that in a manner the whole earth was filled with it The second place is out of the booke de caena Domini falsly ascribed 10 S. Cyprian as are also all the Treatises De Cardinalib operibus whereof this is one to which there is prefixed a Prologue wherein the Author saith that he hath suppressed his name by which it appeareth that the Authour of this Treatise is vnknowne yet might this booke bee purposely alleadged had it beene written by any auncient Authour that had liued within the first foure or fiue hundred yeares but the stile testifies that it is newly forged witnesse these wordes Distributê° non demembratur incorporatus non iniuriatur This is the worke of some prentice Frier that meant to wrong Priscian The third place is out of S. Ambrose in the ninth Chapter concerning those that are newly instructed in the Mysteries where Ambrose sayth that the benediction chaungeth the nature of the Sacrament and that it is not that which nature hath made but what the blessing hath consecrated And to shew that in this action there is a supernaturall worke he brings the example of Airons rod turned into a Serpent so farre doth Coeffeteau alleadge S. Ambrose but hee doth malitiously omit many examples following by which it appeareth that S. Ambrose did not thinke that that which was to be admired in this Sacrament was the Transubstantiation of the bread For he addeth also these examples that Moses deuided the redde Sea that the Riuer Iordan turned his course that water issued out of the Rocke that the bitter waters of Mara were made sweete that Elizeus made Iron to swimme vpon the water which were all workes of God whrein there was no transubstantiation which declare that he beleeued not that the bread became the body of Christ so as it was no more bread in substance which did plainly appeare for that in the words following comparing these miracles of the Prophets wherein God changed the nature of things Non minus est nouas res rebus dare quam mutare naturas with the change that is wrought in the Sacrament he saith That it is no lesse to adde some new things vnto things then to change the nature of things Auerring plainely thereby that the bread hath receiued some new thing without losing the nature of bread And we may not thinke it strange if he say that the bread remaining bread hath changed it nature For so a bit of Waxe becomming the Kings seale changeth it nature without Transubstantiation and is not any more commonly called Waxe euen as the common bread becommeth holy in the Sacrament Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa quae sepulta est Verè ergo carnis illius Sacramentum est Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meuÌ„ Ante benedictionem verborum caelâ—stium alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpê° Christi significatur and by this consecration is often called the body of Christ Therefore he further addeth It was the true flesh of Christ which hath beene crucified and buried This then is as truely the holy signe of the flesh The Lord himselfe crieth aloud this is my body before the blessing of the heauenly wordes another kinde is named after the blessing the body of Christ is signified The last place is out of S. Chrysostome in his Sermon of the Dedication where in his flourishing Discourse after his manner he heapes vp Hyperbolies to enflame his Auditory You which come saith he thinke not to receiue the Diuine body of a man but that you receiue the very Seraphins of fire with their tongues And a little after the spirituall fire streameth downe from the table Transported with the same zeale he saith there that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body And so in the fiue and fortieth Homily vpon S. Iohn We are mingled and knead with him we fasten our teeth in his flesh All which are hyperbolicall phrases and such as being hardly taken were absurd in the very iudgement of our aduersaries which make the helpes of deuotion to couer Idolatry for to know what is a Doctors opinion we must not take his Oratorious Amplifications nor Hyperbolical extasies Acceptum paneÌ„ distributum discipulis corpus suum fecit dicendo hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis me i. Panem suum corpus appellans vt hinc iam eum intelligas corporis sui siguram pani dedisse I I le cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum emittitur but out of the places in which they aduisedly and expresly treate of this matter of which you shall haue here some passages Tertullian in his fourth booke against Marcion cap. 40. Iesus Christ hauing taken bread and distributed it to his Disciples he made it to be his body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body The same in his third booke against Marcion cap. 19. God hath so reuealed it in the Gospell calling the bread his body to the end that thereby thou mayest vnderstand that he hath giuen to the bread to be a figure of his body Origen vpon the fifteenth of Matthew That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer as touching the matter it goeth downe into the belly and is cast out into the draught and doth not sanctifie of its owne nature Cyprian in his third Epistle of the second booke Vinum fuit quod sanguinem suum dixit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Non dubitauit dicere Hoc est corpus mâ—um cum daret signum corporis sui Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi orpus Christi est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est Ita Sacramentum fidei fides est Spiritualiter intelligitur quod locutus sum non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fuâ—uri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum a liquod vobis commendaui Spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos We find that the Cup which the Lord offered was mingled and THAT WHICH HE CALLED HIS BLOVD WAS WINE Eusebius in the eighth booke of the Demonstration of the Gospell chap. 1. towards the end Iesus Christ gaue to his Disciples the signes of the diuine dispensation commaunding them to celebrate the figure of his owne body For seeing that he did now no longer receiue the sacrifices of bloud nor the slaughter of diuers beasts ordained by Moses he hath taught vs to vse the bread for a signe of his body S. Austin against Adimantus chap. 12. The Lord made no difficulty to say This is my body when he gaue the signe of his body Where we see that he expoundeth this word Body by signe of my body In his three and twentieth Epistle to Boniface The holy signe of Christs
body is after a sort the body of Christ and the holy signe of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ and so the holy signe of faith to wit Baptisme is faith Certainely Baptisme is not transubstantiated into faith neyther the Sacrament then of the body of Christ into the body of Christ Now we must note that himselfe in his tenth book of the Citie of God and in the fift Epistle to Marcellius declareth that this word sacrament signifieth an holy signe Vpon the ninety eight Psalme Vnderstand that which I say spiritually you shall not eate his body which you see neyther shall you drinke the blood which my tormentors shall shedde I haue recommended vnto you an holy signe which being spiritually vnderstood shal make you liue Himselfe in his third booke and sixteene Chapter of Christian doctrine Nisi manducauerit is carneÌ„ filij hominis non biberitis eius sanguinem facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere Figura est ergo praecipions passioni dominicae esse communicandum suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa vulnerata sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Except you eate saith Christ the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood you shall haue no life in you It seemeth that he commaundeth a wickednesse It is then a figure which commaundeth vs to communicate of the Passion of our Lord and quietly and profitably to lay vp in our memories that his flesh was wounded and crucified for vs. Obserue how he expoundeth this Figure to wit that to eate the flesh of the Sonne of man is to communicate of his Passion and to ruminate and meditate thereon carefully in our memories Theodoret in his first Dialogue intituled Immoueable fol. 8. of the Romane Edition The Lord hath giuen to the signe the name of his body What can a man say more expresly And a little after He hath called the signe his blood A little after Iesus Christ hath honoured visible signes with the Appellation of his body not hauing changed their nature but hauing added grace to nature So many wordes so many flashes of lightning In the second Dialogue the Eutychien Heretique agreeth with Coeffeteau and maintaineth the Tranâ—ubstantiation of the bread into flesh But Theodoret doth reprehend him thus The Mysticall signes doe not change their nature after the consecration for they remaine in their first substance and forme and figure and are visible and to be handled as before but they are vnderstood to bee the things which they are made and are beleeued and reuerenced as being become that which they are beleeued to be Gelasius aboue all is excellent in his booke of the two natures Et tamen esse non desimit substantia vel natura panis vini cert è imago siâ—â—â—itudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing and therfore also by them we are made partakers of the Diuine nature and yet notwithstanding the Substance and nature of the bread and of that wine doth not let to remaine And surely the Image and semblance of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of mysteries What more Let vs heare the Canonists of the Church of Rome in a Glosse more auncient then the Transubstantiation Caeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat carnem Christi dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo non rei veritate sed significante mysterio vt sensus sit vocatus Christi corpus id est significatur Sicut caelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum revera sit Sacramentum corporis Christi ill us videlicet quod visibile c. couched in admirable formall termes vpon the Canon Hoc est in the second Distinction of the Consecration thus speaketh the Glosse The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly and therefore it is so called after a sort and not according to the verity of the thing it selfe but by a significant mysterie so that the sense is this it is called the body of Christ that is to say the body of Christ is signified thereby The same Text of the Canon drawne out of S. Austin is no lesse direct to the purpose The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after it manner of speaking called the body of Christ albeit in truth it be a holy signe of the body of Christ to wit of him who is visible palpable mortall hanged on the Crosse Adde hereunto the auncient customes diametrally contrary to Transubstantiation The a Hierom. in 1. ad Corinth cap 11. auncient Christians made a feast in which they did eate the remaines of the Sacrament It was also the custome of many places to giue those residues to little children as * Euag. 4. lib. Histoâ—iae cap 35 Niceph. lib. 17. cap. 25. Euagrius and Nicephorus doe witnesse In other places they burnt them as Hesychius teacheth in his second booke vpon Leuiticus chap. 8. They gaue the bread of the Sacrament into the peoples b Euseb libr. 7. cap. 8 August contra literas Petiliani lib. 9. cap. 30. handes and sometimes permitted them to carry it home They did not make any eleuation of the Host neyther did the people adore it They did not speake in those dayes of that concomitancy which putteth the whole body of Christ into euery drop of the Chalice In stead of a little Wafer cake which now they lift vp they couered the Table with bread and wine To licke vp the drops which fall from the Chalice to burne the Parings and to put them vp for relicks to seeke for the Host in the vomitings to celebrate the God-feast or Corpus Christi day and to carry God in procession betweene two rowes of Tapestry are customes of which we finde no tract or trace in the auncients who doe neyther likewise speake of accidents without subiect of length without any thing that is long or of roundnesse and nothing round no more then of a body without place and of a body of Christ farre separated from it selfe higher and lower then it selfe which also they affirme to be in this Sacrament figure of it selfe and to be with all his length in each part of the Host to haue a length without extent to haue all his length in one point which hath no length at all In a word there is no mention of a thousand such like prodigious fancies which now they beleeue in the Church of Rome with more respect then the Gospell out of which Coeffeteau without doubt would haue produced some proofes if he had found any rather then haue alleadged foure miserable places of the Fathers falsified and curtalled after his manner 1 For
after Which is confirmed by the Masse it selfe and by the Latine Translation of the Bible which the Councell of Trent will haue onely receiued which saith Qui pro vobis effunditur which shall bee shed for you expresly translating the present tense by the future to shewe that Christ spake not of an effusion of bloud to be presently made but to be done soone after Bellarmine answers this shedding might be vnderstood in both tenses but I say it could not be for Christ here gaue vs not wordes with double visages nor doth he by one word signifie two effusions of blood so disagreeable and beside the Canon of the Masse and the Romane Bible should have idly translated the present tense by the future if it might and should bee taken in the present tense And this is the place where the perplexity of the errour appeareth which hew and interferre that it selfe is not vnderstood for our aduersaries say that vnder the formes the blood of Christ is shed but yet runnes not out of his veynes that it is shed and yet stirres not and howbeit euery effusion be a motion yet it is an effusion without effusion And which is more Effusio est extra fusio they say this Sacrifice is vnbloody whence it followes that there is no effusion of blood that is to say that it is of blood not bloody as if one should say a heate not hote or whitenesse not white so they lead vs blindfolded for there is nothing that a man will not say that thinkes he speakes vnto beasts or that will mocke God himselfe But especially note that these Masters say that the body is also in the cup yea in euery drop of the cup so that he which ouerturnes the cup ouerturnes the flesh and the bones so these Doctors by a new Alchymie distill the body of our Sauior And that they may puzle plaine people As if one should say the formes of a man or of a treâ— in stead of hâ—s length or his colour they say that the blood of Christ is shed vnder the accidents of Wine which they doe fraudulently call the formes But we enquire not of them vnder what the blood is shed but whether it be shed or no for that which is really shed vnder another thing is not there shed the lesse The quality of our redemption and the onely sacrifice of our Redeemer doe arme vs with inuincible proofes against this strange errour We demand of these Masters whether the sacrifice of the Crosse and the sacrifice of the Masse bee two or one and the same sacrifice For feare we should accuse them of confessing another propitiatory sacrifice beside that of the Crosse they say that the Masse is the same with the sacrifice of the Crosse but this we may easily disproue and proue that the sacrifice of the Crosse and that of the Masse cannot be one sacrifice our reasons are 1 First the sacrifice of the Masse and that of the Crosse cannot be one sacrifice because the definition of one agreeth not with the other for the sacrifice of the Crosse is the death of Iesus Christ offered vpon the Crosse for our redemption but the Masse is not the death of Iesus Christ c. and then is not the Masse the sacrifice of the Crosse 2 The proprieties and circumstances differ the sacrifice of the Crosse was painfull this of the Masse is without paine the sacrifice of the Crosse was bloudy this is not bloudy one was visible the other is inuisible and none doth see Christ who they say is offered the one hath beene offered and is not reiterable for Christ died but once the other is infinitely reiterated and in infinite places at one time that was immediately performed by Christ and this is done by the ministery of a Priest 3 So doe they also much differ in vertue and efficacy for the death of Christ which he once suffered was sufficient to redeeme the whole world from eternall damnation but the Sacrifice of the Masse is prized at a very low rate for there must be a greate number of them to redeeme one poore soule out of Purgatory they are sold in the Countrey for sixe blanckes but at Paris they cost more The first of the nine dayes after the Popes death Lib. 1. Sacrarum Ceremoniar Sect. 15. cap. 2. there are two hundred Masses said for his soule and vpon each of the eight daies following there is one Masse said to deliuer his pontificall soule out of Purgatory yea for fiue hundred yeares together there are Masses sung for some deceased persons that haue enriched some Monastery yea scarce fifty thousand Masses are sufficient for one soule 4 To be short seeing the sacrifice of the Crosse is nothing but the death of Iesus Christ no man will beleeue that the Masse wherein Christ dyeth not is the same sacrifice with his death 5 Hereunto can wee haue no answere from them to the purpose for they onely say that it is the same host both in the Masse and vpon the Crosse to wit the body of Iesus Christ and therefore that it is the same sacrifice I answere that put the case that in the Masse Christ be really sacrificed as well as on the Crosse yet doth it not follow that it were the same sacrifice it should indeede be the same thing sacrificed but not the same sacrifice For a sacrifice to speake properly is not the thing sacrificed but the action of offering and the very Etymologie of the word Sacrifice importeth the doing or action which Bellarmine confesseth Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. where hauing set downe the definition of a Sacrifice §. Primo igitur Hoc loco sacrificium accipimus pro actione sacrificandi non autem pro victima Et lib 2. c. 4. §. Secundum Sacrificium est actio non res permanens hee saith that by Sacrifice he vnderstands the action of sacrificing and not the thing sacrificed 6 Obserue farther that although the death of Iesus Christ and the Masse should bee the same sacrifice in kinde and that one definition agreed to eyther yet should they not be the same action in number for it is wel known that there are in number many Masses and indeede two Masses do cost more then one for were there not many Masses in number it were very absurd to number them as they doe that sell them againe one action done cannot be the same in number with one that is not done one blow giuen yeasterday cannot be the same in number with that which shall be giuen to morrow else should a thing to come be past that is should be and should not be If then Masses doe differ in number among themselues why shall they not differ in number from the death of Christ Seeing that between the death of Iesus Christ and the Masse there is more difference then betweene two Masses how diuers soeuer in shew The matter being thus plaine these Doctors will not denie that
of Iesus Christ is not destroyed in the Masse it followes that the naturall essence of Iesus Christ is not offered in the Masse and then is it another sacrifice then that of the Crosse where he offered his essentiall being Secondly For it is certaine that that is the destruction of Christs naturall being which is the price of our redemption and then if the Masse doe offer and sacrifice another essence of Christ then doth it not offer the price of our redemption Thirdly Besides this Sacramentall essence is a meere Chimera for one man can haue but one being 2. de Consecrat Can. Sacrificium This is taken out of S. Austin l. 10. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 5. Epist 5 Scotus in 4. dist 10. Quest 5. Oculi Christi subspecie panis non recipiunt obiecta c. Quaest 7. Corpus Christi vt hic non respirat aerem c. §. Aly vi verborum Hoc est corpus meum solum Christi corpus sine anima sine sanguine incipit esse inaltari vi aliorum verborum Hic est sangurs incipit sanguis solus seorsim a corpore esse in altari because it is the being that makes him to be one man Fourthly And seeing the Sacrament by the definition of the Church of Rome doth signifie a holy signe then a Sacramental being must signifie a being significatiue which is open mockerie Fiftly Yea this Sacramentall being of Iesus Christ which is said to be in the Masse cannot be significatiue or representatiue for whatsoeuer representeth any thing ought to be visible but this Sacramentall being is altogether inuisible Sixtly And that which representeth a thing ought to resemble it but this sacramental being is contrary to the naturall being for the natural being giues vnto Christ longitude latitude situation of partes power of mouing seeing speaking and breathing but contratiwise the Sacramentall being depriues him of all these 16 I would willingly know if this speech of Bellarmines be allowed also by their other Doctors namely that By vertue of these wordes hoc est corpus meum the bodie of Christ begins to be vpon the altar without the soule and without blood And that by the vertue of these wordes Hic est sanguis This is the bloud that the bloud begins to be alone and diuided from the body vpon the Altar For if this be so the Masse doth sacrifice a dead body but a liuing and passiue body was offered vpon the Crosse therefore is it not one and the same sacrifice 17 Our aduersaries being thus vrged and extremely perplexed at length they are forced to yeeld and as the Stagge being tyred doth sometimes yeelde himselfe to the Hunters so they vnable to resist so euident a truth they fairely come ouer to our side which is a point whereof I pray the Reader to consider Our aduersaries say that the sacrifice of the Crosse and the sacrifice of the Masse are one sacrifice and that the sacrifice of the Crosse is re-iterated in the Masse but the truth is so strong and the euidence thereof so plaine to the contrary that oftentimes it slips from them and they giue sentence against themselues For the Councell of Trent Ses 22. cap. 1. saith that Christ hath left vnto his Church a sacrifice by which the bloudy sacrifice which he was to make vpon the Crosse was represented and the memory thereof perpetuated The same Councell addeth that the sacrifice of the Crosse and the vertue thereof is applyed vnto vs by this sacrifice And this doe we beleeue and many of ours haue beene burned for so saying And indeed if the Eucharist be the commemoration and application of the Sacrifice of the Crosse it is then certaine that it is not the same sacrifice with that of the Crosse and that it cannot be a sacrifice propitiatory First for the commemoration of a thing is not the thing it selfe the commemoration of a battell is not a battell the commemoration of a sacrifice is not the same sacrifice Secondly In like manner the application of a thing is not the thing it selfe the application of a fashion is not the fashion the application of a Plaister is not the Playster the application of the propitiatory sacrifice of Iesus Christ is not the propitiatory sacrifice of Iesus Christ Thidly Which is most true in matter of payment for the Sacrifice of Christ is the payment ransome for our soules being cleare that the commemoration of a payment is not the payment to remember a payment it needes not to begin it againe and the Priest doth but mocke with God if he thinke eyther to pay him or redeeme vs by a commemoration Fourthly if the sacrifice propitiatory of Iesus Christ be applyed in the Masse then certainly it is not re-iterated for a thing is not reiterated by the application thereof a medicine is not re-iterated by applying it to re-iterate a writing or a sacrifice to apply it this needes purgation more then refutation Let them learne then to speake things in congruity for they must of necessity eyther say that the Masse is neyther application nor commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse or if in that point they be vnremoueable let them confesse that it is not the Sacrifice of Christ nor a sacrifice propitiatory Fiftly and finally if they will needes haue that the death of Christ is applied vnto vs by sacrificing they must shew out of the Scripture that God will haue it so applyed We finde in the Scripture that Iesus Christ is applyed vnto vs and that wee haue communion with him by baptisme Gal. 3.27 1. Cor. 10 16. Ioh. 14.23 Ephes 3.17 by breaking of bread by the word and by faith but of application by sacrificing not a word All which already said is more then sufficient to discouer the abuse and conuince the falshood If they will yet haue any ouer-measure to make the strangenesse of their errour more plaine Then if the Masse be truely and properly a Sacrifice wherin Christ Iesus is sacrificed for a Sacrifice propitiatory for our redemption they must of necessity tell vs in what action this Sacrifice consisteth and that they shewe vs in the institution of the Eucharist which is comprized in the Gospell what were the actions by which Iesus was sacrificed Cardinall Bellarmine after hee hath beene a long while tormented about the matter §. Haec mihi in the last chapter of the first booke of the Masse in the end he fals vpon the opinion of Thomas who sayth that the sacrifice consisteth in these three things in the breaking blessing and eating of the bread But he attributes the principall essence of the Sacrifice to the blessing or consecration which is worthy the examination Of the breaking Touching the fraction or the action of breaking the host it is not onely not of the essence of the sacrifice but also it cannot be an action necessarily in the sacrifice 1. for if by chaunce the Priest let fall
4. Epist 5. or heresie In this sense therefore are we hereticks and Sectaries sith that now-a-dayes to acknowledge no other Mediator then Iesus Christ nor any expiation but by his blood or any propitiatorie sacrifice but his death nor any satisfaction of Gods iustice but by his obedience nor any rule to guide vs to saluation but his Worde conteyned in the holy Scriptures is accounted heresie But more clearely to purge himselfe of this crime his Maiesty of England following the commaundent of the Apostle S. Peter which is to be alwayes ready to yeeld an account of the hope that is in vs doth set downe at large a confession of his faith agreeable to the holy Scripture and al vncorrupted antiquity Who shal henceforward be ashamed to confesse the name of God or defend the truth of the Gospell being thus ensampled by a mighty King but this confession conceiued in choyse and significant wordes full of euidence and of power doth worthily challenge a seuerall Discourse And besides it is that against which Coeffeteau doth principally discharge his choller THE DEFENCE OF THE CONFESSION Of the Faith of IAMES the first King of Great BRITAINE THE SECOND BOOKE ARTICLE I. Touching the Creede The KINGS Confession I Am such a Catholicke Christian as beleeueth the three Creedes That of the Apostles that of the Councel of Nice and that of Athanasius the two latter being Paraphrases to the former And I beleeue them in that sense as the Auncient Fathers and Councels that made them did vnderstand them To which three Creedes all the Ministers of England do subscribe at their Ordination And I also acknowledge for Orthodoxe all those other formes of Creedes that eyther were deuised by Councels or particular Fathers against such Heresies as most raigned in their times To this Article Coeffeteau findeth nothing to reply and holding his peace thereupon hee iustifieth vs by his silence ARTICLE II. Touching the Fathers in generall AS for the Fathers I reuerence them as much and more then the Iesuits doe The KINGS Confession and as much as themselues euer craued For what euer the Fathers for the first fiue hundred yeares did with an vnaâ—ime consent agree upon to be beleeued as a necessary point of saluation I eyther will beleeue it also or at least will be humbly silent not taking vpon me to condemne the same Here againe Coeffeteau is silent and knoweth not what to reprehend The Reader may please to call to minde that the points in which his Maiesty of England doth abstaine to condemne the Fathers albeit his beleefe is not bound to follow them are eyther points not necessary to saluation or opinions in which as well our Church as the Church of Rome doth condemne them The Auncients for the most part held that the fall of the Diuels came to passe by reason of their cohabitation with women This is altogether false and a point little important to our saluation They held also for the most part that the soules shall all be purged by the fire of the last iudgement in the expectation of which day the soules as well of the good as of the bad are shut vp in certaine receptacles And in this point they are neyther followed by vs nor by our Aduersaries ARTICLE III. Touching the Authority of the Fathers in particular The KINGS Confession BVt for euery priuate Fathers opinion it bindes not my conscience more then Bellarmines euery on of the Fathers vsually contradicting others I will therefore in that case follow S. * Lib. 2. cont Cresconium cap. 32. Augustines rule in iudging of their opinions as I finde them agree with the Scriptures what I finde agreeable thereunto I will gladly embrace what is otherwise I will with their reuerence reiect Doctor Coeffeteau dooth yet approue of all this for good seeing he saith nothing to the contrary He acknowledgeth then that the Fathers often disagree among themselues and that they doe not alwayes accord with the word of God neyther must we settle our selues alwayes vpon what some one Father hath taught Causa 12. Quaest 1. Canon Dilectissimi Denique quidam Graecorum sapientissimus haec ita sciens esse colam debeatur ait Amicorum comia esse omnia In omnibus autem sunt sine du bio Coniuges And indeed his Maiesty of England saith this with iust reason for not we alone but also the Church of Rome doth not allow the opinion of Pope Clement the first who would that mens goods and their wiues should be common among Christians Neyther doth the Church of Rome approue the opinion of Ignatius who in the Epistle to the Philippians saith that to fast on the Saterday or on the Sunday it is to be a murtherer of Iesus Christ nor the doctrine of Iustin Martyr who saith in his Dialogue against Tryphon That God in the beginning gaue the Sunne to be adored Nor the opinion of Athanagoras in his Apologie that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That second marriage is but a handsome Kinde exercise of Adulterie Also the Church of Rome doth not beleeue with Origen that the Diuels shall be saued Nor with Clemens Alexandrinus in the sixth booke of his Stromata that the Greeks were saued by their Philosophy Nor with Arnobius in his second booke that God is not the Creator of soules And that the soules of the wicked are reduced to nothing Nor with Ireneus Lib. 2. cap. 63.64 that the soules separated from the body haue feete and handes Iustin was a Chiliast Tertullian a Montanist S. Cyprian an Anabaptist Saint Hilary in his tenth booke of the Trinity mayntaineth in diuers places Virtus corporis sine sensu paenae vim paenae in se desaeuientis excepit Christus cum cibuÌ„ potum accepit non necessitati corporis sed consuetudmi tribuet Secundam ducere secundum praeceptumo Apostoli licitum est ecundum autem veritatis rationem verè fornicatio est He saith the same about the end of his booke De fide Symholo that Iesus Christ in his death suffered no paine And that he did not eate because his body had neede of sustenance but onely by custome Chrysostome alleadged in the Canon Hac Ratione in the Cause 31. Question 1. he saith that S. Paul commaunding second mariages hath spoken against truth and reason and that is truely fornication Saint Austin in his fift booke of his Hypognosticks and in his Epistles 93. and 106. held that the Eucharist is necessary for young children newly borne that they may be saued And in his booke De Dogmatis Eccles cap. 11. He saith that the Angels are Corporeal and in his booke of the Christian combat cap. 32. he sayth that our bodies after the Resurrection shal be no longer flesh nor blood but an heauenly body Gregory of Nyssa in his first Sermon of the resurrection teacheth a prodigious errour namely that the soule of Iesus Christ was already in the graue euen then whiles
should haue beene sacrificers as well as the Priests fiftly We know also that the Israelites did often eate things sacrificed in their priuate houses as the woman mentioned Prou. 7. I haue with me sacrifices of prosperity I haue paide my vowes Whence I gather that if eating be sacrificing it must follow that women did sacrifice in their houses which is contrary to the law and without example The sacrifice of the Masse being built on no foundation and being an Altar erected against the onely Altar which is the Crosse of our Sauiour an Altar newly built vpon the ruines of the Gospell yea being the crosse of the Crosse of Christ and an annihilating of his death it hath not come to passe without the iust iudgement of God that they themselues haue let fall the price thereof so low employing it for the healing of Horses the preseruing of Sheepe for blasted corne and for frost-bitten Vines as a general salue for euery sore But Christ Iesus instituted the Supper for a memoriall of himselfe and to shew forth his death till he come There is also good reason why so many Masses are required to free one single soule out of Purgatory and why they make this sacrifice so infinitely inferiour in vertue to that of the Crosse which yet should not be so if it be the same sacrifice and consequently the same price of a redemption neyther doth it serue the turne to say that the sacrifice of the Crosse is of more efficacy because Christ Iesus did immediately offer it wheras this is offered by the mynistery of a Priest for a payment or ransome whether I doe immediately pay it my selfe or send another to carry or tell the money is of like validity I do also exceedingly wonder that the Church of Rome establishing in the Eucharist both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice which are made one action that yet it makes so great a difference betweene them both in vertue and efficacy greatly vnder valuing the efficacy of the Sacrament saying that it serues onely for petty sinnes which they terme veniall and of which a mans conscience is already discharged that is to say it is a plaster for wounds perfectly healed Bellar. l. 4. de Eucharist cap. 17. 18. a remedy for euils passed a discharge of burdens already vnloaded But touching the sacrifice of the Masse the Councel of Trent Session 22. cap. 2. saith that by this Sacrifice the most hey nous sinnes are remitted And this Sacrifice is profitably offered for them that are absent yea for the dead yea for them that make a mocke of it for Masses are sung for Infidels and prophane persons and this sacrifice is of force say they Ex opere opera to the disposition of the partie for whom the Masse is said not being necessarily required thereunto To what end is all this but to debase the power of a Sacrament instituted by God and to enhance the vertue of a sacrifice inuented by man And because the Sacrament cannot be bestowed vpon the dead but Masses are solde both for the dead and for the liuing And out of what passage of Scripture haue they extracted so nice a difference between the efficacy of he one and of the other But this is sufficient for souldiers that forsake the fielde for Bellarmine and his associates lighting vpon this subiect they wander in large impertinent questions which make nothing to the point in controuersie they winde vp long Discourses to proue that the death of Iesus Christ is a sacrifice a point denyed not by any that the Eucharist is a sacrifice which is true but it is a sacrifice Eucharisticall that is to say a giuing of thankes and as it is called in the Masse Sacrificium laudis a Sacrifice of praise Againe they bring the sacrifice of Melchisedech and the figure of the Passeouer and the sacrifices of the law which they say prefigured the sacrifice of the new Testament with diuers places of the Prophets especially that of Malachy which foretell the sacrifice of the New Testament with many such like things wherein howbeit they deliuer the truth yet doe they not helpe themselues thereby because it is all beside the purpose and comes not neere the point that is controuerted for although the Masse were the sacrifice of Melchisedech and the sacrifice forespoken of by Malachy and prefigured by the Passeouer yet is it not proued thereby that Christ ought to be really sacrificed vnder the formes of bread and wine nor that the sacrifice of the Masse is propitiatory for the redemption of soules Reade Bellarmine who hath compiled two great Bookes of the Masse wherein he is copious in impertinent proofes but you shall not finde in him any answere to the Arguments which I haue formerly alleadged which are the very sinewes of the body of this disputation the armor of proofe of the holy truth for none among them could euer yet satisfie these obiections And out of him is it that Coeffeteau hath collected a number of the Fathers whereof some make against him some are vntrue and others impertinent It makes against him which hee alleadgeth out of Iustin Martyr against Tryphon saying Malachy speaketh prophetically of the Sacrifices which we offer Suis discipulis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis non quesi indigenti sed vt ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint Noui Testamenti nouam doeuit oblationemq uā Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in 〈◊〉 niuers◠mundo offert Deo ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suoram munerū namely the bread and wine in the Eucharist Surely if this be a sacrifice of bread and wine then is it no sacrifice propitiatory wherein Iesus Christ is really sacrificed The second place is out of Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. which Coeffeteau by his shamefull wrangling hath falsified Irenaeus saith Christ counselling his Disciples to offer vnto God the first fruites of his creatures not because he hath any neede of them but that they might not be vnthankefull or vnfruitfull tooke bread among the creatures which are common amongst vs and gaue thankes saying This is my body and likewise tooke the cup among the creatures which are common among vs and said it was his blood and hath taught a new offering of the new Testament which the Church hauing receiued of the Apostles doth throughout the world offer vnto God which bestoweth vpon vs the first fruites of his gifts From this place doth Coeffeteau cut off the three first lines which say that this sacrifice is an offering of the first fruites of his creatures that is to say of bread and wine and the last line which affirmeth the same for we shall see hereafter that the manner of the auncients was for the people to come and offer bread and wine and fruit vpon the Table of the holy Supper which offering was called the sacrifice of the Eucharist that is a giuing of thankes Concerning
doth not employ any creature to be presented vnto his Father to call Christ by the name of good things yea of things which God createth and doth alwayes blesse and sanctifie this is to mocke Iesus Christ who cannot bee called by the name of good things that God createth not nor alwaies sanctifieth And yet to offer these things by Iesus Christ that is to say to offer Christ by Christ is to be vtterly voyde of all sense Now to know what the Father 's beleeued in this point we must search the places where they doe expresly speake thereof The nineteenth chapter of S. Austines booke of faith ad Petrum Diaconum handles no other matter where thus he saith The Vniuersall Church throughout the world ceaseth not to offer a Sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charity In isto autem sacrificio gratiarū actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit sanguinis quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit for in the carnall Sacrifices of the old Testament there was a representation of the flesh of Christ which he himselfe being without sinne was to offer for our sinnes and of the blood which he was to shed for the remission of our sinnes But in this Sacrifice of the Eucharist there is a giuing of thankes and a commemoration of the flesh of Christ which he hath offered for vs and of the blood which the same God hath shed for vs. Obserue that he saith that this is a sacrifice of bread and wine therefore not a sacrifice where the flesh of Christ is really sacrificed Aboue all this word of Wine is full of force for the bloud of the Lord was neuer called Wine Againe he saith that it is a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and of commemoration but not of propitiation or redemption The same Father in the three and twentieth Epistle to Boniface saith When Easter approacheth we say thus to morrow or after is the passion of the Lord howbeit he suffered so many yeares since and that this passion was but once indeede vpon the Saboath we say to day the Lord rose againe although so many yeares be past since the resurrection Why is there no body so vaine is to reproue vs for lying when we speake thus But because we name those dayes according to the resemblance which they haue with the daies wherin these things were done so that this day is called the same day which is not the same but resembling the same by the reuolution of time Was not Christ once sacrificed by himselfe and yet is he sacrificed vnto the people in a sacred signe not onely at euery solemnity of Easter but also euery day neyther doth he lie who being asked makes answere that he is sacrificed For if the Sacraments haue not some resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments they should be no Sacraments Now because of this resemblance they doe most commonly take the names of the thinges themselues This place ought very heedfully to be considered He sheweth how Iesus Christ is sacrificed in the Sacrament and doth illustrate the same by two examples to wit that it is all one as when we say two daies before Easter to day is the passion of Iesus Christ and when vpon the Saboath we say to day is the resurrection of Iesus Christ not that it is so indeede but because of the resemblance and commemoration for that the Sacraments take the names of the things signified Agreeable whereunto is the Canon Hoc est taken out of S. Austin in the second Distinction of the consecration Non rei veritate sed significante mysterio the offering of the flesh which is done by the handes of the Priest is called the passion the death and crucifixion NOT IN TRVTH BVT IN A SIGNIFYING MYSTERIE In like manner as the Sacrament of faith by which we vnderstand baptisme is the faith The same Doctor in the booke of Sentences gathered by Prosper alleadged in the same Distinction saith that Iesus Christ hath beene sacrificed but once by himselfe and yet he is continually sacrificed in a holy signe He is not then sacrificed by himselfe or in his owne person in the Eucharist For stronger confirmation whereof the auncient Glosses of the Church of Rome doe adde this marginall note Christus immolatur id est eius immolatio representatur fit memoria passionis Christ is sactificed that is his sacrifice is represented and the commemoration of his passion is solemnized Crysostome in the seuenteenth Homily vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after hee hath said that that which we offer is a figure of the sacrifice addeth these decyding wordes of that difference We alwaies offer the same sacrifice or rather we make a commemoration of that Sacrifice Herein doth it especially appeare that the auncients beleeued not that the body of Christ was really sacrificed included vnder the formes forasmuch as their opinion was that the sacrifice was sanctified by the offerers that it was pure according to the purity of the persons that offered Now Iesus Christ is neyther sanctified nor purified by men S. Austin against Petilian lib. 2. cap. 52. Such as euery one is that commeth to commenicate Tale cuiusq sacrificium quale est is qui accedit vt sumat omnia munda mundis such is his sacrifice to the pure all things are pure The first that directly handled this question at large was Lombard lib. 4. Dist 12. in the letter G. where he resolues this question by the wordes of S. Austin and S. Ambrose in these words If any aske whether that which the Priest doth he properly called a sacrifice or an offering or whether Christ be continually sacrificed or hath beene sacrificed but once whereunto we may shortly answere that that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a Sacrifice and an oblation because it is the memory and representation of the true sacrifice and of the offering made vpon the Altar of the Crosse Christ died once vpon the Crosse and hath beene once sacrificed in person but he is continually sacrificed in the Sacrament because in the Sacrament there is a commemoration made of that which is once done Wherefore Austin saith that we are sure that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more yet for feare that we should forget that which was done but once it is done euery yeare for our remembrance to wit at all times and as often as Easter is celebrated is Christ therefore slaine so often No BVT ONELY the anniuersary commemoration representeth that which is already done Obserue this word Onely that none doe say the Eucharist is indeede the commemoration of the sacrifice of the Crosse but because Christ ceaseth to be really sacrificed Besides it is not compatible that a thing should be a representation of it selfe and that in the same action there should be both the signe and the thing
to euery haire for as much as they hold that his body is wholly and entire in euery drop But it were better that men were without Mustachoes then want the Sacrament of the blood of Christ and at least there is no such danger for women and young people He saith also that it is done for feare least the wine being kept should waxe sower or grow flat but they should be free from this danger if they did communicate with the people in the publique assembly not reseruing the Sacraments till the morrow Expresly contrary to the defence of the auncient Church comprized in the Canon Tribus gradibus in the second Distinction of the Consecration where Bishop Clement ordaineth that so many offerings be set vpon the Altar Tanta in altario bolocausta offerantur quanta populo â—ussicere debeant Quod si remanserint in crast num non reseruentur as will serue for the whole assembly to communicate and if any remaine that they be not kept till the next day But how comes it to passe that Iesus Christ being included as they will haue it in the Chalice doth not preserue it from taking winde or waxing sharpe seeing they keepe Aarons rod and the milke of the holy Virgin among their Reliques vnto this day without corruption And why shall not Iesus Christ haue the same vertue To conclude whosoeuer shal here pretend wisedome and discretion desires to be wiser then Christ and his Apostles neyther can there be any inconuenience alleadged which Christ Iesus hath not preuented Neither is it said to any purpose that the Church of Rome would by this meanes stop an heresie for we must not redresse one euill by another or reforme an error by an abuse or helpe the ignorance of men by disobedience vnto God Yea wee shall hereafter see that this taking away of the Cup hath not preuented any errour but hath heaped vp one heresie vpon another and to support their Transubstantiation it hath made Idolatry against God to serue for their tyrannizing ouer the people Touching that which Coeffeteau subioyneth that in former times it hath beene free to take the communion vnder one or both kindes it is a plaine shift for he makes shew not to conceiue what the King of great Britaine meaneth when he saith that the mutilation of the Sacrament is a new inuention For he would say and it is true that in the ancient Church there cannot be found any ordinance custome or constitution that hath depriued the people of the Cup No nor any one man that hath made conscience in giuing the Cup to the people requiring it No nor any of the people that haue beene scrupulous in requiring it But in stead hereof doth Coeffeteau say that it was free to take it vnder one or both kindes which makes nothing to the purpose for we complaine that it is not free to receiue both kindes And yet that which he saith is vntrue St. Austin in the seuen and fiftieth question vpon Leuiticus All that will haue life are exhorted to drinke the blood Ad bibendum sanguinem omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none is hindred and all are exhorted It was not then free Ignatius in the Epistle to the Philadelphians One bread hath beene broken vnto all and one Cup is distributed vnto all then was none exempted Iustin Martyr in his second Apologitique The Deacons distribute VNTO EVERY ONE the bread and wine with water Obserue to euery one S. Cyprian who hath already tolde vs of a maide that after she had dranke cast vp the wine complains in the third Epistle of the third booke that some eyther thorough ignorance or simplicity In calice Domini sanctificando plebi ministrando in consecrating the cup and administring to the PEOPLE did it not conformably vnto the example of Iesus Christ Sanguis Abel significat sanguinem Christi quo vniuersa Ecclesia accepto dicit Amen S. Austin in the sixty fiue booke of Questions the fortie nine Quaest Tom. 4 The blood of Abel signifieth the blood of Christ which the WHOLE Church hauing receiued saith Amen He saith the whole Church not as Coeffeteau Some receiuing one kinde onely and some both kindes which is eyther an audacious falshood or very grosse ignorance in Antiquity for euen the Canon Comperimê° in the second Dist of the Consecration saith that to forbeare the Cup is sacriledge and a diuiding of the Mysterie and therefore ordaineth that such Ought eyther to receiue the Sacraments entier or to be wholly excluded from them These wordes Recipiant Aut integra Sacramenta recipiant aut ab integris arceantur and Arceantur which he vseth doe euidently proue that he speaks of the people who doe not of themselues receiue the Sacrament but from the hand of the Minister And this word Arceantur signifies that they were not admitted when they offered themselues therefore was it not free as Coeffeteau affirmeth Who alleadgeth against himselfe the custome of those that carried home the bread which they receiued in the Church inasmuch as the Church of Rome hath reiected this custome hauing well perceiued that this custome of so doing doth testifie that the auncient Church did not beleeue transubstantiation for the Priest would haue thought it a horrible prophanation to put God into the handes of the common people for them to put him into their pocket to carry him home to their houses exposing him to the danger of a thousand reproaches and to the neglect or contempt of the first commer Besides by the generall practise of the Church formerly declared it appeares that if any one did carry home with him the sacramentall bread yet he communicated in the Cup with the whole Congregation The place which he alleadgeth out of Ierome is vntruely produced for S. Ierome speakes not there in any sort of the Communion vnder one kinde but of those who being debarred from enting into the Church because they were thought to be vncleane were made to bring the bread for the Sacrament with them Touching the recrimination which he vseth that we haue destroyed the whole Sacrament we shall see in the Article following how iniurious this accusation is ARTICLE XI Of Transubstantiation THe King of great Britaine doth recken Transubstantiation also among the Nouelties brought into the Church since the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ Against this Coeffeteau alleadgeth onely foure places out of the Fathers whereof the two first are false and suppositious the third is fraudulently maimed and mangled and the fourth is mis-vnderstood The first is taken out of the Catechismes of Cyril of Ierusalem which we formerly proued not to be Cyrils 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but made by one Iohn of Ierusalem who liued some foure hundred yeares after when the superstition of Reliques was in force which made him say in the fourth Catechisme that the wood of the Crosse was then so growne and multiplied
if he had wel weighed the wordes of the Gospell and of the Apostles he should haue found that Iesus Christ tooke bread and brake it But the Church of Rome saith that the Priest doth not breake bread 2 Hee should haue found that Iesus Christ tooke bread and gaue it to his Disciples But the Church of Rome holdeth that the Priest doth not giue bread 3 He should haue found that Iesus Christ giuing this bread said that that which hee gaue was his body But the Church of Rome doth not beleeue that the bread is the body of Christ but doth thus expound these wordes This is my body that is that which is vnder these formes shall be transubstantiated into my body For it is certaine that when Iesus Christ said This is my body by the word This he vnderstood that which he gaue Now the Gospell doth witnesse that he gaue bread therefore these wordes This is my body doe signifie as much as This bread is my body And so all the auncients doe expound them Now in that the bread cannot be the body of our Lord in substance it remaineth therefore that it be such by way of Sacrament and in the same sense as in the line following the Cup is called the new Couenant or the new Testament 4 He should also haue found that this Sacrament is a commemoration of Iesus Christ It is not then Iesus Christ himselfe For the remembrance of a thing and that wherof it is the memoriall are diuers things 5 He should haue found that S. Matthew and S. Marke say that Iesus dranke with his Disciples of the fruite of the Vine that is of wine it was then yet wine whilst he dranke of it For albeit there were two Cups as appeareth by S. Luke notwithstanding S. Matthew and S. Marke cannot call the wine of a Cup of which they doe not speake at all Fruit of the Vine 6 Hee should further haue seene that Iesus Christ maketh no eleuation of the Host neyther doe the Apostles adore it but continue sitting at the Table 7 Hee might haue seene that 1. Cor. 10. S. Paul doth giue vs a Paraphrase of the wordes This is my body In these words the bread which we breake is the Communion of the body of Christ But the Church of Rome waxing wroth and angrie against the Apostle bites and snarles at euery word of this clause First the Apostle saith that it is bread The Church of Rome denieth that it is bread Secondly he saith that we breake bread on the other side the Church of Rome saith that there is no bread broken Thirdly our aduersaries being demaunded what that bread is that is broken they say it is the body of Christ and yet the body of Christ cannot bee broken Fourthly S. Paul saith that this bread which wee breake is the Communion of the body of Christ whence it followeth against the Church of Rome that the bread which is broken is not the body of Christ for the participation or communicating of meate is not the meate it selfe Fiftly it by this word Bread we must vnderstand the body of Christ as our aduersaries will haue it it will follow not onely that the body of Christ is broken in the Sacrament but also that S. Paul shold haue mocked vs in saying that the bodie of Christ is the Communion of the body of Christ words very ridiculous and which our aduersaries beleeue not Sixty The worst is that the Church of Rome holdeth that there is nothing broken in the Sacrament but the accidents that is the roundnesse colour taste and length of the bread and so shee blaspemeth horribly making the Apostle to say that the breaking of colours roundnesse and taste of the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ 8 He should haue found also 1. Cor. 11. that the Apostle saith thrice that we eate bread and in the second and the twentieth of the Acts the Apostles came together to breake bread where our aduersaries are enforced to haue recourse to strange figures and to make which is contrary to the Order of time S. Iohn interpreter of S Paul Shifts and euasions which we haue refuted in another place and haue boulted this Dispute to the very branne I suppose also that if Coeffeteau had any good opinion of Iesus Christ he would haue presumed of him that being souerainly good he wold not haue taken pleasure to deliuer the Institution of this Sacrament in ambiguous terms who wil beleeue that he that is the light of the world should be the cause of darkenes whence commeth it then that our aduersaries bring in a kind of Mascarado into this holy banquet when they introduce a douzen of figures perplexed termes in the words of this Institution Figures which we haue handled and discussed in his place In my Apology for the Lords Supper ch 12. And they who cannot endure that the bread should be called the body of Christ because it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ Epist ad Bonifacium 3. according as S. Austin saith that the Sacraments take ordinarily the name of that which they signifie yet themselues in the wordes following which is broken for you admit a like figure saying that it is not the body that is broken but the accidents and outward signes and that that which agreeth to the signe is attributed to the thing signified VVhosoeuer shall weigh these things without passion will not suffer himselfe to be infolded in this grosse error which doth greatly abase the glory of our Sauiour which maketh him to be swallowed vp of his enemies which maketh Iesus Christ to haue drunken his owne flesh and bones which saith that he may bee eaten of Mice and other vermine which incloseth him in filthy vomitings which maketh the Priest sometimes to complaine that they haue robbed him of his God which giueth to a Priest be hee neuer so vitious more power then to the Virgine Mary and all the Saints and Angels who being all put together in one cannot make Iesus Christ seeing that he is already made and cannot be produced a new much lesse in murmuring certaine words ouer the bread VVhich doth ouerthrow and abolish the humanity of our Sauiour and by consequent all our faith giuing him a body without length a body which being in diuers places farre a part is by consequent farre separated from it selfe A body without position or situation of partes seeing that they are all together vnder one onely point and in euery little crumme of the Host Yea many contrary bodies of which one is at the Table with his Disciples the other in the stomackes of his Disciples For the one body is infirme and weake the other without infirmity the one spreading his handes the other not able to stirre them the one speaking and breathing the other not able to speake or to breath the one sweating in the Garden drops of blood the other newly receiued into the stomacks of the Apostles