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
A41629	Transubstantiation defended and prov'd from Scripture in answer to the first part of a treatise intitled, A discourse against transubstantiation.	Gother, John, d. 1704.	1687 (1687)	Wing G1350; ESTC R4229	70,639	92

Messias the Lamb of God that was to take away the sins of the World. Now the Bread and Wine not having been at all discovered to be such Signs of our Saviours Body and Blood to the Disciples nor consequently considered as so it was against the Rules of human discourse to say they were his Body and Blood if no more was meant than that they were Signs of them and as absurd as for Moses before the formal Institution of the Paschal Sacrifice recited at large in Exod. 12. to have said to the People upon Sacrificing a Lamb This is the Lords Passover Or This Passover is your Saviour For it was to be known and considered as a Passover Sacrifice and as a Type of the Messias before he could reasonably have affirmed thus of it 3. The Jewish Passover was a Type of this Sacrament and so it is generally acknowledged by the Fathers to be now that there should be a Sign of a Sign only a Type of that which it self was but a Type Instituted by Christ is very unreasonable to imagin especially since we do not now live under a Law of Shadows and Figures but of Verity and substance Since therefore the Paschal Lamb was really and in a proper Sense the Sacrifice of the Lords Passover according to that true Paschal Form in Holy Scripture because a true Paschal Sacrifice was offered by the Jews as well for a grateful acknowledgment of their past benefit as of one that was certainly to come since this Passover Sacrifice was really a Saviour or Salvation to the Jews as well as a Type of the Messias since the Lamb drest in the Paschal Supper was not only call'd but really was the Body of the Passover Sacrifice or Paschal Lamb according to the foremention'd expressions of Esdras and the Rabins which notwithstanding we can by no means allow to be Paschal Forms of constant usage since they so vary from one another much less of Divine Institution because no such are used in Holy Scripture since the Bread which the Jews Eat when they used that Phrase This is the Bread of Affliction was Real Bread and all that Eat this Bread as they ought to do were really afflicted when they seriously consider'd what their Fathers suffer'd in Egypt because they also for their own sins deserv'd to suffer as much this Bread also being the same which their Fathers did Eat viz. unleavened Bread Surely none can be so hard of belief as to imagin after serious consideration that there was less of truth and reality in our Lords words This is my Body in which as is not improbable he might imitate some of these Phrases than there was even in these expressions which were used under the Law of Types and Shadows And to shew the Analogy the more perfectly and not to represent it partially as our Adversaries do we are further to consider That as the Bread of Affliction which was yearly Eaten by the Jews at the time of the Paschal Solemnity was really Bread and of the same kind with that which their Fathers did Eat in Egypt and was also a Memorial of the first Bread of this kind which their Fathers did Eat As the Paschal Lamb that was yearly drest and really Eaten was the Real Body of the Passover Sacrifice thus yearly offer'd and was also to put the Jews in mind of the first deliverance wrought upon the first Paschal Offering so Christians when they renew the Sacrifice of Eucharist feed upon Christs Real Body which is the Antitype of the Paschal Lamb and at the same time Remember that first Oblation which Christ made of the same Body altho' in a different manner upon the Cross DISCOURSE And nothing is more common in all Languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign As the delivery of a Deed or Writing under hand and Seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an Estate and it is really so not the delivery of mere Wax and Parchment but the conveyance of a Real Estate as truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the very material Houses and Lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my Hands In like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new Covenant of the Gospel between God and Man are given to the Signs and Seals of that Covenant By Baptism Christians are said to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost Heb. 6. 4. And by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we are said to Communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken and of his Blood which was shed for us that is of the real benefits of his Death and Passion And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ But still it is Bread and he still calls it so v. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread. The Church of Rome might if they pleased as well argue from hence that all Christians are substantially changed first into Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by their participation of the Sacrament because they are said thereby to be one Bread and one Body And the same Apostle in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the Consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three verses together As often as ye Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup v. 26. Whosoever shall Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily v. 27. But let a Man examin himself and so let him Eat of this Bread and Drink of that Cup v. 28. And our Saviour himself when he had said this is my Blood of the New Testament immediately adds but I say unto you I will not henceforth Drink of this fruit of the Vine until I Drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom that is not till after his Resurrection which was the first step of his Exaltation into the Kingdom given him by his Father when the Scripture tells us he did Eat and Drink with his Disciples But that which I observe from our Saviour's words is that after the Consecration of the Cup and the delivering of it to his Disciples to Drink of it he tells them that he would thenceforth Drink no more of the fruit of the Vine which he had now Drank with them till after his Resurrection From whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the Vine Real Wine which our Saviour Drank of and Communicated to his Disciples in the Sacrament ANSWER Here since neither the Authority of the Fathers nor the Word of God can afford the Authors cause any relief he at length flies to the Laws of Men

10. That Water which was by our Lord converted into Wine is still called Water Joh. 2. 9. The Angels are called Men Gen. 19. 8. because they appeared in the shape of Men according to the usual Language of Sense very many instances of which are to be found For our Saviour had fully instructed them before that the Bread which he would give them was his flesh Joh. 6. 51. The Apostle also saith again v. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread and that one Bread can signifie nothing here but the Body of Christ which indeed is but one altho' appearing in innumerable place of the World at the same and at several times because it is still animated by the same one Soul and Divinity of Christ which cannot be said of the Bread in the Sacrament if but mere Bread for then it would not be one Bread or Loaf but many and of several sorts being received at very many places at the same time And the true reason here why they are called one Bread and one Body or Society of Christians is because they are all partakers of that one Bread viz. the Body of Christ and therefore also all inspired with the same Spirit But in the Authors Sense it would be no reason but they should rather have been many Bodies because they did Eat of so many Breads So that we see he hath still the same success in bringing those Texts of Scripture to uphold his cause which are the most pregnant proofs against him He then proceeds to teach the Catholics how they might argue in his new way from a Sign already Instituted and known as so to an AEnigma or dark saying taken from things of a disparate and really different nature and of no acknowledg'd Resemblance that is from Chalk to Cheese but they beg his Pardon for that Well but the same Apostle in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the Consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three verses together as often as ye Eat THIS Bread and Drink THIS Cup v. 26. Whosoever shall Eat THIS Bread and Drink THIS Cup of the Lord unworthily v. 27. But let a Man Examin himself and so let him Eat of THAT Bread and Drink of THAT Cup v. 28. It is true it was Bread Metaphorically but it was still this Bread with an Emphasis not such Bread as you ordinarily Eat but the Body of Christ which he told us was truly Meat or Meat indeed the true Bread from Heaven John 6. 32. It was a Cup but it was this Cup that is his Blood which was truly Drink or Drink indeed as he also hath taught us John 6. 55. and after examination let the true Christian Eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup which will strengthen his Body and Soul both much more than the ordinary Bread and Wine can his Body only Our Saviour himself when he had said This is my Blood of the New Testament immediately adds but I say unto you I will not henceforth Drink of this Fruit of the Vine that is of the true Vine as our Lord is pleased to call himself or of that Wine which by the Words of Benediction becomes my Blood being Originally the Fruit of the Vine or possibly it may refer to the unconsecrated Wine that was left in the Vessels until I drink it new that is fresh and newly Consecrated again with you in my Fathers Kingdom or after my Resurrection as some with the Author interpret the place but as others more generally till I drink of that new Wine of another sort and nature in the Kingdom of my heavenly Father where we shall drink of the River of his pleasures Psal 36. 8. and therefore the Authors following observation is nothing worth For after the Apostles were satisfied that they really drank the Blood of our Lord in this Sacrament and fed upon his Real Body it was an easy and familiar Metaphor to call them Bread and Wine because the outward Species gave a sufficient hint for the understanding of this Figurative Speech suitable to the Language of Sense in the instances above mentioned out of Scripture and because there was true Spiritual nourishment conveyed to the faithful by the Body and Blood of our Saviour thus received as there is Corporeal nourishment received by the Natural Bread and Wine which we take for the refection of our Bodies DISCOURSE Besides if we consider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural Body and Blood of Christ because it was his Body broken and his Blood shed which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand literally of his natural Body broken and his blood shed then these words this is my Body which is broken and this is my Blood which is shed could not be true because his Body was then whole and unbroken and his Blood not then shed nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice as they affirm this Sacrament to be unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered And it is likewise impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given no his Body broken and this Blood shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body whole and unpierc'd and therefore they could not understand these words literally If they did can we imagine that the Disciples who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections should make no difficulty of this matter nor so much as ask our Saviour how can these things be that they should not tell him we see this to be Bread and that to be Wine and we see thy Body to be distinct from both we see thy Body not broken aud thy Blood not shed From all which it must needs be very evident to any man that will impartially consider things how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour this is my Body and This is my Blood in the sense of Transubstantiation nay on the contrary that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise I proceed to shew ANSWER Besides if we consider that our Lord celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible that these words should be understood otherwise than properly of the real Body and Blood of Christ because it was his Body broken and his Blood poured out which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand as figurative only of his natural Body broken and his Blood shed then these words this is my Body which is broken and this is my Blood which is shed could not be true because his