. 10.17 by reason after the consecration it is still called bread of which we are partakers where not only we are said to be partakers of bread which could not be if it was annihilated but likewise no Papist will admit this Sacrament to be call'd bread after Consecration which nevertheless the Scripture doth 2. The name of it is newly come up nor was it ever heard before the Council of Lateran when Berengarius was forced to recant the truth and fall into a most abominable error as to say that Christs body was eaten and bitten with teeth c. Atteri dentibus in alvum demitti 3. It is a most improper name to a thing yea it is as much to be called Transubstantiation as creation could be called annihilating because Transubstantiation is nothing else but a mutation of one substance into another as in Cana of Galilee Wine was turned into water but here the Papists say that one substance doth not become another but that the one which is the bread and wine is annihilated and the other which is the body and blood of Christ is induced under the accidents or species of bread and wine although here likewise they have a thousand distinctions about the introduction or adduction of the body of Christ underneath the accidents which I will pass over so that by this way it must be call'd annihilation of one and introduction of another substance rather than Transubstantiation but because the thing is false the name must be of that same nature Conveniunt rebus nomina saepe suis 4. There can be no Transubstantiation where the thing that is given in the distribution of the Sacrament is call'd by the ancients a sign a figure because none can be a sign or a figure of himself as Christ should be if he should be given as present corporally or bodily under the accidents Austin Now Austin saith Non dubitavit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum ●um daret figuram corporis sui The Lord was pleased to say This is my body

man that he is reputed just for the merits and satisfaction of Christ Hence Paul saith That God justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4.5 Rom. 4.5 Rom. 3.24 By his Grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ Rom. 3.24 God then so justifying maketh no phyfical immutation or change in a sinner as the Papists do say who would have this justification of God to be of that same nature as their Transubstantiation is in which one thing is changed into another that is that God justifying doth not proceed as a Judg at the Bar pronouncing one innocent but as making by a physical immutation a just man out of an unjust as Christ did turn water into wine To prove which opinion Bellarmine Becanus and the rest of the Jesuits did much labour but without any success They produce nothing out of the Scriptures which is not to be referred to Sanctification and so they commit a great fault of ignoratio elenchi and their arguments framed from reason are so unreasonable that they are not worth the while of refutation The strongest of them which I intend to alledg is taken from the Word it self They say Justificure nihil aliud est ex vocis etymologia quam justum facere Obj. to justifie is nothing else but only to make just and righteous because it is compounded ex justus facio and the rest of such words as are composed with the word facio are of the same signification as glorificare sanctificare to sanctifie to glorifie which do not signifie to pronounce one holy or glorious but to make one such and of that nature and therefore justificate to justifie must not signifie to pronounce one just who is unjust in himself but to make one righteous But I hope they will not prove themselves better Grammarians than they are Divines I answer therefore 1. The sense and the right meaning of a word in matters Divine is not to be taken out of Calepin but out of the Word of God which is the rule of our faith Now out of the Scriptures it is plain as it is demonstrated by many that Justification is every where taken in sensu forensi Qui justificat impium condemnat justum ambo sunt abominationi Jehovae he that justifieth an unjust man and condemneth the just they are both an abomination unto the Lord faith Solomon Here the justification of an unjust is opposed to a condemnation of a godly man and so in all other places the word Justification is taken 2. If this should be the meaning of the word then there should be no distinction betwixt Justification and Sanctification as we find it to the contrary ●ev 22.11 ●om 8.30 Rev. 22.11 He that is righteous let him be righteous still and he that is holy let him be holy still and so Rom. 8.30 And whom he justified them he also glorified where in the word glorified is comprehended Sanctification Glorificatio inchoata velue glorificatio est sanctificatio consummata an inchoated glorifying as Glorification is a consummated sanctifying 3. And then this composition with the word facio doth not always signifie an internal immutation in that thing unto which such a word is attributed Luk. 1.46 as we may see in the Song of the blessed Virgin Mary where she saith Magnificat anima mea Dominum My soul doth magnifie the Lord where Magnificat is compounded out of the word magnus facio Now let them put their heads together and if they can prove any way that the blessed Mother by her magnifying the Lord made in him an inward change we will allow that God by justifying us maketh an inward mutation in us Ante vero leves pascentur in ●here cervi So much concerning the Justification called active now we will descend to the passive or as it is considered in respect of the man justified And so considered it is nothing else but an assurance of our righteousness in Christ and by the imputation of his merits which we receive and apply to our selves by faith Rom. 3.25 26. Rom. 3.25 26. Hence we see the cause meritorious of our Justification to be the merits of Christ as we shewed it a little before and the hand by which we apply this satisfaction of our Saviour or the instrumental cause to be faith Rom. 5.28 Therefore saith Paul we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law It is as plain in the holy Word of God as that the cause of the day is the Sun that we are only justified by faith Gratia salvati estis per fidem By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of your selves Eph. 2.8 it is the gift of God. So that I will not insist upon this matter any longer Rom. 3.20 and therefore immediately conclude with the Apostle against the Popish Creed That by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight for by the law is the knowledg of sin There is therefore no justification in the sight of God by our works but only by faith which applieth the Panacea of salvation unto our dead hearts and makes us to live in him and him in us We are not so unreasonable as to separate works from our faith nevertheless we affirm that it is faith only that justifieth that which sees is only an eye that which weighs is only an arm nevertheless neither of them can either see or weigh unless they be annexed to the human body so although faith is said to justifie only the meaning is not that it is separated from the good works The holy Apostle James saith Jam. 2.24 We are justified by works and not by faith only It is true but he understands either the justification before men as we may see it out of Jam. 2.18 Shew me thy faith by thy works or else the confirmation of the inward faith by the outward doings or else he uses a kind of a Metonymia effecti so that he may understand by the faith and works a working-faith which he seemeth to insinuate in the fore-mentioned place Ye see then how that by works a man is justified Ibid. Jam. 2.17 and not by faith only that is not by a bare faith which if it hath not works is dead being alone but by a living faith which shews its goodness by works Therefore we are not justified by works but as I said by faith and every one who looks into himself and his weakness must utter the Confession of Bellarmine Bellar. de bon oper Propter humanae vitae fragilitatem propriae justitiae incertitudinem tutissimum est in● sola Dei misericordia spem collocare For the sake of the frailty of human life and the uncertainty of our own righteousness it is the most secure way to relye upon the only mercy of God. Consider kind and civil Reader the words of this Cardinal who as I can shew if necessity