Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	blood_n	body_n	jesus_n	12,126	5	6.1739	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13235	A defence of the Appendix. Or A reply to certaine authorities alleaged in answere to a catalogue of Catholike professors, called, An appendix to the Antitdote VVherein also the booke fondly intituled, The Fisher catched in his owne net, is censured. And the sleights of D. Featly, and D. VVhite in shifting off the catalogue of their owne professors, which they vndertooke to shew, are plainly discouered. By L.D. To the Rt. VVorshipfull Syr Humphry Lynde.	L. D., fl. 1624.; Sweet, John, 1570-1632, attributed name.	1624 (1624)	STC 23528; ESTC S120948	43,888	74

breath being restored againe vnto him which you had thought to steale and smother that he plainely confesseth the Bread and Wine to be Flesh and Blood and that the Nature of the one being changed into the Nature of the other they are both reduced into one Essence which is the same Doctrine that your Aduersary professeth and maintayneth against you Your Aduersaries affirme the Bread to be made a Sacrament and the Body of Christ by the words of Consecration for the which cause they not only adore it before they receaue it but also they haue euer held that it might be lawfully giuen to Infants and that which remaines thereof they are wonte to reserue to be giuen afterward to the sicke or to others that come to receaue as occasiō requireth You Protestāts affirme on the other side that it becōmeth a Sacrament and a Seale of the Body of Christ vnto you without any change in the thing by the liuely Faith of the Receauers and consequently you giue it not to Infants because they cannot receaue it with that Faith which makes it a Sacrament and that also which remaineth thereof after the whole Action you take to be no better then common Bread and soe you vse it As custome is the best interpreter of the law so the practise of the Church is the best interpreter of her owne Doctrine Wherefore to know what S. Cypriā with the Church of God in the secōd Age after Christ belieued at that tyme concerning this point of the B. Sacrament there can be no surer way then to examine what is practized in communicating the same to Infants and in reseruing of it to be taken as need required Which S. Cyprian in his sermon De Lapsis his owne vndoubted worke hath not obscurely recorded for he relateth Teste meipso sacrificantibus nobis my selfe being witnes and we our selues offering sacrifice that an Infant hauing beene fedde with a sopp of wine before an Idoll and being afterward brought to Church was much tormented during the tyme of the Sacrifice and when it 's turne came to receaue it resisted so vehemently that the Deacon was faine perforce to open it's mouth and to power in somewhat of the Sacrament that was in the Chalice but sayth S. Cypriā The drinke sanctified into the Bloud of Christ brake out of her polluted bowels c. In which Sermon he likewise testifieth That a certaine Woman when she would with vnworthy hands haue opened her coffer wherein was reserued the Holy Thing of our Lord there sprung vp fire from thence wherewith she was so terrified that she durst not touch it And That another defiled Person presuming to receaue with others could not eate nor touch the Holy Thing of God for in his opened hands insteed thereof he found Ashes By Document whereof sayth S. Cyprian it is shewed that the Lord doth depart when he is denyed By which Documents of reseruing the Eucharist and giuing it to Infants they who will not be obstinate may also learne out of S. Cyprian that the Eucharist after the words of Consecration was belieued to be really the Body of Christ and not figuratiuely by Fayth only to him that doth worthily so receaue it Wherefore to conclude this Dispute concerning the Testimony of S. Cyprian for Transubstantiation and Reall Presence as it was false that your Doctors claymed him in the former Conferēce so being plaine agaynst them in this point besides many other of no lesse importance it was fondly done of you to say they claymed him Section IX S. Augustine falsly alleadged by Syr Humphry against the Reall Presence FYnally against the Reall Presence you obiect other places of the Fathers affirming the Sacrament to be a figure of Christs body which your Aduersaries deny not For they define all Sacramēts to be signes and figures according whereunto they also holde that as the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a figure in respect of the Shape or externall accidents therof so it is the Body of Christ in respect of the thing contained in them But now that the Eucharist is only a figure or that it is not the Body of Christ which you should haue proued against them or els you proue nothing none of the places alleaged by you do shew neyther is it possible in all the Fathers to find so much as one place that doth sufficiently proue it While they in the meane tyme besides many most expresse Scriptures Matt. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 11. confuting also your principall obeiction that the Body of Christ cannot be in two places Act. 9.5.22.8.23.11 1. Cor. 15.8 They I say on the other side produce so many superabūdant Authorities from the Fathers Councells in all Ages conuincing the holy Eucharist to be the Body of Christ that I must needs say they haue discouered more bouldnes if not impudency thē learning or conscience who eyther in bookes or in Pulpits haue pretended to shew that the Fathers in this point are plainely against them To make this appeare it may suffice at this tyme briefely to set down the beliefe only of those Fathers in particuler which your selfe in your papers haue produced for you Tertullian S. Austen S. Ambrose S. Hierome and Gelasius shewing how euidently they teach the cōtrary Doctrine aswell in their writing elswhere as in those very places which your selfe haue cited First therefore let vs begin with Saint Augustine who in his Workes making often mention of the Sacrament giueth vs these particulers of his Doctrine therein That before the words of Consecration that which was offered is called Bread but after the words of Christ haue beene pronounced now it is not called Bread but it is called the Body Serm. 28. de verb. Domini That if Children had neuer seene the likenes of those thinges but only when it is offered and giuen in the Celebration of the Sacrament and that it should be tould vnto them with most graue Authority whose Body and Bloud it is they would belieue nothing els but that our Lord had neuer appeared to the eyes of Men saue only in that likenes lib. ● de Trin. cap. 10. That Childrē were wont to receaue it apud Bedā in 1. Cor. 10. Who haue not the mouth of Faith to receaue it That it pleased the Holy Ghost was vniuersally obserued that our Lords body enter into the mouth of a Christiā before other meates in the honor of so great a Sacrament Epist 118. cap. 6. which must needes be meant of the mouth of the Body That we receaue with our hart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man Iesus Christ Man giuing vs his Flesh to be eaten and his Bloud to be drunke although it seeme more horrible to eate Mans flesh then to kill it and to drinke Mans bloud then to spill it lib. 2. cont Aduersaer legi● Prophet That we doe not eate dead flesh dilaniated and cut in peeces as the Capharnaites vnderstood it for this

indeed were horible and would profit nothing but we eate the flesh of Christ as it is liuing flesh vegetated with his Spirit which is Christ himselfe entirely as he is now in Heauen Tract 27. in Ioan. 63 That no man eateth that Flesh before he adore it in Psalm 93. That the rich men of this World cōming to the Table of Christ do receaue his Body and Bloud which though they adore yet are not filled with it because they doe not imitate it eating him that is poore but contemning pouerty Epist. 120. ad Honoratum That the Apostles did eate the Bread which was their Lord Panem Dominum though Iudas did eate but the Bread of our Lord Panem Domini Tract 59. in Ioan. For our Sauiour was not truly his Lord because Iudas was not truly his seruant And if at the day of Iudgement he should say Domine Domine our Lord would answere I know thee not Protestants may well say with Iudas that they eate the Bread of our Lord if our Lord did ordaine it to be a figure of his Body but they cannot say with the Apostles that they eate the Bread which is their Lord because they deny it to be their Lords Body That Iudas Iscariot receaued That sayth he which the faythfull know the price of our Redemption Epist. 162. ad Glor. That our Sauiour did literally beare himselfe in his owne hands whē he gaue it Conc. 1. in Psalm 33. That Bishops and Presbiters in the Church of Christ are properly Priests de Ciuit Dei lib. 20. cap. 10. Which doth infer that properly also there are Priests and Sacrifices that Christian Priests doe properly offer Sacrifice vpon Altars Wherefore making often mention of MASSE Serm. 91. de Tempore Serm. 251. he sayth likewise that our Sauiour changed the Sacrifice according to the order of Aaron and did institute a Sacrifice of his owne Body and Bloud according to the order of Melchisedech in Psalm 32. in Psalm 39. lib. 17. de Ciuit Dei cap. 20. That he prayed God to giue him contrition a foūtaine of teares when he assisted at the holy Altar to offer that marueilous heauenly Sacrifice which Christ the immaculate Priest did institute and commaund to be offered in Manuali That a Priest of his offered the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ in a house infested with wicked spirits which was thereby freed lib. 22. de Ciu. Dei cap. 8. That he desired all Priests whome he called his Bretheren and his Maisters who should read his Booke of Confessions to remember his Mother at the Altar where the also desired to be remembred after her death lib 9. Confess cap. 13. That it is not to be doubted the dead are holpen thereby because the vniuersall Church receauing it from the Fathers obserued that it should be offered for those who departed this life in the communion of Christs Body Serm. 32. de verbis Apostoli He reckoneth it amongst the Heresies of Aerius that he denyed Oblations and Prayers for the Dead Haer. 53. Could any Catholike at this day or Bellarmine himselfe if he were now aliue more fully declare his owne Doctrine in this point of the Reall Presence and of the Sacrifice of the Masse then doth S. Augustine against you though in other things you may retaine some difficulties yet in this me thinkes you should freely acknowledge that you are wholy conuinced Finally vpon Leuiticus quaest 57. in the very place which your selfe haue cited where there is nothing that may found for you but only that the figure is sometymes sayd to be the thing figured which as I take it is only in those cases where it is knowne and presupposed to be a figure he demaundeth why the people should be so much forbidden from the Bloud of the Sacrifice of the old Law when as none were forbidden to take for their nourishment the Bloud of this one Sacrifice which was signified by all the former but all that desired life were rather exhorted to drinke it Now therefore heereupon might not your Aduersaries deeply charge you that you had egregiously abused S. Augustine and plainely peruerted his meaning Section X. S. Ambrose falsly alleaged by Syr Humphry against the Reall Presence LEt vs now come to S. Ambrose who conuerted S. Augustine that we may see how the Maister the Scholler agree togeather he maketh mentiō of the MASSE and that himselfe sayd MASSE Epist ad Sororem Marcellinam He repeateth a great part of the Canon of the MASSE which is now vsed We offer vnto thee this immaculate Host this reasonable Host this vnbloody Host this holy Bread and Cup of life euerlasting c. And we pray thee to receaue this Oblation as thou didst vouchsafe to receaue the gifts of thy seruant Abel the iust and the Sacrifice of our great Father Abraham and that which the high Priest Melchisedech did offer vnto thee lib. 4. de Sacramentis cap. 6. He sayth We daily adore the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries that is to say in the MASSE or Sacrifice lib. 3. de Spirit Sanct. cap. 12. He maketh his prayer vnto that Bread to heale his infirmity to come into his hart to clense both his flesh and his spirit from all that defileth in his prayer preparatory before Masse And in his Booke De Mysterijs init cap. 9. he obiecteth in this manner Perchance thou wilt say I see another thing how dost thou affirme vnto me that I receaue the Body of Christ Whereunto he answereth How many Examples haue we to proue it not to be that which Nature hath formed but that which Benediction hath consecrated And that Benediction is of greater power then Nature because by it euen Nature it selfe is changed And then declaring many Myracles wrought by Moyses Helias and Helizaeus he concludeth If human benediction were able to change Nature what shall we say of Diuine Consecration If the speach of Helias was able to bring Fyre from the Heauens Shall not the speach of Christ be able to change the formes of the Elements If the word of Christ were able to make of nothing that which was not can it not change the things that are into that which they were not For it is no lesse matter to giue new Natures vnto things then to change their Natures And a little after he sayth It is manifest that a Virgin brought forth agaynst the ordinary course of Nature and the Body which we Priests DOE MAKE is of the Virgin What dost thou require the order of Nature to be obserued in the Body of Christ who was borne of a Virgin against the order of Nature Could the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or change of Nature in the Sacrament be more auouched or better proued by any moderne Papist Who likewise lib. 6. de Sacram. cap. 1. thinketh it no blasphemy to say as he doth That as our Lord Iesus Christ is the true Sōne of God not as man by grace or by Fayth but

as the Sonne of the substance of his Father so as he himselfe hath sayd it is true Flesh which we receaue That is to say not by grace or by Fayth only but in Truth and in Substance Finally in the place which you cite for your selfe lib. 4. cap. 5. de Sacram. where there is nothing to be found in your fauour he hath these expresse words Therefore before Consecration it is Bread but after the words of Christ come to it it is the Body of Christ. And before the words of Christ it is a Cup full of Wine and Water when the words of Christ haue wrought then it is made the Bloud which redeemed the People To conclude our Lord Iesus testifieth vnto vs that we receaue his Body and Bloud Ought we to doubt of his Fayth and Testimony Heere if I had concealed the name of S. Ambrose would not the Reader thinke the man had liued in our tyme that wrore so forcibly and vehemently agaynst you Finally in the former Chapter of the same Booke he saith againe The bread is bread before the words of the Sacrament but after the words of Consecration of Bread is made the flesh of Christ And againe in the same little Chapter as if by often repeating the same thing he meant to vexe or confound euery obstinate Protestant that should reade it he saith Therefore that I may answere thee It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration I say vnto thee it is the Body of Christ And agayne a little after repeating the same againe as if he had now conuinced his Readers he concludeth You haue therefore learned that our Bread is made the Body of Christ and that Wine Water is put into the Chalice but is made Bloud by the Consecration of the heauenly Word But it may be thou wilt say I see not the forme of Bloud But it hath the likenesse for as thou hast receaued the likenesse of death so thou drinkest also the likenesse of Bloud and not the visible forme of Bloud that there might be noe horror of Bloud and yet the price of our Redemption which is the Bloud of Christ might worke in vs. Thou hast learned therefore that thou receauest the Body of Christ. Which you also might haue learned if you had read him your selfe and not trusted others that read him for no other purpose but only to wrest his words against his meaning Section XI S. Hierome falsly alleaged by Syr Humphry agaynst the Reall Presence NOW come we to S. Hierome who thinketh it noe blasphemy to say Epist 1. ad Heliod That Priests with their sacred Mouthes doe make the Body of Christ And Epist ad Euag. That his Body and Bloud is made at their prayer And in cap. 25. Matth. writeth as followeth After the typicall Passouer was ended c. he taketh Bread and passeth ouer to the Sacrament of the true Passouer that as Melchisedech the Priest of the most high God had done offering Bread and Wine to prefigure him he also might represent the truth of his Body and Bloud That is to say as Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine to prefigure him so he also taking Bread and wine offered the truth of his Body and Bloud to fulfill the figure According wherunto in Ps 190. speaking to our Sauiour he saith As Melchisedech offereth Bread and Wine soe thou also offerest thy Body and Bloud the true Bread and the true Wine In that sense true Bread as in Epist. ad Hedibiam quaest 2. he saith that Moyses gaue noe true Bread And as our Sauiour sayd Ioan. 6. That his Father gaue them true Bread from heauen Where also S. Hierome hath these words Let vs heare the Bread which our Lord brake to be the Body of our Lord and Sauiour And he adeth a little after He sate at the Banquet and was himselfe the Banquet he the eater and be that was eaten Finally lib. cont Vigil cap. 3. he reprehendeth Vigilantius for speaking against Reliques in this manner Therefore according to thy speach the Bishop of Rome doth ill who vpon the Bones of Peter and Paul which we call venerable but thou esteemest most vile dust doth offer Sacrifices to God and maketh their Tōbes to be the Altars of Christ According wherunto in Prouerb 11. he also saith That after this life small sinnes may be taken away by paine by prayers and almes of others and by celebrations of MASSE Lastly in his Booke against Iouinian which you cite at randome without any number I find nothing but this that may any way please you In the type of his Blood he offered not Water but Wine lib. 2. cap. 4. This testimony I find alleaged by your Doctours as S. Hieroms for their meere figuratiue or typicall Presence wherin they discouer eyther ignorance or desire to deceaue their Readers For whosoeuer shall take the paynes to peruse the place will find the aforesayd words not to be S Hieroms but Iouinians whose discourse against Abstinence from flesh and wine S. Hierome there setts downe in that Heretike his owne wordes whereof these are a part In the Type of his Bloud he offered not water but wine And S. Hierome afterward cōming to answere this obeiction against drinking of water and Abstinence from Flesh sayth that Christ neuer vsed wine nor dainties excepto mysterio quo Typum suae passionis expressit pro probanda corporis veritate Where the Saynt tearmes the holy Eucharist a Type not of the Body and Blood of Christ as the Hereticke did but of his Passion which is represented in the Mystery of the Masse which is the ordinary Catholike Doctrine and phrase Notwithstanding seeing this Heretike erred not agaynst the Catholike Doctrine of the Reall Presence his wordes haue a true sense and make agaynst you Protestants For you deny that in his last Supper he offered any thing at all and say that only vpon the Crosse he offered himselfe once for all not only sufficiently by his Bloud and Passion Heb. 2. but also effectually agaynst Mal. 2. without any other cleane oblation for the application of the merit of his Passion vnto vs. This place therefore maketh not for you neyther is it any way against them though it were S. Hieroms for they graunt he offered Wine in type or figure of his Bloud but he offered also his Bloud answering the figure in Truth and Substance As he was Priest after the order of Melchisedech in Bread and Wine he offered Bread and Wine in figure As the offering of Melchisedech was a figure of his offering he offered also his Body and Bloud which was the Truth or Substance of that figure Which to be the meaning of S. Hierome may sufficiently appeare by that which hath beene sayd and these other wordes of his Epist. ad Marcellam doe make it yet to appeare more plainely saying Melchisedech in the Type of Christ offered Bread and Wine and dedicated the Mystery of Christians in the Body

and Bloud of our Sauiour Section XII Tertullian and Gelasius falsly alleaged by Syr Humphry agaynst the Reall Presence And S. Ignatius absurdly claymed by the Protestant Doctours THere remayneth behinde of the Authors you alleage Tertullian and Gelasius Tertullian is cleare for them who in his Booke De resurrectione caruis to proue that our flesh shall ryse agayne and be saued vseth these words that follow The flesh is washed that the Soule may be clensed The flesh is annointed that the Souls may be consecrated The flesh is fed with the Body and Bloud of Christ that the Soule may be fatned Though the Soule may feed on Christ by the metaphoricall mouth of Fayth yet the flesh hath no such mouth to feede vpon him and if it had being only fed metaphorically therewith nothing would follow thereof but that it might rise and be saued only metaphorically and so Tertullian should haue proued that which he there impugned In fine as the flesh is heere sayd to be truly washed and annointed so also it must be vnderstood to be truly fed and not to be fed by fayth only or in figure Which Argument to proue the Resurrection Tertullian seemeth to haue learned of Irenaeus lib. 4. cont Haer. cap. 34. whome also he calleth Omnium Doctrinarum cariosisim●m Exploratorem lib. cont Valent. prope initium And therfore because the Doctrine of Irenaeus in that place doth serue very well to confirme both the doctrine of Tertullian and the Reall Presence heere in question I will giue you his whole discourse Quomodo constabit ijs c. sayth he of the Heretiks against whome he wrote How can they assure themselues the Bread wherein thankes are giuen to be the body of their Lord and the Cup to be the Cup of his bloud if they do not confesse him to be the Sonne of him that made the world And how againe doe they say that that flesh must go into corruption and not receaue life which is nourished by the body and bloud of our Lord Therefore eyther let them change their opinion or let them cease to offer the things aforesayd But our Dictrine agreeth with the Eucharist and the Eucharist againe confirmeth our Doctrine for we offer therin vnto him those things that are his because being the Sonne of God he maketh thē by his omnipotency his owne Body his owne Bloud and consequently we teach the communication and vnity of his Flesh and of his Spirit with vs our flesh being fed with his Body and Bloud and receauing thereby his Spirit to liue for euer For as the bread which commeth from the Earth receauing the vocation or word of God is now no more common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the one earthly comming from the earth and the other Heauenly the Body and Bloud of the Sonne of God so also our bodies receauing the Eucharist by the communication and vnitie of his flesh with ours are no more corruptible hauing now the hope of Resurrection So that according to these auncient Fathers as we belieue our Sauiour to be the Sonne of God so must we belieue the Eucharist to be his Body and Bloud And as we belieue the Resurrection of the Flesh so must we belieue that our flesh is fed with the flesh of Christ And eyther you must change your opinion or els as now you haue ceased to offer these things and to feed your flesh with the body and bloud of Christ so you are also in danger to change your beliefe as well of the Diuinity of Christ as also of the Resurrection of your owne bodyes But it may be the place which your selfe haue cited lib. 4. cont Marcionem out of the same Author is no lesse with you thē was the former agaynst you his words are these Professing therefore that with a desire he desired to eate the Pasche as his own for it was not seemly that God should desire to eate the Pasche of another hauing taken the Bread c. he made it his owne body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body But the figure had not beene vnlesse there were a true body Whereof citing imperfectly but halfe the Sentence This is my body This is the figure of my body and changing that into this to make it sound more fully for you you guilefully omit the other halfe The bread which he tooke he made his body saying This is my body which are euidently against you The words also which you cite wherein the Author seemeth to say This is my body that is to say this is the figure of my body and no more your Aduersaries do clearly shew to haue another meaning First because otherwise he should not only teach that which is directly contrary to his former Doctrine in the place before alleaged but also should contradict himselfe in this very sentence for according to our expositiō he should not haue sayd that Christ tooke bread made it his body which is false if it be only a figure of his body but that he tooke bread and made it the figure of his body saying This is my body that is to say the figure of my body and consequently in the words that follow he should haue sayd But it were not a figure vnlesse there were a true body and not as he doth but there had not beene a figure if there were not a true body For if the figure and the body were both at the same tyme why should he say of the one that it had beene and of the other that it was Secondly your Aduersaries therefore do say the meaning of those words This is my body that is the figure of my body to be This is my body that is the figure of my body in the law now by me fullfilled Or This is my body that is to say this is the bread which was a figure in the Law signifying my body and is now fullfilled by me hauing relatiō to the words of the Prophet Ieremy which a little after he citeth and expoundeth and sheweth to haue beene then fullfilled by our Sauiour As in the like sense S. Iohn Baptist for example when he saw our Sauiour might haue sayd This is the Messias that is to say The Lambe of God which was the figure of the Messias in the Law to signify that the Prophecy of the Lambe of God in Isa 16. was then fullfilled in our Sauiour Therfore that Tertullian meant to say This is my Body that is to say the figure of my Body now fullfilled c. your Aduersaries doe plainely proue First because it is euident that Tertullian in this place intended to shew how our Sauiour in his Pasche fullfilled the law against Marcion who being an Enemy of the Old Testament contended that our Sauiour came to dissolue it and Tertullian argueth against him in this māner The Bread of Christ in the law did signifie the Body of Christ which he proueth out of Ieremie 11. saying

Cyprian which Bellarmine himselfe lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. holdeth to be none of Cyprians Wherein you must giue me leaue to tell you that your selfe much more deserue to be accused For first albeit Bellarmine doth say he thinketh that Sermon de Coena Domini not to be S. Cyprians yet he addeth immediatly in the same place that it is The Sermon of some auncient most holy and most learned Man as the Aduersaries meaning Protestants do confesse which words that you might with more shew eleuate and auoyd the former Authority were fraudulently concealed by you It is the worke of some learned Man of that Age sayth Erasmus in his annotations vpon the workes of S. Cyprian In tyme not much inferior to Cyprian sayth Fulke in 1. Corinth cap. 11. Wherefore doe we reuerence the Authority of S. Cyprian but because he was an Auncient holy and learned Father If therefore the Author of this Sermon was a most holy and learned Man as Bellarmine sayth the Protestants themselues confesse and of the same Age with S. Cyprian or in tyme not much inferior vnto him as I haue shewed that the Protestants themselues doe likewise witnesse why should any Protestant reiect him Besides though Bellarmine thinketh this Sermon to be none of Cyprians yet many other Deuines of great name Cypriano tribuunt doe iudge it to be the worke of S. Cyprian as well for the likenesse of the stale as for the dignity of the matter sayth Gaulortius a learned Protestant in his annotations thereupon Why then may not your Aduersarie follow heerein the iudgment of many other great Deuines In fine your Aduersary may alleage for himselfe in this matter the testimony of S. Augustine cont Donat. lib. 4. cap 22. his words are these From that Theefe to whome not being baptized it was sayd This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise the same S. Cyprian tooke no sleight document that passion or death or Martyrdome doth sometyme supply the place of Baptisme According whereunto both in sense and words in the same Sermon de Coena Domini it is sayd and therefore according to S. Augustine by S. Cyprian That our Lord c. deferred not his benefit but with the same speedy Indulgence he gaue presently aswell a document as also an example thereof saying vnto the Theefe This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise He had his condemnation and punishment for robery but his contritiō of hart changed his payne into Martyrdome and his bloud into Baptisme Why now may not your Aduersary cite that Sermon as Saint Cyprians which Saint Augustine himselfe so long a goe alleadged vnder the name of Cyprian First therefore heerein you deserue both blame and shame insimulating your Aduersary of fraud for misalleaging S. Cyprian by the testimony of Bellarmine and fraudulently cōcealing those words of Bellarmine in the same place which euen the testimonyes of Protestants themselues do shew the words alleaged by your Aduersary out of Cyprian to be of no lesse Authority then the words of Cyprian Secondly you deserue the more blame heerein because you alleage agaynst it another place out of S. Cypriā which according to the opiniō of Bellarmine in the same place in the same Chapter is none of Cyprians And plaine it is that the Sermon of the Supper of our Lord alleaged by your Aduersary and the other of Chrisme alleadged by your selfe are both the Sermons of the same Author for the whole Booke contayning 12. Sermons is intituled Of the Cardinall workes of Christ and dedicated to Pope Cornelius the Martyr who liued in the tyme of Cyprian And therefore he that denyeth the one hath no reason to affirme the other to be the worke of Cyprian How then out of the same mouth could you breath both hoat and cold And how out of the same Bellarmine could you proue the Sermon alleadged by your Aduersary to be none of Cyprians and affirme agaynst Bellarmine the other alleaged by your selfe to be the worke of Cyprian Thirdly the like foule fraude cōmitted by you appeareth yet more grossely in the words which you cite out of the same Author who when you take him to be with you is Cyprian but not Cyprian when he speaketh against you The words of the Author are these Our Lord therefore at that Table wherein he made his last Feast to his A●ostles with his owne hands gaue Bread and Wine but at the Crosse he gaue his Body to be wounded by the hands of his Enemie that sincere verity and true sincerity being more secretly im●●inted in the Apostles might expound to Nations how the Wine and the Bread was Flesh and Blood and after what manner t● causes agreed with their effects That diuers shapes might brought to one Essence and the things signifiyng and the things signified might be called and knowne by the same names Thus S. Cyprian But not thus Syr Hūphry for hauing alleaged the words which seemed to make for him he gaue Bread and Wine to his Apostles but his Body to his Enemies he chopt off with an c. the words following That sincere verity and true sincerity being more secretly imprinted in the Apostles might expound to Nations how the Wine and Bread was flesh and Blood which as euery man may see are expressely against him and serue to expound the meaning of the Author in the rest of that Sentence which though otherwise beeing a little obscure yet being a little considered may be thus explained Our Lord sayd to his Apostles This is my bodie which shall be giuen for you when at the table he gaue to them visibly Bread and Wine but at the Crosse he visibly gaue his owne Body that his Apostles thereby might visibly see he had giuen them inuisibly his owne Body because he gaue them the same Body into their owne hands which was giuen for them into the hands of their Enemies 1. That the sincere verity and true sincerity heereof being thus secretly imprinted in the harts of the Apostles they might confidently expound to all Nations how the Bread and Wine of that table was truly and sincerely Flesh and Blood 2. How the causes agreed with their effects the words of our Sauiour which were the causes going before agreed with their effects both at the Table and at the Crosse that followed after 3. How vnder diuers ●hapes of Bread and Wine at the Table was contained but one the same Essence because the same shapes remayning the Natures of Bread and Wine by the omnipotency of the Word were changed o● reduced into the Nature of his Body as before you haue heard ●ut of his former sermon 4. How the thinges signifying which were the shapes of Bread and Wine remayning and the things signified which were the Body and Blood of our Sauiour came both to 〈◊〉 called by the same names because the one did signify exhibit and co●aine the other By all which it appeareth the Author hauing his right brought backe againe and his owne