Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	drink_v	fruit_n	vine_n	2,742	5	10.7149	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00604	Transubstantiation exploded: or An encounter vvith Richard the titularie Bishop of Chalcedon concerning Christ his presence at his holy table Faithfully related in a letter sent to D. Smith the Sorbonist, stiled by the Pope Ordinarie of England and Scotland. By Daniel Featley D.D. Whereunto is annexed a publique and solemne disputation held at Paris with Christopher Bagshaw D. in Theologie, and rector of Ave Marie Colledge.	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.; Bagshaw, Christopher, d. 1625?; Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.	1638 (1638)	STC 10740; ESTC S101890	135,836	299

Testament it is not therefore the New Testament no more then the blood of Bullocks is the Old Testament Lastly the word cup cannot be taken for blood contained in the cup as it is evident by that which is added in my blood For the speech will not bee congruous if thou say this blood is the New Testament in my blood the cup therefore must be properly taken for the vessell which undoubtedly in the proper signification is not the New Testament wherefore of necessity wee must confesse that these words this cup is the New Testament in my blood cannot bee taken in the proper sense but are spoken by a trope or figure PAR. 15. That the words of our Saviour Matth 26. 29. I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine are meant of the Evangelicall cup or Sacrament is prooved against D Smith and S. E. by the testimonie of Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Cyprian Austin Chrysostome Druthmarus the Author of the booke de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus Jansenius Maldonat the Councell of Wormes and Pope Innocentius and D. Smith and his Chaplaines evasions refuted THe last argument prosecuted in the Conference was taken out of th●… 26. of Saint Matthew ver 29. wher●… Christ himselfe not onely after the blessing of the cup but also after hee had ministred the Communion saith will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine Doubtlesse Christ who institute●… the Sacrament and immediatly before consecrated the cup ver 28. best knew what it was wine or blood and he resolves us that it was the fruit of the vine and that we al know is wine not blood whence I framed this Syllogisme No blood is in propriety of speech the fruit of the vine That which Christ and his Apostles dranke in the consecrated Chalice was the fruit of the vine Ergo it was not blood For this blow you have a double ward the first is that Christ called his blood the fruit of the vine because it was such in appearance the 〈◊〉 of wine remaining after the 〈◊〉 thereof was tur●…ed into Christs blood Put the question but to your owne conscience and I dare say it will tell you that this your answer is a meere shift and evasion For why should not Christ who is the truth rather call that hee dranke according to that which it was in substance and truth then that which it was as you teach onely in appearance who ever heard accidents without substance quantity or quality moysture or rednesse called the fruit of the vine did Christ drinke meere accidents in the cup or doe you at this day in the consecrated Chalice if so your Priests could never be at any time overseene or become light-headed in drinking never so much of the consecrated cup. For it is a thing never heard of that meere accidents should send up a fume much lesse overcome the braine and cause drunkennesse in any man and I hope you will not flie to a miracle and say that your Priests braines are intoxec●…ted by miracle in case he take a dram to much of the wine he hath consecrated Your owne Schoolemen put the case that a Priest may sometimes forget himselfe by drinking too deepe even in the holy cup. But I presse not this so much as that you in this your answer forget that we are about the Sacrament where you will by no meanes allow of any such figure as excludeth the verity of the thing otherwaies if you take a liberty to expound these words by a figure and say that Christ by a trope here called that which was his blood wine you shall never debarre us of the liberty of expounding the former verse by the like figure and saying that Christ called by a trope that which was in truth wine his blood 'T is hard to say and more then you can prove that Christ ever dranke his own blood upon earth Christ neither dranke his blood properly nor metaphorically but wine he was to drink in heaven metaphorically as himselfe said Luke the 22. 29 30. I appoint unto you a kingdome that you may eat drinke at my table in my kingdome therefore Christ spake not of his blood but of wine when he said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine till I drink it new in heaven thus your own Maldonate Yet you have another ward you say p. 162 163 164. that there is a Legall cup and an Eucharisticall both mentioned in Saint Luke and that these words were spoken of the legall or common cup as Saint Ierome Saint Bede Saint Theophylact expound This ward will not beare off the blow which comes with such a weight that it drives your weapon to your head for 1. 'T is evident to any man that wilfully shuts not his eyes that this in the 29. ver hath reference to this in the 28. ver drinke ye all of this for this is my blood but I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the vine these words immediatly follow the other and of necessity have relation to them neither can they have relation to any other cup then the Eucharisticall here and in Saint Marke because they make mention but of one cup and that cup whereof Christ said drinke ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament This reason alone convinced the conscience of your Learned B. Iansenius who thus writeth upon this verse Some Catholickes saith he affirme that these words were not spoken of the Lord after he had drunke of the consecrated cup but after the former whereof mention is made in Saint Luke But the order of the Evangelists will not suffer it For sith Matthew and Marke make mention of no other cup then the consecrated when it is said by them of this fruit of the vine no other cup can be conceived 〈◊〉 be pointed to or demonstrated by them the●… that cup whereof they make mention Of the same minde is Titelmanus whose opinion Barradius the Jesuite relateth and defendeth in his 3. Booke of the Eucharist c. 5. 2. The Authors alleadged by you to the contrarie doe not weaken the sinewes of my argument for neither Ierome nor Bede nor Theophylact denie these words to be spoken of the consecrated cup though they allegorize upon them 3. By following Bellarmine you and your Chaplaine are fallen into a fowle flow either you must say you tooke up your quotations upon trust or els confesse you are a falsificator For none of these Fathers alleadged by you either in words or by consequence say that you put upon them to wit that the words mentioned in Saint Matthew are to bee understood of the Legall or common cup Saint Ierome and Bede and Anselme have no distinction of two cups but leaving after their manner the literall sense expound allegorically the vine to be the people of the Jewes and the fruit of the vine to be either their beliefe or their legall observances and

ceremonies Theophylact indeed makes mention of two cups but saith not that the words alleadged by me out of Saint Matthew are to be referred to the legall or common cup mentioned in Saint Luke 4. You are cast by your owne witnesses for Ierome Bede and Theophylact referre these words to the blood of Christ and consequently to the Eucharisticall cup as Maldonate confesseth wherein they doe but write after the Copie of the Ancient Fathers 1. Origen That drinke which Christ confessed to bee his blood is the fruit of the true vine and is the blood of that grape which being put into the wine-presse of his Passion brought forth this drinke we cannot alone either eat of this bread or drinke of this fruit of the true vine 2. Clemens Alexandrinus Christ shewed that it was wine which was blessed saying I will not drinke from henceforth of this fruit of the vine 3. Cyprian Alleadging the words of Saint Matthew I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine addeth where we finde that the cup was mingled which the L●…d offered and that it was wine which hee called his blood 4. Epiphanius fights against the Encratites with the same weapon wherewith Saint Cyprian foyled the Aquarij Their Sacraments saith he which are administred in water onely not wine are no Sacraments wherefore they are reprooved by our Saviours owne words saying I will not drinke from henceforth of the fruit of the vine 5. Saint Chrysostome makes the like use of these words of our Saviour against the heretiques in his time why did he not say water but wine to plucke up by the routes another wicked heresie for seeing that there are some who in the Sacrament use water he sheweth that when the Lord delivered the Sacrament he delivered wine of the fruit of the vine saith he now the vine certainely produceth wine not water 6. S. Austin in his 3 book of the consent of the Evangelists c. 1. and elswhere professedly handleth the point of difference betweene you and mee whether Christ spake these words of the Sacrament after the consecration of the cup or before and resolveth it thus that he spake them after the consecration of the cup as Saint Matthew and Saint Marke place his words and whereas you object out of Saint Luke that they were spoken before he answereth that S. Luke by anticipation related that which Matthew and Marke relate in their proper place Which his answer is so pertinent and so full for us that Bellarmine puts a s●…ur upon this most Learned Father for it saying he did not well weigh the place I thinke the Cardinall rather did not ballance his own words with judgement in censuring so rashly the prime of all the Latine Doctors 7. Eucherius Commenting upon these words till I drinke new wine with you in the kingdome of my Father saith the kingdome of God is the Church in which Christ daily drinketh his blood by his Saints as the head in the members 8. Christianus Druthmarus after hee had allegorized upon these words a while falleth upon the literall interpretation saying that from the houre of the Supper he drank no wine till he was made immortall and incorruptible 9. The Author de Eccles. dogmat and the Councell of Wormes say categorically and expressely that wine was in the mysterie of our redemption when Christ said I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine 10. Innocentius Bishop of Rome a great stickler for your carnall presence and the Godfather if I may so speake of Transubstantiation who christned it in the Councell of Lateran yet in the exposition of this place dissenteth from you and consenteth with all the Ancient Fathers Greeke and Latine above alleadged saying it is manifest Christ consecrated wine in the cup by those words which he added I will not drinke from henceforth of the fruit of the vine Yea but your Chaplaine S. E. wisely admonisheth me that the Councell of Wormes and Innocentius howsoever in the exposition of this place they joyne with us yet that they were thorough Papists The stronger say I their testimonie against you and a greater presumption of the evidence of truth on our sides which extorteth such a confession from our greatest opposites PAR. 16. Of the Bishops Chaplaine and Champion S. E. his cowardly Tergiversation base Adulation shamelesse Calumniation and senselesse Scurrilitie BY this time you see cause enough why in the forefront of my letter I wish you a better cause I am now in the third and last place to assigne you the reasons why I wish you a better Advocate These are in summe foure viz. S. E. his 1. Cowardly Tergiversation 2. Base Adulation 3. Shamelesse Calumniation 4. Childish subsannation and senselesse Scurrilitie Plynie writeth that in the porch of Olympia the same voice is seven times repeated by an Eccho such is the relation of S. E. wherein for answer to my seven arguments in seven Sections he returnes your voice and reiterates your dist●…ctions and evasions seven times at least I am perswaded that he hath by this time got your answers by heart he hath conned them over so often It should seeme that at Doway they professe an eighth liberall Science called Battologie As for perfecting your Lordships answers where they were lanke and defective he seemeth to have made scruple of conscience thereof least being but your second he should goe before you in any thing Wherein he shewes himselfe as good a servant to your Lordship as the antient blacke-moores shewed themselves subjects to their Prince who if hee were maimed in any part of his body they maimed themselves in that part because they thought it unseemely that any subject should be a more proper man or compleate then his King Among many instances of his halting together with you in your lame answers I note three which are most notorious and obuious to every vulgar eye 1. In answer to my first argument to proove the words of institution to bee tr●…picall or figurative out of Tertullian y●… p. 28 29. seq either ignorantly or wilfully mistake a type for a trope and a reall figure such as were the legall rites for a figure in words or rhetoricall ornament of speech and tell us of a meere figure and of a figure which hath verity joyned with it as when a King in tryumph sheweth how hee did behave himselfe in the warre S. E. runs away with this errour through many Pages and Sections and when hee is out of breath p. 57. leaves the Reader to subsume that if the distinction be not good of a figure and a meere figure that either the Son of God whom the Scripture calleth the figure of his Fathers substance is a meere figure void of being God without divinity or that he is a meere fiction and againe p. 58. A signe image or figure is not necessarily void of being as you conceive a shadow to be Sacraments