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
A66413	The Protestant's answer to The Catholick letter to the seeker, or, A vindication of the Protestant's answer, to the seeker's request	Williams, John, 1636?-1709.	1688 (1688)	Wing W2720; ESTC R2915	32,577	43

relation to the Paschal Cup. I grant that in St. Luke it more immediately is joyn'd to the Paschal Feast but yet in St. Matthew and Mark Christ is said to have spoke these words after the delivery of the Cup in the Lords-Supper And the least that can be observed from hence is that it was indifferently to be applied to either and so it more strongly argues that it was alike to be understood that the Wine in the Eucharistical Cup was the natural fruit of the Vine as that in the Paschal as that the substance of both was one and the same and no more change in the one than the other But suppose this yet saith he the meaning of these words could in no wise be applied to the Substance of Wine proceeding from an Earthly Vine but to the Substance of his Blood the fruit of the Heavenly Vine for that it was to be drank new with them in his Father's Kingdom which is Heaven where they neither keep Taverns nor drink Wine c. Some persons while they charge others with irreverence themselves seem to have lost all due reverence for holy things We will suppose in favour of our Author that by the Kingdom of God our Saviour means Heaven and by the Fruit of the Vine he means the Substance of Christ's Blood yet how will it follow that it 's the same Fruit of the Vine they drink of in Heaven as they drank of in the Sacrament since the Blood of Christ is no more drank in Heaven than Wine nor is the Sacrament any more administred there than the Passover So that if by the Kingdom of God Heaven is to be understood then the phrase Till I drink it new signifies Mystically and Figuratively according to the manner of Scripture which sets forth the happiness of that state by eating Mat. 8. 11. Luk. 14. 15. and the excellency and perfection of it by the word New Revel 14. 13 c. And so the meaning is I shall not henceforth thus eat with you the next Festival I shall observe will be in Heaven there we that have now thus eat and drank together shall partake of the felicity of that state and this fruit of the Earthly Vine shall be exchanged for Rivers of Heavenly Pleasures which we shall there be entertained with The next thing observed by the Answerer in proof of the Substance of the Wine continuing so after Consecration was from the order observed in St. Mark 14. 23. where it 's said the Disciples drank of the Wine before our Saviour said This is my Blood. Here our Author thinks himself excus'd from an Answer because of an Error in the Press Body being put for Blood. But if he turned to the Text he might see that place was quoted right and common sense would serve to rectifie it However he courteously offers somewhat in the mean time by way of Answer viz. Whether St. Mark expresseth the words in the same order as they were spoken or no it matters not seeing he has the Substance of what was said and wherein they all agree to wit that it was his Blood. And it 's also apparent that Christ first gave thanks and blessed it before he gave it c. pag. 29. But doth it not matter whether St. Mark expresseth the words in order Certainly if the order he recites it in were the order observed by our Saviour and that the Apostles received the Cup and drank of the Wine before the words of Conversion as they call them were used then it follows as the Answerer argued that they only drank of the Substance of the Wine and that the words This is my Blood could not signifie and much less produce a Conversion of the Wine into the Blood of Christ. This our-Author was sensible of and therefore in his Answer left out the main part of it For what tho all the Evangelists agree that the words This is my Blood were then used by our Saviour What though Christ first gave thanks and blessed it before he gave it if he did not also use the words of Conversion before he gave it For all the rest he might do and yet the Wine be Wine still as they own But thus it was if St. Mark is right in the order and it seems to be the proper order because he only speaks of the particular that they all drank of it But we are not to have any thing to the purpose till as he saith the Bill be amended and that I take for his best Answer Arg. 2. The Protestant Answerer shewed the Letter of Scripture is for us that our Saviour's Body had the natural and inseparable Properties of a Body such as Extension Circumscription c. p. 15. Here our Author calls in the Faith of a Christian and the Almighty Power of God to his Succour and looks upon the Answerer as a second Didymus because he will like him not believe except he sees and worse than him who saw but the Humanity yet believed the Divinity of Christ p. 30. But why all this when he believes all the Scripture teaches and reason it self justifies May not a man believe unless he believes contrary to what he himself sees and the Scripture teaches Or why is he worse than Thomas when Thomas would not believe unless he saw But the Answerer is one of those Thanks be to God whom our Saviour pronounced Blessed That have not seen and yet have believed What is there he would have him believe It is what was never put to Thomas for our Saviour convinced him by an ocular Demonstration Joh. 20. 27. Reach hither thy finger and behold c. As much as if he had said The Resurrection is real for it 's a real Body that is before thee and it 's my Body for reach hither thy finger c. It 's plain our Saviour here thought he gave an unquestionable Proof of the Truth of his Resurrection by shewing his Body to Thomas which could not have been had not his Body had the properties of an human body without which it could not have been a Body or which if it had been without Thomas could not have been convinced in that way that it was his Body But our Author here undertakes to prove that this was not the Condition of our Saviour's Body or that he could by his power separate these essential Properties of a Body from his Body Here I must confess my self indebted to him for an answer to what he offered to this purpose before but not to the purpose of the Argument there and here repeats Pray saith he how was his Body to be seen Extended Finite and Circumscribed when he pass'd through Walls and Doors that were close John 20. 17. He entred the room the Doors being shut How came he through Was his Body Intire Extended Finite and Circumscribed with Limbs Bones and Sinews Such is the Infinite Power of God that though they were inclosed in walls every where a Mile thick 't