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
A65714	Romish doctrines not from the beginning, or, A reply to what S.C. (or Serenus Cressy) a Roman Catholick hath returned to Dr. Pierces sermon preached before His Majesty at Whitehall, Feb. 1 1662 in vindication of our church against the novelties of Rome / by Daniel Whitbie ...	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1664 (1664)	Wing W1736; ESTC R39058	335,424	421

G. 26. For he saith Christ took the Cup and gave it to them saying Drink you all of this this what This in the Cup why so for this is my Blood and then immediately follows But I say unto you I wil not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine untill the day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom Now then this fruit of the Vine Saint Matthew speaks of is this that the Disciples are bid to drink of as even the series of the words shew Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood but I will not drink of this 2. The fruit of the Vine must necessarily demonstrate some Wine so St. Marks fruit of the Vine must also have reference to some Cup demonstrated by him But they mention no other Cup besides this Sacramental therefore they must necessarily speak of this and so much for his Major Now I deny his Minor which must be proved thus That which S. Luke mentioned before any Consecration began Immediately after the Cup confessedly belonging to the Passover must belong to it But these words St. Luke thus mentions Now I retort upon his Major thus That which Saint Matthew and Saint Mark mentioned not till after Consecration and immediately after the Sacramental Cup must belong to it But this sentence is thus mentioned by them I know he will tell us the disparity is in this that St. Luke promised to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the other Evangelist did not Answer Grotius will tell him that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only sigillatim as you may see Acts 4.18.23 which Interpretation must take place here it appearing sufficiently that he frequently for the Coherence of things joyns those passages which were separated in order of time * As the same Grotius in his Comment doth evince Vide Grot. in locum and therefore this reason of disparity is taken away Thus I have confuted his Confidence Sect. 14 Now though I dare not be Confident I think it very probable Vide Jansonium in locum that St Luke also speaks of the Consecrated Cup as Saint Augustine would have it by preoccupation that so this saying parallel to that of eating no more of the Passover might be joyned together For Matthew and Mark speak of four things belonging to this Sacramental Cup 1. Giving of Thanks 2. Distribution of it 3. The asserting of it to be his Blood 4. His protestation of not drinking of it any more Now Saint Luke speaks onely of the third of these If you will not allow the other verse to refer to the Sacred Cup. But if this be granted then are all these actions mentioned in S. Luke directly as in the other Evangelists Now then the interpretation makes all Harmonious between the Evangelists whereas he bids defiance to S. Mark and especially to S. Matthew who as I have prov'd must necessarily be understood of the Eucharistical Cup. But our Author hath another answer Sect. 15 if this fail viz. that were it so that the wine after Consecration were call'd the fruit of the Vine Mr. C. p. 133. yet this doth not argue against a change of it's nature for Moses his Rod after it was changed into a Serpent was call'd a Rod still because it had been one Exod. 7.12 And John 2.9 't is said of the Master of the feast shat he tasted the water that was made wine Now to this I return 1. That the cases are no way parallel for first in these instances the matter remain'd the form only being chang'd it being proper conversion but in the Eucharist the Trent Council hath defin'd that the substance of Bread remains not and so there is not so much Reason why it should have the same name 2. These might well be call'd so because the Serpent was made out of a Rod tanquam ex causâ materiali and the wine out of water but you dare not say that the Blood of Christ is so made out of wine 3. There were Circumstances annex'd in these Cases which did obviate all possibility of Fallacy The Serpent is call'd a Rod but such a one as devour'd the other Rods the wine mention'd by S. John is call'd Water but 't is Water made Wine as if I should say panis transubstantiatus which phrase you would not much dislike you will say this Wine is call'd the Blood of Christ Ans Well but whether Spiritually or Corporally is not said 2. We answer that if this be a sufficient reason why the Blood of Christ should be call'd the fruit of the vine though it be not really so then may this be a sufficient reason why the bread may be call'd the body of Christ though it be not so See Paraeus de Reg. phrasium Sacrament In Cor. 11. v. 23. because Sacramental signs have often the names of the things signified by them The sequel is evident from the parity of Reason the same foundation of Each being the Analogous phrase of Scripture and in the great hold of Transubstantiation must be quitted But 3. He saith he will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine which Argues that before viz. In other pasovers Or at least in this He had drank of it before now that which he had drank of before this being the first institution of the Sacramental Cup must be really the fruit of the Vine Well then that which he saith he will drink of no more must be the same also From what hath been said we may see sufficiently the weakness of his argument hence for transubstantiation Sect. 16 which runs thus Our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup but he did not drink of the fruit of the vine because he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo the Consecrated Cup was not the fruit of the Vine For not to tell him See Beza in locum Heins In Mat. c. 21 v. 41 c. the Syriack Copies leave out the two verses in which the stress of all this Argument lies nor yet to mind him of Beza's transposition of the verses a * thing sufficiently probable 1. How will he prove that our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup will he run to Matt. 26 Alas He hath told us that it Concerns not this Cup will he cite universal tradition Let him shew it and at the same time he will shew that he interprets Saint Matth. contrary to them seeing they that affirm it gather it from his words 2. Why may not his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be thus interpreted I will not drink any more viz. after the solemnity ended Have we not S. Matthew's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bear us out in 't and Saint Mark 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also may very well be borrowed from the 16 vers in Saint Luke It being very ordinary for Sacred Writers to leave a particle to be understood from the words foregoing or consequent And if this interpretation stand it can only be