Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	drink_v	root_n	wine_n	34,794	5	10.5067	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08426	A true report of the disputation or rather priuate conference had in the Tower of London, with Ed. Campion Iesuite, the last of August. 1581. Set downe by the reuerend learned men them selues that dealt therein. VVhereunto is ioyned also a true report of the other three dayes conferences had there with the same Iesuite. Which nowe are thought meete to be published in print by authoritie	Nowell, Alexander, 1507?-1602.; Day, William, 1529-1596. aut; Fielde, John, d. 1588.; Fulke, William, 1538-1589. aut; Goad, Roger, 1538-1610. aut; Campion, Edmund, Saint, 1540-1581. aut; Walker, John, d. 1588. aut; Charke, William, d. 1617. aut	1583 (1583)	STC 18744; ESTC S113389	169,017	230

time of the institution Camp Nay we ground sufficiently vpon that place though Christes body be now glorified yet we do not builde vpon glorification but vpon the wordes This is my body which Christ hath spoken and therefore it is his body Goade But you are not yet resolued what kinde of body It is an other now from that it was then Camp Yet the same bodie though differing in condition Christ cannot be wounded now as afore yet the same flesh Goade I do not denie the same body in substance to bee nowe that was then but you see that the presence of a glorified bodie which you affirmed is not grounded vpon Hoc est corpus meum But I leaue this argument Goade Let vs conclude with prayer Almightie Lord and merciful father we yeelde thee humble thankes for thy manifolde benefites bestowed vpon vs especially y● thou hast vouchsafed vs the knowledge and loue of thy heauenly trueth contained in thy holy worde which thou hast denied vnto many others leauing thē in their owne peruerse blindnes we beseeche thee to encrease daily in vs more and more the true knowledge of thee of thy sonne Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent vouchsafe to make thy truthe so much the more deare and precious vnto vs for that it hath enemies that daily seeke to obscure and impugne the same and as for those that goe a●…traie so many of them as pertaine vnto thy kingdome we beseeche thee in thy good time to call to lighten their mindes and to mollifie their heartes that we may together with one heart and one mouth glorifie thee thorowe our Lord Iesus Christ. Amen ❧ The disputation in the afternoone the same daye The second question or assertion of Campion The question After the wordes of Consecration the bread and wine are transubstanciated into the body and blood of Christ. Fulke LEt vs beginne with prayer O almightie God and most merciful father we humbly submit our selues before thy maiestie and doe vnfainedly acknowledge that our heartes are full of ignorance and blindnes so that wee cannot vnderstande thy wonderfull trueth by our selues nor see it when it is reueiled by thee except it please thy maiestie by thy holy spirite to lighten our darkenes giue sight to our blindnes Wherefore we humbly beseech thee to assiste vs by thy grace and to giue vs sight to see thy trueth and strength to defende the same against all thine enemies that the weake may be confirmed the obstinate confounded and thy name glorified through Iesus Christ our Lorde Because you tooke a time to finde those wordes which you reported to be in my booke and I see the booke in your hand I pray you reade them if you haue founde them Camp The booke is mistaken it is not that booke I meant Fulke It is the booke that you named Camp I am sure you do not disclame the opinion Fulke As I tolde you in the forenoone I do disclame it in such sorte as it was vttered by you which you are not able to proue to be affirmed by me Campion You make inuocation of Saintes a matter of great waight Fulke The Church did erre in that point but not as you Papistes do erre in it There is great difference betweene their errour and yours But let vs come to the appointed question which is against Transubstantiation I proue there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the sacrament after consecration Our Sauiour dranke the same that his Apostles did But our Sauiour dranke wine Ergo his Apostles dranke wine Camp I deny that our Sauiour dranke of the cōsecrated wine Fulke The words of the Euangelist are plaine that our Sauiour Christ spake I wil drinke no more from henceforth of the fruite of the vine These wordes are plaine of wine for the blood of Christ is not the fruite of the vine Camp This signifieth that our Sauiour did eate indefinitly whether hee did eate of the same bread or drinke of the same cup of wine which he gaue I doubt of it he did eate drinke with thē Fulk He protested that he would not drinke any more of that which he gaue But that which he gaue vnto them was wine Therefore he dranke of the same wine Camp This text conuinceth it not Fulke Yes plainely Camp He speaketh of that wine which was drunke at supper for all was wine if there had bene 20. gallons before consecratiō Fulke He speaketh of the wine in his hande for whereto els hath the pronowne this relatiō After he had taken the cup in his hand immediatly he faith I will not drinke any more of this fruit of the vine Camp He had supped with them hee had eaten the Pascall lambe with them he would not take any more repast with them in this life till his resurrection as afore therfore it is to be referred to the action that went before Fulke It is plaine that he speaketh of the same wine which he had in his hande which he gaue vnto them And Chrysostomes wordes declare the same in Math. Homil. 89. Sedcuius rei gratia non aquam sed vinū post resurrectionem bibit perniciosam quandā haeresin radicitus euellere voluit eorum qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur ita vt ostenderet quia quando hoc mysterium traderet vinum tradidit iam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensa vino vsus est Ex germine autē ait vitis quae certè nō aquam sed vinū producit But for what cause did he not drinke water but wine after his resurrection His purpose was to pull vp by the rootes a certaine pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the mysteries so that he shewed that both when he deliuered this mysterie he deliuered wine and nowe also after his resurrection in the onely table of the mysterie hee vsed wine Of the fruite of the vine saith hee which verely bringeth foorth wine and not water Campion All this makes for me Fulke You shall heare howe it maketh for you Here you see that he dranke of that which he deliuered to his disciples And he dranke wine Therefore he deliuered wine to his disciples Campion He deliuered that which had the shew of wine doth he say that he gaue wine Fulke He saith Vinum tradidit He deliuered wine or he gaue wine Campion Goe to he deliuered consecrated wine He did consecrate wine and did giue it vnto them Fulke He gaue consecrated wine Ergo he gaue wine Campion I denie your argument for consecrated wine is not wine Fulke Then he gaue wine that was not wine For Chrysostome saith Vinum tradidit He gaue wine Camp He gaue that that was wine Fulke Chrysostome sayth That which hee deliuered was wine when he deliuered it or els howe did hee take away the heresie of those that brought in water if he had not giuen wine Campion The meaning of Chrysostome is to bring in wine against

those that would haue water He saith hee deliuered wine but consecrated wine to exclude water Fulke He excluded water to bring in wine and not to shut out both water and wine Camp We vse wine in the misteries Fulke But he saith Christ deliuered wine so doe not you say when you giue the cup Camp He gaue them that which had the name of wine and had the shewe of it but nowe was not in deede wine As for example the rod of Moyses was called a rod after it was turned into a serpent because it was a rod a litle before Fulke The rodde was miraculously turned into a serpent and returned into a rod againe both which miracles were to be iudged by the sense and yet you proue not that it was called a rodde while it was a serpent Campion Yes that I do Et deuorauit virga Aaron c. And the rod of Aaron deuoured the rod of the enchaunters Fulke Yea Sir That which was a rodde while Moyses did write and was a very serpent before Pharao deuoured the roddes of the Egyptians which were serpents in shew but rods in deed Moyses called it a rod when it was a rod and not when it was a serpent Againe it was a sensible miracle Campion So there is great miracles in the Sacrament Fulke So you say but none appeareth to our sense Campion They are vnderstoode by faith Fulke It is an easie matter so to faine miracles in euery matter but God did neuer shew miracle in conuersion of substances or any sensible thing but it was to be iudged by the senses to be a miracle Bring me one instance of any miracle in cōuersion or in any other sensible thing that could not be discerned by sense Camp It was a rod a litle before that after was called a serpent and yet reteined the name it had before as Clandi ambulant Caeci vident c. Fulke That is not denied although by you it can not be proued but here the place is plaine Chrysostome speaketh of the substance of the Sacrament he deliuered wine and they receiued wine Campion I haue answered Leaue the rest to God and their consciences which are the hearers Goade I will continue to vrge you further with the wordes of the Institution Your answere can not bee allowed for good when you would shift off the plaine wordes of our sauiour Christ calling it wine being the fruite of the vine and would haue this referred to the wine vsed in eating the Pascall before the institution You may not so leape backe from the Institution to the Pascal there was some distance of time betwene the Pascall and the Supper so you can not referre this to the whole action Campion You say well The eating the pascal Lambe went before and the Institution followed and yet I say the wordes of Christ concerning the fruit of the vine hath relation to the whole Goade Consider the order of the wordes in the Euangelist As they were eating the Passeouer Iesus tooke bread c. And then after he had deliuered the cup and bad them all drinke thereof calling it his blood then followeth I say vnto you I will not drinke hereafter of this fruite of the vine c. But I will make my argument from the Institution thus The Apostles did eate the substance of breade and wine after consecration as you terme it Therefore there remaineth the substance of bread and wine after consecration Campion I deny your Antecedent Goade That which our Sauiour Christ gaue the Apostles did eate But he gaue bread and wine Ergo they did eate bread and wine Camp I deny your minor He did not giue bread and wine Goade The same which Christ tooke into his handes he also deliuered But he tooke bread and wine Ergo he deliuered bread and wine Camp I answere out of Ambrose Before consecration it was bread and so he tooke bread but after the wordes of consecration he saith it is no bread Fulke You falsifie Ambrose and would abuse the auditorie for he doeth not say it is no bread Camp He sayth there is a chaunge I may you let me make one argument out of Ambrose and answere me if you can Goade Well make your argument you shal be answered Campion Let me borrow the booke Nowe heare Ambrose wordes lib. de Sacramentis 4. cap. 4. Tu forte dicis panis est vsitatus Sed panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum vbi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi Vides ergo quàm operatorius sit sermo Christi iussit facta sunt Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini vt inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Peraduenture thou sayest that it is common bread But this bread before the sacramentall words is bread but after consecration of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Thou seest then of what efficacie the word of Christ is he commaunded and the creatures were made If then there is so great force in the worde of the Lord that the things that were not begun to be how much more is it able to worke that the things which were should haue still their being and be chaunged into other things Goade I know the place and thus I answere First ye haue not any worde in Ambrose to exclude the substance of bread We acknowledge a chaunge with Ambrose not of one substance into an other as you would haue to be but touching the vse whereto the sacrament serueth namely that which was common bread before ordeined to a common vse to feede the body is now conuerted and consecrated to an holy and spirituall vse to nourish the soule by feeding vpon Christ by true and liuely faith Campion But Ambrose wordes are plaine that which before was bread after consecration ex pane fit caro Christi of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Goade Ambrose words in deede are plaine in the same chapter whereby he doeth expound his meaning the chaunge to be as I haue said touching the vse and not the substance Dicis communem panem c. By these wordes it appeareth that Ambrose purpose was to confute their opinion who thought ouer basely of the Sacrament making no difference betweene it common bread Thou sayest it is common bread but thou art deceiued it is consecrated and chaunged to an holy and heauenly vse and is become sacramentally the flesh of Christ. Campion It is called bread but it is not bread for ex pane fit caro Christi And euen as he made heauen and earth by his worde so by his worde the bread is made his flesh Goade Wee deny not that it is Christes fleshe as himselfe sayeth of the bread This is my body but it is to be vnderstoode as a sacramentall speach when the name of the thing is giuen to the signe as after shal be shewed out of