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
A36765	An historical treatise, written by an author of the communion of the Church of Rome, touching transubstantiation wherein is made appear, that according to the principles of that church, this doctrine cannot be an article of faith.; Traitté d'un autheur de la communion romaine touchant la transsubstantiation. English	Dufour de Longuerue, Louis, 1652-1733.; Wake, William, 1657-1737.	1687 (1687)	Wing D2457; ESTC R5606	67,980	82

more drink the Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in a new manner whereof you shall bear testimony for you shall see me after my Resurrection But wherefore continues S. Chrysostom did he drink Wine after his Resurrection and not Water it is because he would thereby destroy a pernicious Heresy For because there would be Hereticks that would only make use of water in the Mysteries be would represent the Mysteries he gave Wine and when after the Resurrection he eat his common Repast he drank Wine the Fruit of the Vine now the Vine doth produce Wine and not Water This Passage marketh in the first place That Jesus Christ drinking the Fruit of the Vine after his Resurrection and not Water he accomplish'd what he said in celebrating the Eucharist I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom This shews that Jesus Christ drank true Wine in the Institution of the Eucharist for what is to be done again must needs be done before Secondly St. Chrysostom doth not only say that Jesus Christ drank Wine but he saith further That he distributed Wine amongst his Disciples and the Fruit of the Vine which doth not produce Water but Wine So that these words of St. Chrysostom import clearly That the Wine remains in the Eucharist The same Father on these words of the First to the Corinthians The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ speaks thus What is the Bread it is the Body of Jesus Christ. What becomes of them which receive it they become the Body of Jesus Christ. Now this Proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ cannot be in a Literal Sense for saith Vasquez The Bread without a Figure cannot be called the Body of Jesus Christ nor the Body of Jesus Christ be called Bread. The same Father in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians Chap. 5. explaining these words of the Apostle The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh The Manicheans understood by the Flesh the substance of the Body and by the Spirit they understood the Soul and they said That the Apostle cut Man into two and intimated that Man was compos'd of two contrary Substances one bad which was the Flesh and the other good which was the Spirit which proceeded from the good God and the Body from the bad God S. Chrysostom answers That the Apostle in this place doth not call the Flesh the Body Apostolum non hic carnem appellare Corpus as the Manicheans supposed and saith That the Apostle do's not always mean by the Flesh the nature of the Body Naturam Corporis but that very often by the Flesh he means something else as evil Desires and having proved this by sundry passages of the Apostle and other holy Writers he proves it at last by the example of the Iucharist and of the Church which he saith is called Body in the Holy Scriptures he saith farther That the Scripture is wont to call by the name of Flesh as well the Church as the Mysteries saving It is his Body Rursum Carnis vocabulo Scriptura solet appellare tum Mysteria tum totam Ecclesiam dicens eam Christi Corpus esse It appears by these words of St. Chrysostom's That he did not believe that the Consecrated Bread and Wine were the same with the Body of Christ seeing he proves by the Eucharist that the Consecraeted Bread and Wine are called Flesh and that the Word Flesh in this place is taken for something else besides Body and that he puts the Term Flesh given to the Consecrated Bread and Wine which are the Mysteries in the rank of other Terms of Flesh given to evil Desires and to the Church which are mystical and figurative Terms So St. Chrysostom believed the Bread and Wine remained and are so called the Body of Jesus Christ mystically as the Church is called the Body of Jesus Christ. The same St. Chrysostom wrote a Letter to Caesarius which indeed is not inserted in his Works but is sound in Manuscript in the Library at Florence and it was also found in England in Archbishop Cranmer's Library it is mention'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum Printed at Collen 1618. in this Bibliotheque Tom. 4. there is found the Collections of an ancient nameless Author who wrote against the Severian and Acephalian Hereticks wherein is recited a Passage taken out of this Letter So also Monsieur de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris acknowledges the truth of this Letter in his Posthume and French Treatise of the Eucharist witness the Abbot Fagget in his Letter to Monsieur de Marca President of the Parliament at Pan who saith also this Letter was found by Monsieur Bigot in a Library at Florence St. Chrysostom in this Letter writeth against Apollinarius and saith Jesus Christ is both God and Man God because of his Impassibility Man by his Passion one Son one Lord both Natures united making but one the same Power the same Dominion although they be two different Natures each conserves its own Nature because they are two and yet without confusion for as the Bread before it is sanctified is called Bread when by the intercession of the Priest Divine Grace has sanctified it it loses the name of Bread and becomes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ although the Nature of Bread abides in it so that they are not two Bodies but one sole Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ it did not make two Persons but one only Person and one Son. St. Chrysostom saith plainly That the Nature of Bread abideth after Consecration and this Father's Argument would be of no validity if this nature of the Bread was nothing but in shew for Apollinarius might have made another opposite Argument and say That indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance as the Bread in the Eucharist is but in shew and hath only outward and visible qualities remaining in it whereby it is term'd to be Bread. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew written in the time of the Emperour Theodosius did not believe Transubstantiation when he spake in these Terms in Homily Eleventh If it be dangerous to employ the holy Vessels about common uses wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contain'd but the Mysteries of his Body how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies which God has prepared to dwell in That the Fathers of the FIFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation S. Jerom in his Epistle to Eustochium speaking of Virgins saith That when they were reproved for Drunkenness they excus'd themselves by adding Sacriledge to Drunkenness saying God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of the Lord. In the Second Book against Jovinian

that if Scot had advanced any new Doctrine he would certainly have been reproved for it by the Church of Lyons by Prudentius by Florus by the Councils of Valence and Langres which condemn'd and censur'd his Opinions on the Doctrine of Predestination St. Prudentius Bishop of Troys in Champaign who assisted at the Councils of Paris in the Year 846 of Tours in 849 at Soissons in the Year 853. to whom Leo the 4th wrote an honourable Letter which is to be seen in the 6th Tome of the Councils of the which the Bishop of Toul in the French Martyrology on the 7th of April having said that at Troys his Anniversary is solemnized as of a holy Bishop and Confessor he also makes a magnificent Elegy of him This holy Bishop I say was of the same Judgment with John Scot in the Subject of the Eucharist for Hincmar Arch-bishop of Rhemes numbers him with John Scot against whom he observes nevertheless that he wrote touching Predestination and saith that they both held That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the true Body and Blood of our Lord but only the commemoration of his Body and Blood. Christianus Drutmar Priest and Frier of Corby famous for his Learned Works saith Sigebert of Illustrious Men as also the Abbot Trythemius wrote a Commentary upon St. Matthew about the year 845. It is in the Bibliotheca Patrum Tom. 16. pag. 301. Jesus Christ saith Drutmar took Bread because Bread strengthens the heart of man and doth better fortifie our Body than any other food He therein establishes the Sacrament of his Love but this propriety ought much rather to be attributed to the spiritual Bread which perfectly strengthens all Men and all Creatures because 't is by him we Live Move and have our Being He blessed it He blessed it first because as in his Person he blessed all Mankind then afterwards he shewed that the blessing and power of the Divine and Immortal Nature was truly in that Nature which he had taken from the Virgin Mary He broke it He broke the Bread which was Himself because exprsing himself willingly to Death he broke and shattered the Habitation of his Soul to the end that he might satisfie us according to what himself saith I have power to lay down my Life or to save it And he gave it to his Disciples saying to them Take and Eat this is my Body He gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body for the Remission of Sins and for the keeping of Charity to the end that not forgetting this action they should always perform this in Figure and that they should not be unmindful of what he was about to do for them This is my Body that is to say Sacramentally and having taken the Cup he blessed it and gave it to his Disciples As amongst all things which are necessary to preserve Life Bread and Wine are those that do most of all repair and strengthen the weakness of Nature It is with great reason that our Saviour was pleas'd in these two things to establish the Mystery of his Sacrament for Wine rejoyces the heart and increases Blood therefore it is very fit to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ because whatsoever comes from him rejoyces with true Joy and encreaseth whatsoever there is of good in us To conclude as a Person that is going a long Journey leaves to those u hom be loves some particular pledg of his kindness on condition that they should look daily upon it to the end that they may retain him always in Remembrance so in like manner God by spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood has commanded us to celebrate this Mystery that these two things should make us never forget what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood and keep us from being unthankful and ungrateful for his so tender Love. Now because water is wont to be mingled with the Sacrament of his Blood this Water represents the People for whom Jesus Christ was pleas'd to suffer and the Water is not without the Wine nor the Wine without the Water because as he died for us so also we should be ready to die for Him and for our Brethren that is to say for the Church therefore there came out of his side Water and Blood. This passage is taken out of the Commentary where the Author expounds these words of the Institution This is my Body by these other words That is to say in Sacrament which are words quite contray to those of Paschasius for Paschasius said in his Letter to Frudegard fearing it should be thought that Jesus spake in Sacrament he said demonstratively This is my Body Ne putares quia in Sacramento loquebatur Deminus c. demonstrative dixit hoc est Corpus meum So Drutman makes a difference 'twixt the Body and the Sacrament which he establishes in the Bread and Wine which he blessed brake and gave to his Disciples he ascribes to the Wine only the Dignity of representing the Blood of Christ and that to conclude the Bread and Wine are pledges of his Love. Therefore the same Author Chap. 56. on these words I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom from that very hour of Supper saith he he drank no Wine until he became immortal and incorruptible after his Resurrection The Deacon Florus wrote about the same time an Exposition of the Mass which is mention'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum Tom. 6. pag. 170. he there saith This Body and this Blood is not gather'd in Ears of Corn or in clusters of Grapes nature doth not give it us but it is Consecration that makes it Mystical to us Jesus Christ is eaten when the Creatures of Bread and Wine do pass to the Sacrament of the Body and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost He is eaten by parcels in the Sacrament and remains whole and intire in Heaven and whole and intire in our Hearts Again All that is done in this Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Saviour is a Mystery we there see one thing and we understand another what we see hath a corporal substance what we understand hath a spiritual Fruit. He saith Jesus Christ saith to them take eat ye all of this and speaking of the Cup The Wine saith he was the Mystery of our Redemption and he proves it by these words I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine To conclude Explaining these last words of the Canon By which O Lord thou daily makest these good things for us which contain a kind of Thanksgiving which in the Latin Liturgy does follow the Consecration he sufficiently intimates to us that he did not believe the Bread and Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing he speaks of them as things God

to you this Sacrament I say which lifts us up to Heaven It appears by these words that S. Gregory lookt upon the Consecrated Bread and Wine as figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ now if they are figures then they are not that whereof they be figures and by consequence there is in the Sacrament something else besides the very Body of Jesus Christ to wit the Bread and Wine which are the Types and figures of it For to say that S. Gregory means only that the accidents of Bread and Wine are the Types and figures when he saith his Sister mingled her tears with the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as many as she could keep in her hands Si quid Antityporum pretiosi Corporis aut Sanguinis manus thesaurisasset these words as many as she could gather in her hands signify as many portions and parts of the Eucharist as she could gather up paululum Eucharistiae as Eusebius speaks in the sixth Book of his Hist. chap. 36. as having gather'd together a little of the Sacrament and having separated it from a greater Mass or from a greater quantity of liquor Now all antiquity agree that the lines the superficies the qualities are inseparable from their subject so that this little parcel of Antitypes this parcel of the figures cannot be a part of accidents and of appearances Gregory Nyssen going to prove that the Water of Baptism for being Water ought not to be despised but that after Consecration it hath a marvellous Virtue he proves it by the Example of the Eucharist and extream Unction The Bread saith he before Consecration is but common Bread but after Consecration it is called and is the Body of Christ so also the Mystical Oyl and Wine before Benediction are common things and of no virtue but after Benediction both of them have a great virtue Now these words shew that the Bread and Wine remain after Consecration for it appears that St. Gregory's Design is to prove that common and ordinary things have a marvellous force after Consecration and if the Bread and Wine were destroy'd after Consecration what did operate would not be a vile and mean thing because it would be the very Body of Jesus Christ and St. Gregory would not well have proved that vile things have any marvellous virtue in them after Consecration for instance Bread and Wine which not subsisting after Consecration could not have the virtue to sanctify S. Ambrose in his Epistle to Justus explaining what Gomer is saith it is a measure and that this measure signifies the quantity of Wine which rejoyces the heart of Man and having explain'd the Wine of the drinking Wisdom Sobriety and Temperance he saith That it is to be understood more fully of the Blood of Jesus Christ which neither admits increase nor decrease as to grace But of which if one receive more or less the measure however of Redemption is equal to all Plenius de sanguine intelligitur cujus ad gratiam nihil minuitur nihil adaugetur si parum sumas si plurimum haurias eadem perfecta est omnibus mensura Redemptionis This manner of speaking of taking more or less of the Blood of Jesus Christ is not to be understood of the proper Body of Jesus Christ which is indivisible there must be therefore in the Eucharist besides the proper Blood of Jesus Christ a Typical and Symbolical Blood which is the Wine which is so called and of which we may say we receive more or less The same Father saith elsewhere That as often as we receive the Sacraments which by the virtue of Holy Prayer are transfigur'd into the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ we shew forth the Death of Christ. It is certain that by these words S. Ambrose lookt upon the Bread and Wine as figures of the Flesh and Blood now the figure being a thing distinct from what it represents as being two correlatives the one of which is not the other it must be concluded that S. Ambrose believed that there is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which are the figures of the Bread and Heavenly Power The same Father speaking of the blessing of Aser explaining these Words Ashur his Bread is fat he shall feed Princes saith Jesus Christ who is Ashur that is rich has nourish'd Princes When he multiply'd the five and seven Loaves and gave them to his Apostles to distribute to the multitude he every day gives us this Bread saith he when the Priest doth consecrate we may also by this Bread understand the Lord himself continues S. Ambrose who has given us his Flesh to eat By these words it appears S. Ambrose distinguishes three sorts of Bread which Jesus Christ gave to these Princes the first is that which he gave in multiplying the five and seven Loaves John 6. and Matth. 15. the second is the Bread which the Priest consecrates at Mass the third is that of which it is said I am the Bread of Life which is Jesus Christ himself As then the second is not the first so neither is the second the third The Consecrated Bread is another thing than Jesus Christ the Bread of Life and by consequence there is in the Sacrament a Bread distinct from Jesus Christ the Heavenly Bread. Gaudentius upon Exodus saith With great reason we receive with the Bread the figure of the Body of Christ because as the Bread is compos'd of many grains which being ground into Flower is kneaded with Water and baked by Fire so also the Body of Christ is made and collected of the whole race of Mankind and is perfected by the Fire of the Holy Ghost Now as this Author places the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ in that the Bread is made up of sundry grains reduced into Meal kneaded with Water and baked with fire it follows that he believed the Bread remained in the Sacrament and so much the rather because this Bishop saith elsewhere figura non est veritas sed imitatio veritatis S. Chrysostom expounding these words I will no more drink of this fruit of the vine until I drink it new in the Kingdom of my Father saith because Jesus Christ had spoke to his Disciples of his Passion and of his Death now he speaks to them of his Resurrection making mention of his Kingdom calling his resurrection by this name Now wherefore did Jesus Christ drink after his Resurrection fearing lest ignorant persons should think his Resurrection was only imaginary because many took the act of drinking as a true sign of the Resurrection Therefore the Apostles going to prove his Resurrection say we that have eat and drank with him Jesus Christ. Therefore assuring them that they should see him after his Resurrection and that he would stay with them and that they might bear witness of his Resurrection might see and behold him tells them I will no