signified He there alleadgeth also S. Ambrose who saith 2. de Consecrat Can. In Christo ex Ambrosio in Epist ad Hebr. We continually offer this is done in remembrance of his death this is one selfe Sacrifice and not many how is it onely one and not many Because Iesus Christ hath beene sacrificed onely once but this sacrifice is done for example of that other Thom as Aquinas hath followed Lombard and decided this question tertia parte Summae Quaest 83. art 1. where he saith that the celebration of the Sacrament is called a Sacrifice for two reasons first because according to S. Austin the signes are called by the name of the things signified secondly because by the Sacrament we are made partakers of the death of Christ He forgot the reason which now they say is the principall to wit that it is because that Iesus Christ is really sacrificed vnder the formes of bread for a sacrifice truely propitiatory ARTICLE X. Of the Communion vnder one kinde The KINGS Confession ANd such are the Amputation of the one halfe of the Sacrament from the people Hereunto Mr. Coeffeteau opposeth the second of the Acts where saith he the Apostles administred this Sacrament vnder one kinde onely for there it is said that the faithfull continued in the doctrine of the Apostles and in fellowship and breaking of bread That our chiefe Doctors confesse that this place must be vnderstood of the Sacrament and yet there is no mention but of one kinde of bread vnlesse his Maiesty saith he who adoreth the sufficiency of the Scripture will make a supplement of something to be added thereunto He addeth that Christ is wholly and entier vnder euery kinde and that the people receiue him neuerthelesse That the Church by this meanes hath prouided against vnreuerent behauiours and preuented the heresie of those that beleeued not that the bloud was together with the body vnder the kinde of bread He affirmeth that heretofore it was free to receiue the communion vnder one or both kindes because the faithfull sometimes carried the Eucharist home to their houses and toooke it not but when they might commodiously doe it and they did it say they for the most part vnder the kinde of bread only and that Athanasius witnesseth that the Communion Cup was not vsed out of the Church that they communicated among themselues vnder one kinde that they might also doe it in publique For thus saith S. Ierome Hierom in Apol. ad Pammachiū Is Christ another in publique then in a priuate house that which is not to be tolerated in the Church is not the rather permitted in a house that the Ministers complayning of the mutilation of one kinde haue in the meane time destroyed the essence of the Sacrament remouing the body of the Lord as farre from the Sacrament as heauen from the earth which is to belye the Sonne of God who saith This is my body c. Before we make answere to the place of the second of the Acts the Reader shall obserue The Answere that this is the first place of Scripture which this Doctor hath alleadged wherein his wisedome hath fayled him for had hee continued not to alleadge any scripture at all an ignorant Reader would haue thought it had not beene necessary but seeing him beginne here to speake of the word of God doubtlesse he will wonder that in so many Controuersies handled heretofore hee hath heard nothing alleadged out of Gods word And indeede the doctrine of saluation was neuer so prophanely handled for GOD is become suspected and his bookes of faith haue now no credite in controuersies This is a great grace which they doe vnto the word of God if after a Legend of reasons and humane allegations at length some short sentence is casually produced and not without cause for why then is it not more fauorable to his Holinesse Empire But let vs heare this place In the second of the Acts ver 42. it is said that the Disciples continued together in the Doctrine of the Apostles and in the Communion and breaking of bread It is not there said that the people participated in the Cup therefore they communicated onely vnder one kinde of bread 1 This coniecture is too light by a great many graines and which is more it makes against the Church of Rome which beleeueth that the Pastors ought necessarily to take it in both kindes Now in this passage it is not said that the Pastors did participate in the Cup and they are no more mentioned then are the people therefore should it follow that the Pastors also did not participate in the cup. 2 This also is a weake kinde of Argumentation to say that in the second of the Acts there is nothing mentioned beside breaking of bread that therfore the Cup was not vsed If I should say that being inuited by such a one I haue eaten with him doth it follow that I haue not drunke although I spake not of it This errour proceedeth from ignorance of the scripture phrase which by the breaking of bread and by eating of bread doth vsually vnderstand the whole banquet and all kinde of sustenance So Gen. 31.54 Iacob inuiteth his brethren to eate breade See Genes 37.25 Matth. 15.2 and sundry other places We cannot be accused by this manner of speakking to adde vnto the Scripture the sufficiencie whereof we defend against our aduersaries For if in this place there be no mention of the Cup it sufficeth that it is spoken of in other places And to ioyne diuers places together which speake of the same thing is not to adde vnto the Scripture Besides it is not credible that the Apostles hauing so expresly receiued this commaundement to drinke all of the Cup would infringe the same Againe when we speake of the sufficiency of the Scriptures our meaning is not that the Scripture recyting a story vnto vs doth specifie all the particularities of that which happened Onely we say that in things which it commandeth vs to beleeue and doe it doth sufficiently instruct vs vnto saluation Now to know what is to be beleeued and done in this sacrament we must learne it out of the institution of the same and out of the expresse commandements of Christ and his Apostles 1 For Iesus Christ instituting this sacrament among his Disciples said vnto them Drinke ye all of this That is Lib. 1. de corpore Christi cap. 15. as saith Paschasius aswell the Ministers as the other beleeuers They answere that all those to whom our Sauior spake were Pastors and therfore this commaundement was giuen onely vnto the Pastors Which if it be so by the same reason also the Pastors onely must eate of the bread for if in these wordes Drinke ye all of this Christ spake to none but to the Pastors then certainly in these words Take eate he speaks also vnto the Pastors if this be so let them tel me where is the commandement which bindeth the
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
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
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
nothus de passione Clauis sacros pedes terebrantibus It is a thing also to be wondred how the nailes were found in the same place with the Crosse Seing that the custome of the Aunciens was to burie togither with the bodies of malefactors Inueniuntur ossa inserta catenis implicita the chains and yrons wherewith they suffered as appeareth in Plinies Epistles lib. 7. Epist. 27. where he reciteth the stories of a Ghost that appeared to the Philosopher Athenodorus And in Chrysostome in his Oration against the Gentils And Welserus * In coÌ„mentarijs rerum Vindelicarum coÌ„firmeth it in his seauenth booke of his Commentaries of Ausbourge In the meane time it appeareth by the place of Athanasius heretofore alleaged and by the simplicity of Constantine that this abuse began from that time to slide on and increase which was so farre growne in some places 400. yeares after Christ Noui multos esse sepulcrorum picturarum adoratores Noui multos esse qui super mortuos luxuriosissimè bibant that S. Austin in his first booke de Moribus Eccles doth greatly complaine of it I know saith he that there are many that adore Sepulchres and Pictures I know that there are many that drinke at large ouer the dead The same Austin in the 28. chapter of his booke of the labour of Monkes for in those daies they had each man his trade complaineth of some gadders vp and downe Membra martyrum Si tamen martyrum carriers about of reliques which they reported to be the limmes of Martyrs Yea saith he if so be that they be members of Martyrs The auncient Christians in the three first ages were wont to warme their zeale by the imbers of the Martyrs And because they had no Temples they assembled together in the Church-yardes where the Tombes of the Martyrs serued them for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tables to administer the Lords Supper This being at the first done onely as occasion and the present opportunity would permit was afterward made a law For in the fift Councell of Carthage the Altars are called Monuments or Tombes Where is to be noted that the Councel complaineth that many such false monuments were erected vpon dreames and vaine illusions and commaundeth to plucke them downe if the tumult of the people shall not hinder them which sheweth that superstition was already growne strong in this point Gregorie Bishop of Rome in the first booke of his Dialogues chap. 2. speaketh of one called Libertinus who alwaies carried about a hose of S. Honorate In those times our Kinges planted their whole Religion in founding of Monasteries and getting Relikes together thinking by these means to be saued King Dagobert tooke away all the Reliques from the other Saints to enrich the Temple of S. Denis S. Rusticus and S. Eleutherius whereupon there fell out great strife and debate among the Saints if wee beleeue the Chronicles of France For the Saints whom he had robbed and riffled as S. Hilarie S. Fremin c. adioyned themselues to the Deuils See this Story in Nicolas Gilles anno 645. and it is taken out of Turpin craued their helpe to carry the soule of this good King to hell But hee cal ed to the Saints whom he had enriched for succour who so valiantly resisted the other Saints and the Deuils that they plucked away his soule from them and carried it into Paradise Now a daies many superstitious persons are ashamed of their reliques and mocke at them And yet for all that it is held for an absolute and inuiolable Decree that euery Altar must haue his Reliques vnderneath it otherwise they cannot consecrate For after the Introite of the Masse the Priest bowing himselfe ouer the Altar asketh of God pardon of al his sins through the merits of those Saints whose bones lie hidde vnder the Altar This greatly auaileth to strike the people with a superstitious horrour and astonishment of hart and with a trembling deuotion it being done out of singular wisdome and vpon great consideration For it is credible that when Christ did administer his last supper that he closely conueighed vnder the table some bones of Samuel or some tooth of Sampsons Asses law bone And if Christ did not seeke saluation throgh their merits it was because those old Saints were worse stored and prouided of merits then they whom the Pope hath Canonized for Saints as S. Iuniper or S. Thomas of CaÌ„terbury defender of the crowne of England Concerning the Fathers whom Coeffeteau opposeth hereunto Chrysostome Ambrose and Austin are of the minde that the bodies of the Saints ought indeede to be honored and their sepulchres beautified and adorned But what is this against the King of England who saith asmuch As for those miracles which were done at those Sepulchres of which S. Austin speaketh God by them did authorize the doctrine of the Gospell which his faithfull seruants had vttered in word and signed with their bloud Such were the miracles wrought by the touch of Elizeus his body and by the Kerchiefes of S. Paul But it followeth not thereupon that they adored or yeelded any religious seruice to those Reliques Vnlesse perhaps we must adore the shadow of S. Peters body as Bellarmine will haue it Bell. lib. de reliquijs cap 4 §. Ad tertium Scriptura approbat cultuÌ„ vmbrae Petri. of which shadow doubtlesse some peece may bee found stored vp among the Reliques aswell as at Cour-chiuerni neare Blois they keepe the Labour of S. Ioseph when hee cleft wood for hee was a Carpenter Howbeit there be two thinges which I will not here dissemble the one is that Heretikes at that time Doctores haereticos maximè doctrinae suae fidem onfirmasse mortuos suscitasse de bilâ—s reformasse futura significasse vt Apostoli crederentur Nunquid non Africa sanctoruÌ„ Martyrum corporibus plena est Et tamen nusquam hic scimus talia fieri did more miracles as Tertullian witnesseth lib. 3. against Marcion cap. 3. and in his 44 chapter of his Prescript where he saith that the Heretikes did raise the dead heale the sicke foretell thinges to come The other is that the place in S. Austin De Ciuitai Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. is to be suspected For he speaketh of miracles done in Africa and neare vnto Hippo where he was Bishop by touching the Reliques of Saints Whereas himselfe Epist 137. saith that in some places of Italie as at Nola and at Millan such miracles were done neare vnto the monuments of the Saints but that in Africa there were not any wroght in any place And that which is more to be obserued is that this Epistle was written to the people and clergie of Hippo who would easilie haue controuled him if such miracles had beene wrought in Africa What shall we now beleeue Here is S. Austin who saith in one place that many miracles were done in Africa neare vnto the place of
resemble the nayles which pierced our Sauiour and the linnen clothes that wrapped him in his infancy Whereunto if any obiect that these common nayles and linnen are not in any consecrated place nor appointed to that end nor purposely made to serue as Images or memorials of the Passion or birth of Christ I answer that this is to graunt as much as we desire and to fall into the like impiety for this is to affirme that common nayles and ordinary linnen ought to be worshipped if they were carried into some holy place and appointed to serue for the resemblance or commemoration of Christs passion which our aduersaries wil be vnwilling to grant And wherfore then doe they adore all maner of Crosses yea without crucifixes assoone as they are put into some holy place and ordayned to represent the passion For if the question be of the touching the linnen touched the body of Christ as neere as the Crosse yea I say that the nayles and Iron of the Speare touched him nearer euen to the very heart and then whence is it that the nayles and Iron of the Speare put into a holy place are not adored as well as the Image of the Crosse And where is the adoration of this Image commaunded by God To be short I say that if any should doe obeysance or speake vnto the kings cloake although the king did weare it he should neuertheles be thought to be beside himselfe How much more if he spake to the cloake or did obeysance to it when it is hanged vpon a hooke And yet how much more if he should salute or talke to the picture of this cloake In like manner I say that if any had saluted the Crosse whiles our Sauior was fastened thereunto or had spoken vnto it hee would haue beene thought to haue beene madde although his salutation had beene relatiuely made vnto Christ How much more then if he had saluted it alone Christ not being thereon And how much more if he had saluted or spoken to the picture or Image of this Crosse especially to a bare Crosse without a crucifixe as at this day the Church of Rome doth Certainely no wordes can sufficiently expresse the absurdity of this abuse So Coeffeteau doth giue no manner of satisfaction to that which his Maiesty of England doth obiect namely that if the Crosse ought to be worshipped because it touched Iesus Christ then Iudas his mouth and the handes of those that buffeted him and the land of Canaan whereon he walked which is at this day an example of Gods curse ought also to be worshipped Coeffeteau answeres that the reason is not alike because the lips of Iudas and the handes of the executioners were their liuing members that touched him sacrilegiously but the Crosse was a dead thing and a guiltlesse Instrument of the death of our Redeemer This is but a bare shift for first if our Sauiours touching had made dead things adorable it should much more haue made prophane things holy Our aduersaries haue also forged a fable of one S. Longis that with hate and insultation pierced his side and thereby became a Saint And secondly the Crosse as Coeffeteau saith is not to be worshipped the more for that it was a dead thing Thirdly the water wherewith Christ was baptized obteyned no life thereby and to speake with Coeffeteau it was an innocent Instrument of his baptisme and did touch Christ and yet was neuer adored Fourthly our aduersaries as I suppose would not worship the empty Chalices although they did beleeue that the bloud of Christ yea his whole body had beene therein They will not adore the Priest albeit hee haue often eaten God and that he come to take Christ a fresh into his stomacke Fiftly the whips wherewith Christ was bloudied were harmelesse Instruments of his sufferings yet wee finde not that euer Christian worshipped them Sixtly nothing touched Christ so neare as the nayles and speare that pierced him and they were also harmelesse Instruments of his passion and yet the primitiue Christians neuer worshipped them Constantine put two of them into his Helmet and of two others he made a Bitte for a Horse wherein he had some seedes of superstition yet had Constantine adored these nayles he would haue caused them to bee put into the Church rather then to haue put them into the mouth of a Beaste and left them hanging on a post in the Quirry Ambros de obitu Theodosu Theodor. Histor Lib 1. cap. 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet Theodoret and Ambrose approue this action Seuenthly if the nayles touched the body of Christ nearer and his fore-parts deeper then the Crosse why doe they not adore the Image of the nayles and yet they adore the Image of the Crosse yea without a crucifixe Coeffeteau addeth that there is more in the Crosse besides the touching for it is a representation also of the death of Iesus Christ If he speake of the true Crosse it is not true that it representeth the death of Christ For that of the Crosse which they worship now adayes is but little peeces of worme eaten woode which haue neyther figure nor fashion of the Crosse But if he speake of the Image of the Crosse in siluer or paynting it is false that Christ euer touched it And if these Crosses be without crucifixes they doe not resemble the passion For there is no Image of the passion where there is no Image of him that suffereth it may be some remembrance but no resemblance The Reader shall also note that Coeffeteau omits that excellent obseruation which the King makes touching the bodily touch and the touch of fayth and the example of the woman that touched the hemme of Christs garment as also the example of that woman that said Happy is the wombe that bare thee together with the reason which he doth excellently draw from the person and the shadow of Peter and the comparison of Images condemned by the Prophets which haue eyes and see not eares and heare not with the Crosse which hath no resemblance of eyes or eares This Doctor suffers all this sweetely to slide a way and honestly holdeth his peace hauing of set purpose in my opinion made his booke a foile to giue lustre to the King of great Britaines booke After all these abuse these our Masters haue the good grace to accuse vs of misprision of the Crosse of Christ who say with the Apostle Galat. 6. God for bid that I should reioyce in any thing but the Crosse of our Lord Iesus Our aduersaries talke of the Crosse of Christ but we practise it they paint it wee beare it they glory in some peeces of the Crosse but we in suffering for his name they paint it on walles and we print it in our hearts many carry it tossing vpon their body whose belly is an enemy of the Crosse of Christ Let vs learne then to fasten our affections to his Crosse and to crucifie our olde man with him
he celebrated the Eucharist and that his body was already dead Lactantius in his fourth booke and fourteenth Chapter dooth formally denie the Diuinity of Iesus Christ and in his seuenth booke and one and twenty chapter he saith that the soules of men as well good as bad In vna communique custodia detinentur are detained in one common prison Saint Gregory Nazianzen in his Sermon of Baptisme willeth that vnlesse it be in case of vrgent necessity the Baptisme of young children be deferred vntill such time as they may be capable to aunswere and to yeeld account of their faith Himselfe in his Epitaph vpon Basill doth preferre him before Enoch Contemninus n. Phegor omnem ignominiam eius scientes quod qui in carne sunt non possunt placere Deo and compareth him to Abraham Saint Ierome in his first booke against Iouinian often calleth marriage an vnchast state of life and an ignominy and that the fruite of it is death and that a woman that doth marry the second time ought not to participate of the Almes no nor of the body of the Lord. The Church of Rome doth no longer beleeue the Purgatorie of Gregory the first which hee placeth sometimes in Bathes sometimes in the winde sometime in the water Nor the opinion of Honorius Bishop of Rome who was a Monothelite the Epistles whereof are inserted in the fift and sixt generall Councels For all these good seruants of God were subiect to mistaking and had their faults and vices like warts in a faire face to the end that in reading them a man should haue alwayes in his hand the Compasse of the holy Scripture and the rule of the word of God And that a man should beleeue that which they haue well said not because they haue said it but because it is found in the word of God if they erre in any thing Antiquity cannot authorize an errour There can be no prescription against the truth And a time there was when these Fathers were no Fathers and before they wrote the Christians were ruled by the word of God As touching that which the King of great Britaine saith that they doe contradict one another the verification of it is easie For euery man knoweth the contentions betweene Chrysostome and Epiphanius the Disputes betweene Cyrill and Theodoret the sharpe Epistles and full of gall of Saint Ierome to Saint Austin And S. Austin speaketh farre otherwise of Free-wil of Predestination and of the gift of Perseuerance then all the Greeke Fathers of his age He that will haue a cleare mirrour of this their discord let him compare the Commentaries of S. Austin vpon the Psalmes with those of Saint Ierome and he shall scarcely finde them to agree in two verses together It is then with very iust reason that Coeffeteau doth graunt this to the King of great Britaine and doth acknowledge the faults and contradictions of the auncients whom notwithstanding we ought to loue and honour as great lights in their times and worthy seruants of God who hauing combatted Heresies in their life time doe yet beat downe Popery after their deaths For we maintaine against whosoeuer he be that in the foure first ages and yet wee might discend much lower there shall not be found out any one man who hath had a Religion not so much as approaching to that of the Romish Church now-a-dayes And in this challenge I will lay downe my Ministers cloake ready to be frocked and cladde in a Monks-coule if I shall finde a man that will satisfie me in this point And to the end to expresse my selfe more clearly I say that betweene vs and our aduersaries there be two kindes of Controuersies for some there be vpon which they are wont to produce some passages for proofes But eyther they be quotations altogether false or maimed and curtalled or of no vse to proue the point in question or else places taken contrary to the authours meaning Yet being a thing ordinary with these Messieus to put the ancient Fathers vpon the racke to make them speake in fauour of an vntruth Such is the question of transubstantiation of praying for the dead or Purgatory and of the Sacrifice of the Masse But there are other Controuersies no lesse important and more in number In which they are cleane destitute of all authority of the auncient Church and vpon which being interrogated they answere besides the matter For changing the question they endeauour to proue that which is not demaunded of them See here some examples 1. They cannot shew that any auncient Church did celebrate the eucharist without communicants as it is done ordinarily in the Church of Rome yea and sometimes also without any assistants 2. They cannot shew that any ancient Church hath excluded that people from the communion of the cuppe or chalice 3. Or that in any ancient Church the publike seruice was done in a language not vnderstood of the people 4 Or that any ancient Church hath hindered the people from reading the holy Scripture As it is no way permitted in those Countries where the Pope is absolutely obeyed without speciall priuilege 5. Or that in any ancient Church they haue made Images of God and representations of the Trinity in stone or in picture 6. Also they cannot proue vnto vs that in any ancient Church the people hath beene instructed to pray without vnderstanding that which they say speaking in a tongue not vnderstood of himselfe that prayeth 7. Or that any ancient Church did yeeld worship or religious seruice to the Images of creatures kissing them decking them with robes kneeling before them and presenting them gifts and offerings c. 8. Or that the ancient Church hath beleeued that the Virgin Mary is crowned Queene of the heauens and Lady of the world as this is painted throughout all their Churches 9. Or that the ancient Church hath giuen to the Saints diuers charges as to one the commaund euer such a country to another the cure ouer such a maladie to a third to be Patron ouer such a trade and mysterie 10. Or that the ancient Church hath beleeued that the Pope can giue and take away Kingdomes And dispense with subiects for the oath of their alleageance Can canonize Saints and dispense with Vowes and promises solemnly made to God c. 11. Or that in the ancient Church the Pope by his pardons did distribute supererogatory satisfactions of the Saints for the remission of paine and punishment of other mens sinnes 12. Or that the Pope did then place his pardons in one Church and not in another In one Towne and not in another and that sometimes for an hundred and two hundred thousand yeares of pardon 13. Or that the auncient Church hath beleeued the Limbe of little children 14. Or that the auncient Church hath adored the host which the Priest holdeth vp with the worship of Latria which is done to God alone And to this end the Priest hath caused the Eleuation of