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
A85545	A defence of Christian liberty to the Lords table; except in case of excommunication and suspension. Wherein many arguments, queres, suppositions, and objections are answered by plain texts, and consent of scriptures. As also some positions answered by way of a short conference which the author hath had with divers, both in citie and countrey. All which are profitable to inform to truth, and lawfull obedience to authoritie. / By John Graunt, who beareth witnesse to the faith. Published according to order.	Graunt, John, of Bucklersbury.	1646 (1646)	Wing G1591; Thomason E330_22; ESTC R200727	25,078	32

discerne the Lords body and communicate for the better and not for the worse From some other friends I have likewise received divers objections against Judas his being present at the institution and distribution of the Lords Supper which principally are these five following Their first Objection Judas went immediatly out after the receit of the Sop John 13. 30. Now the Sop was part of the Passeover therefore Judas was gone before the institution of the Sacrament My defence to your first Objection This objection is against the consent of the three former Evangelists for they all agree and testifie that as our Lord was eating the Passeover he took bread and blessed it and the cup and blessed it which is the institution of the Lords Supper And this hee did before they or any of them rose from the Table Mat. 26. 26. Mark 14. 21 22 23. And S. Lukes witnesse is beyond all exception or any excuse Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table Luke 22. 21. Now John doth not at all speak the least tittle of the institution of the Sacrament and therefore his knowledge of that must be included in his discourse before he makes expresse mention of our Lords rising from Supper John 13. 4. because all the rest testifie that he instituted it as they were eating the Passeover before our Lord did rise from Supper even while they were eating at the later end of the Passeover as at the end of the first course at a feast the second course is brought in in that instant Jesus instituted the Supper of his passion And to this agree the Apostles words 1 Cor. 11. 25. Also he took the Cup when he had supped that is before he rose from the table because after he rose John testifies of other actions And after hee sate down again to them verse 12. of other discourses And to this accords S. Lukes witn●sse also Luke 22. 19. And he took the bread and gave thanks that is the bread on the Table provided for the Passeover Likewise also the Cup after Supper that is as they had finished the supper of the Passeover as abovesaid no distance of time but as they were eating the one Christ instituted and distributed the other And as the Sop might be a part of the Supper of the Passeover being a part of the fragments untaken away from the table so was the bread and wine a part of the provision of the Passeover Supper also which the Lord blessed to institute the Sacrament with and yet neither of them for your purpose Their second Objection It is said in the Institution of the Lords Supper Luke 22. 19 20. This is my body which is given for you c. In which words Judas could not be included for Christ gave not his body nor shed not his bloud for him and therefore Judas could not be there My defence to your second Objection I affirm that as Christ gave himselfe to death peculiarly and effectually for his elect so generally and sufficiently for the whole world according to that of the Apostle If any man sin meaning if any of the justified elect we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is the propitiation for our sins and not onely for ours that is for the elect but for the sins of the whole world 1 John 2. 1 2. And so saith Saint Paul 1 Tim. 4. 10. For therefore wee both labour and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God who is the Saviour of all men especially of them that beleeve Observe in the general he hath given himself to be a Saviour that by and through his death there is now a way opened to life and salvation for all men without which no man could be saved And this purchased and purchasing life is the true light that enlightneth every man that commeth into the world John 1. 9. yet notwithstanding this light and remedy provided such is the naturall opposition thereunto of all men which through the first Adams offence lie damnable Rom. 5. 18. and although the second Adam by his death hath brought them to an estate saveable yet notwithstanding this possibility when none was before through this new and living way by Christs death if God did not after a speciall manner in an extraordinary respect make this means that is sufficient for all effectuall for his elect they should be condemned with the reprobate world for loving darknesse more then light because their deeds are evill but that God of his everlasting love and pitie works his owne works in them and for them of repentance and remission of sins to salvation And the reprobate part of mankind and such as perish they also enjoy all Gods mercies and goodnesse long suffering and patience life food and all things for the body the Sun-shine and dewing rain of Gods grace in his ordinances for their soules good which could not be enjoyed but by the death mediation of Jesus Christ So that in these considerations it may bee said Christ hath given himself for all men and his death in it selfe virtuall for all but effectuall onely for the elect Their third Objection Matth. 26. 13. it is said All yee shall be offended with me this night Now Judas could not be offended therefore Judas was not there for hee effected his treachery wilfully and for his hire My defence to your third Objection In the Scriptures the tearm offence is diversly taken there is an offence of impenitency an offence of imbecillity of wilfulnesse and weaknesse Judas was guilty of the first offence of that of impenitency and all the rest of the Apostles of that of weaknesse and frailty The Scribes and Pharisees were wilfully and impenitently offended with our Lord Luke 7. 30. who rejected the counsell of God against themselves So was Herod against John Baptist Mark 6. 20. who notwithstanding the Prophets powerfull Doctrine which wrought such a change in the heathen King as to respect the Prophet so as to hear him to obey and doe many things to honour his person with fear and his doctrine with gladnes yet rather then his lust should want prosecution he will Judas-like take up such an implacable offence against him and the truth so as suddenly barbarously to imprison him and there to murder him Thus Cain was offended with Abel Ishmael with Isaac Esau with Jacob The severall grounds that received not the seed to perfection And blessed are they to whom Christ is not such a rock of offence Their fourth Objection I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine untill that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome Matth. 26. 29. Now Judas c●uld not be one that should drink with Christ in his Fathers Kingdome Ergo Iudas was not there when our Lord spake this My defence to your fourth Objection The words of the former verse are these This is the bloud of the new Testament

which was shed for many for the remission of sins Now of that many he speaketh in that he saith I will drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom And in this distinction he might speak it to the twelve when Iudas was present For you may say as well Iudas was not amongst the twelve when he said to them Iohn 6. 70. Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a Devill In this distinction of election may our Saviour speak in the case of perfection Their fifth Objection I will smite the Shepheard and the sheep shall be scattered Mark 14. 27. And again I will lay down my life for my sheep Iohn 10 15 17. Now Iudas could not be included and therefore not present for hee was none of Christs sheep but a traytor against the Shepheard and the Flock also My defence to your fifth Objection This objection extends not to the question in hand for the Shepheard was smitten after the Institution and distribution of the Lords Supper And so also after Iudas left our Lord and his Apostles company and went privatly to effect and perfect his treacherous conspiracy And yet again in the Scripture phrase there are evill sheep unlost as well as good such as are lost and found in the Scripture sense And Iudas was amongst them and sent out with them when our Lord said Matth. 10. 16. Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of Wolves And the Prophet David knew well there was more bad then good men when he said 2 Sam. 24. 17. But these sheep what have they done Now while I was making my defence against all these former oppositions I received from an honoured friend of mine this double supposition following His first Supposition Friend I pray consider how the Apostle speaks of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 10. 15 16 17. I speak as to you wise men judge you what I say The Cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ For we being many are one bread and one body for wee are partakers of that one bread Now who are the wise but the regenerate Who hath communion in the body and bloud of Christ but the faithfull Who are the many memb●rs that are one body the many grains that make one loafe but the Saints And therefore doth not the Sacrament properly and peculiarly belong to the Saints Yea onely ordained for them I suppose My defence to your first Supposition Sir the answer lies in the Apostles words by you mentioned for to say For the cup of blessing which we blesse and the bread which wee breake is it not the communion of the body and bloud of Christ proves plainly there are two things considerable in the Sacrament the elements or signes bread and wine the substance or thing signified the body and bloud of Christ of both which the regenerate communicate but the unregenerate although acknowledging the common faith they of bread and wine the signes onely And this is plainly proved by the Apostle by the instance hee gives to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 3 4 5. The multitude as well as the faithfull they passed through the sea they had equall benefit of the coole moist cloud in the heat of the day and of the light hot burning pillar in the dark cold night and sustained both with the same Manna Angels food And yet none did communicate of the spirituall substance the Rock and Truth but such as were spiritual and thereby could by faith eat Christs flesh and drink his bloud and all the regenerate and truly faithfull did so But with may of them saith the Apostle that is with the carnall impenitent provoking unbeleeving part God was not well pleased but overthrew them in the wildernesse notwithstanding their outward fellowship and communion with the faithfull in the outward externall shadowes And the Apostle by way of comparison seems to make the Church of Corinth and the Church of the Jews in the wildernesse to agree in the like participation with those that communicate as in the things communicated both for the quality of persons and distinction of ordinances And if it were not so as you would suppose then his exhortation were in vain Neither be yee Idolaters as some of them neither fornicators nor tempters nor murmurers c. And if faulty and unregenerate Christians ought not upon any terms to comunicate then the Apostle in Chap. 11. would have forbidden them communion whereas he uses onely admonition And therefore as for the inward and spirituall Christians the spirituall part of the sacrament is peculiar so the externall and common part is for such Christians as are but outward and common and ordained for them as for the Saints as before hath been shewed His second Supposition If unregenerate men come to communicate in the Sacrament they intrude and thrust themselves to that which God calls them not to and so therein doe that which they ought not and therefore it is sin to such to come for so much seems to be implied by the Apostle in saying They discern not the Lords body and so it proves to bee punishment instead of nourishment And it may be said to them as to the guest that bad not on the wedding Garment Friend how comest thou in hither And their intrusion to the Lords Table is like the false Apostles and Prophets thrusting themselves into all the administrations of the Gospel My defence to your second Supposition The first part of this Supposition being an inference of the former by consequence is answered already And whereas you say It is an intrusion in the unregenerate and so a sin in them to come to the Sacrament you must shew the inhibition for otherwise the text is plain Where there is no law there is no transgression Secondly you instance the uncloathed mans coming to the Feast in the Gospel I pray consider hee was not condemned for coming to the Feast but for being there without a wedding Garment for the feast is all the ordinances of God which Christ hath purchased and freely vouchsafed for all men to communicate in for their salvation the coming to the feast is the free liberty that all beleevers have in the enjoyment of these ordinances and to bee fed and clad with the blessed spirituall benefit thereof is to enjoy the blessing and salvation that comes by these means ordained of God for that end but to enjoy the administration thereof and not to be bettered by them is to be there where we might have been clad and yet continue naked fed and are yet starved And so it comes to passe that which is a savour of life to the one is a savour of death to the other the first heareth and obeyeth the second heareth and rejecteth In the next place I answer Whosoever taketh upon him to be a Steward of that which is