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
A66484	An address to those of the Roman communion in England occasioned by the late act of Parliament, for the further preventing the growth of popery.	Willis, Richard, 1664-1734.	1700 (1700)	Wing W2815; ESTC R7811	45,628	170

more about it for there are so many Absurdities and gross Contradictions in the contrary Opinion that we ought to lay hold of any thing that can but make sense of the Words and avoid those Monstrous Absurdities But I shall now indeavour to prove from the Words themselves that the sense which the Church of Rome puts upon them cannot be the true sense of them 1. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome is that our Saviour by pronouncing these words this is my Body made that to be his Body which before was only Bread but certainly the literal sense of the words does not import any thing of this and it 's the literal sense which they must stick to or else the whole support of their cause is gone now according to all the Rules of speaking it ought to have been his Body before he could truly pronounce it to be so but this they deny and say it was only Bread till these words were pronounced and that the calling it his Body made it become so which is a form of Speech quite unknown to the World and I challenge them to bring any Author either Sacred or Prophane that ever made use of words of this kind in such a Sense Since therefore it is confessed that what our Saviour took into his Hands was Bread and that it remained Bread till the speaking of these words This is my Body and since those words in their natural construction cannot be understood to effect any Change it must remain Bread still and be only the Body of Christ in such a sense as Bread may be called his Body that is in such a sense as the Lamb they eat of but just before was called the Passover by being a Representation and Commemoration of it 2. Another Argument I would make use of is this that our Saviour did not by pronouncing those words make what he gave them to be his very Body and Blood because after the pronouncing of them he calls what he gave in the Cup the Fruit of the Vine Verily I say unto you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine until that day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God In which words are contained these three I think plain Reasons which prove that it was Wine and not his Blood that he gave them 1. That He expresly calls it the fruit of the Vine and the Words they say are to be taken in the literal Sense and literally nothing else is the fruit of the Vine but Wine at least the Blood of Christ is not 2. In his saying that he would drink no more of it till he drank it new in the Kingdom of God it is supposed that he had heretofore drank of what he then gave them But I suppose it will hardly be said that he ever before drank his own Blood 3. As the Words suppose that he had drank before of what he then gave them so they do that he would drink of it again which very likely must be understood of his eating and drinking with them after his Resurrestion for then the Kingdom of God that is the new State of the Christian Church was come And therefore unless the Blood of Christ can be properly called the fruit of the Vine unless it can be supposed that he had drank his own Blood before and did design to drink it afterward these Words must evince that it was Wine which he then gave them I would not conceal that tho' St. Matthew and St. Mark recite the Words which I have Quoted after the Consecration of the Cup yet one of the Evangelists St. Luke recites them before and so they may seem to relate to a Cup that went about the Table at the Paschal Supper But this Objection if well considered does rather the more confirm what I have been proving for two of the Evangelists do place it immediately after the Consecration and delivery of the Sacramental Cup and in them it is apparent they can referr to nothing else but that Now if our Opinion about this Sacrament be true the difference betwixt the Evangelists in this Case is not material as importing no difference at all in the Doctrine of the Sacrament though our Saviour's Words are reported different ways and so this secures the Honour and Authority of all the Evangelists But if our Saviour's Words are to be understood as the Church of Rome understands them it 's impossible in any tolerable manner to reconcile the Evangelists for St. Matthew and St. Mark must upon this supposition not only put his Words wrong together and out of that order he spoke them but must also quite misrepresent his meaning and that in a Point of great Consequence Which I believe can be no way consistent with the Opinion which the Church of God has always had of these Gospels But I shall consider this Matter a little more fully in that which I have to urge in the Third Place 3. I desire it may be considered that the Words of our Saviour in the Institution of this Sacrament cannot be understood literally because as they are recited by the Evangelists they are not literally the same but differ as to the literal meaning very materially Mat. 26.28 Mark 14.24 Luke 22.20 St. Matthew and St. Mark in the Instistution of the Cup recite our Saviour's Words thus This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you St. Luke recites them thus This is the New Testament in my Blood Now from this difference among them I would observe these Two Things 1. That the Evangelists being so little curious to recite the very same Words that our Saviour spake could not have any Notion of a strict necessity of a literal meaning and of such a strange Doctrine which could have no foundation but in the literal interpretation of the very Words that he spake this had been at best very strange negligence in a Matter of so great Consequence 2. I would observe that if our Interpretation of the Words be true the Evangelists are easily reconciled as agreeing in the same general Sense tho' differing in the Expressions because both of them denote a Commemoration of the Blood of Christ and of the New Testament or Covenant founded upon it and it is not then very material which is placed first but if they are to be taken literaly it's impossible ever to make them agree and so one of the Evangelists must not only have mis-recited our Saviour's Words but quite have mis-understood his meaning and have done what he could to lead People wrong in a great Point of Faith For certainly the true real Blood of Christ is a very different thing from the New Covenant or Testament which is founded upon it But it will appear still of greater Consequence to keep to the very Words which Christ spake if the Opinion of the Church of Rome be true that it is the repeating the Words of our Saviour which effects the