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
A07423	The masse displayed. VVritten in French by Mr Iohn Bede, advocate to the Parliament of Paris, and now translated into English; Messe en françois exposée. English	Bédé de la Gormandière, Jean.; Chaloner, Edward, 1590 or 91-1625, attributed name.	1619 (1619)	STC 1781; ESTC S101392	100,322	152

cannot be expressed in which regard one may say vnto them You know not that which you adore but wee know that which we worship euen Iesus which is God inuisible made man like vnto vs in all things sinne onely excepted Now this new adoration was instituted by Honorius the 3. about the yeare 1225 and the prayer vnto it is prescribed in the glosse Salue lux mundi c. God saue thee thou light of the world word of the Father true hoaste liuing flesh § Placeat tibi entire deity true man c. And although this adoration bee addressed directly to the hoaste yet the Priest knowes well that it is differing from Iesus Christ not onely in regard of the termes aboue mentioned to wit that he is called a pure Sacrament and a temporall gift but also in respect of the prayer which he makes Let the office of my seruitude please thee holy Trinity c. and grant that the sacrifice offered by me be agreeable vnto thee c through Iesus Christ Now I say that if this hoaste were Iesus Christ himselfe we ought not to say let Iesus be agreeable through Iesus for men imploy not the intercession of a thing to the thing it selfe Moreouer Iesus Christ was not Mediatour for himselfe to God for betweene the Persons of the Trinity there is no mediation but betweene the hoaste and him to whom it is offered a kinde of mediation is suggested for in the same moment the Priest throwes himselfe below the hoaste to adore it and aboue it intercedes for it to God that it may be acceptable vnto him so that he makes two Christs the one at the right hand of the Father inuocated and prayed vnto and the other in the hands of the Priest supplicating and attending to finde grace the one vnto whom the sacrifice is offered and the other which is sacrificed Whence appeares a manifest idolatry for there is but one onely adoration of the same essence which receiues neither more nor lesse neither differeth from it selfe either in substance or accident The next order of arguing against this pretended transubstantiation is taken from the analogy of the Sacraments which are visible signes and seales of the inuisible grace of God so that the signe is a thing differing in his owne nature from that which it signifies as the water in Baptisme which although it be a Sacrament of bloud yet is it not transubstantiated Can. quia passus in fine de consec dist 2. And the Popes themselues heerein agree with vs saying We are not to doubt that euery faithfull man is made partaker of the body and of the cup when hee is baptised although he dye before he receiue the Eucharist and marke the reason added thereunto because hee hath in himselfe that which this Sacrament signifies The same may bee saide of the Sacraments of the Passeouer the Rocke the Arke in which the Lambe was not changed into the Passeouer nor the Rocke into Christ nor the Arke into the Couenant notwithstanding they contayned the truth of that which they prefigured and they which were partakers of them did really enioy that which was represented by them Ibid. Omnis res in sese illarum rerum continet naturam veritatem ex quibus conficitur And this is the reason why the Canon hoc est shewes that euery Sacrament hath two parts and sets down this Maxime that euery thing containeth in it selfe the nature and the verity of those things whereof it is composed From whence it is easie to conclude that the Sacrament of the Eucharist being amongst other things composed of bread and wine the bread and the wine retaine the nature and verity of bread and wine And more plainely in the same canon is said that the bread is called a body Gl. verb. coelestis suo modo after its owne maner not in truth but in signifying it in a mystery And the reason why they continue in their proper nature is euident Nullum simile est idem for otherwise there would bee no resemblance betweene the thing signifying and the thing signified and we should with blasphemy say that as the accidents without the substance cannot nourish the body so likewise that which they prefigure can yeeld no nourishment to the soule Heare St Augustine If the Sacraments had no agreement with the things whereof they be Sacraments Aug. ep 23. they would be no more Sacraments because they would not signifie them at all Wherefore after the blessing Math. 26. 1. Cor. 11. euen our Sauiour himselfe called the Sacrament the fruit of the Vine and Saint Paul saith the bread which we breake c. Againe whosoeuer shall eate of this bread and drinke of this wine vnworthily c. hee saith not of his body Lastly our Sauiour hauing said that he would drinke of this fruite in the kingdome of his Father it is certaine Luke 24. that he meant not that hee would drinke himselfe after the resurrection but foretold onely the repast which after it he would take with his Disciples and though he spake there onely of eating yet drinking is well enough vnderstood for men vse not to eate without drinking Finally besides arguments drawne from reason certaine it is that by testimonies and inartificiall proofes it may bee verifyed that twelue hundred yeares after our Sauiour vntil Innocent the third the Church receiued not that transubstantiation which is set downe in the canon Ego Berengarius De consecr dist 2. ●an quia corpus gl can firmiter ardeum de suam Trinit in decretales Ca● Vtrum sub figura v. Vorard veritatem egressus hyperbolica loquutus est Theod. 1. dial contra quosdam haeret tom 2. where Nicholas caused it to be said that not onely the Sacrament but also the true body and blood of our Lord is sensually handled and broken by the hands of the Priest and chewed with his teeth Which beleefe being ful of impiety the canons themselues doe derogate from it and the glosse of the canon Vtrum euen in the same title of consecration where the glosse saith that Berengarius lyed and spake by an hyperbole What credit shall we giue to these forgers of traditions let 's haue recourse vnto antiquity Our Sauiour hath changed the names in the Sacraments and hath giuen to his body the name of the signe and to the signe also hath he giuen the name of his body and in the same manner as he was called an hedge he called the wine his blood Afterwards he concludes So the visible signes are honoured with the name of body and bloud not in changing nature but in adding grace vnto nature And in the second Dialogue For euen after the benediction the mysticall Symboles leaue not their owne nature for they abide in their proper substance and visible forme and shape and to bee touched in such sort as they were before And Macarius Macar hom