people This much Melanchthon who although he would neuer before this time openly in writing professe his minde of the Sacrament yet he allwaies tolde his familiar frendes and men of worship that in this point he condemned Luther and claue vnto Swinglius correcting yet a litle his opinion For where as Swinglius saide This signifieth my body he will haue it saied This is the participation of my body which newe interpretation is plainely a newe Sacramentary heresie and neuer heard of amonge the rest of the Swinglians And to maintaine this his proper and newe heresie he vseth two pointes of sutteltie and falshood first when he saith the holy fathers taught no conuersion or transsubstantiation of the bread which is a very impudent and lowde lie For the conuersion of the bread and reall presence of Christ his true body and bloud in the Sacrament may euidently be proued out of all the fathers aboue named and many mo and the contrary opinion clerely condemned Secondarely whē he rebuketh his owne scholers and chargeth them with fiue other Sacramentarie heresies For he saith some be of Heshusius minde some of Sarcerius some other folowe the ministers of Breme and some Ioachimus Morlinus then he alleageth other whose opinion is that Christ his body may be in euery place These fiue heresies which as Melāchthon testifieth are amonge the Lutherans and the other eight which Luther showeth to be amonge the Swingliās make all together thirten heresies which al noweadaies vpon the Sacramēt only are folowed professed and defended amonge the protestants Here againe we may consider the honesty and truthe of M. Doctor Smidelin which is not ashamed to terme such open schismes manifest to al the worlde a sure and certain agremēt of Catholike religion who beside all this knoweth well inough what agreate and vehement altercation there was this present yeare 1560 at Heidelberg amonge the diuines and ministres there touching only this point of the blessed Sacramēt of the which matter Guilelmus Klebicius of Brandeburg hath writen very bitterly and sharpely And this much hitherto of the dissension amonge the protestants touching only the point of the blessed Sacrament The dissension and variaunce of the Lutherans touching the doctrine of Penaunce I haue noted before in a litle booke For some of them put two some thre partes of penaunce But doctor Smidelin will accorde all this discorde with a worde saing it is all one to put two or thre partes of penaunce As though that al other Superintendents and ministres of Luthers secte ought to couche and obey the pontificall authorite of Doctor Smidelin taking vppon him like a pope of protestants But Illyricus will not abide that persuading him selfe that he is of as good mettall to make a Lutheran pope as any other is and therefore he will not graunte to the Masters of Wittenberg no nor to his owne Master Luther to define diuide and determinat the ghospell at their pleasur For in the booke which he intituled An information vpon certain articles of Christen religion he writeth in this sort But not so much he meaning Melanchthon as his proctours do exasperat this matter although they agree not amōg them selues for one interpreteth the matter after one sorte and the other after an other as it happeneth in euill causes One saieh that the worde Penaunce signifieth only sorowe or contrition an other that it signifieth contrition and faithe with al. One saith that the ghospell preacheth repentaunce of one sinne only as of infidelite an other saith of all sinnes Some imagin this glose that the ghospell preacheth repentaunce vnproperly vndirectly and by occasion only some saie that consequently it preacheth repentaunce An other saithe by a figure of contrariete the fourth saith after a sorte and in some point The fift saith it doth but argue mens incredulite or slacknes of belefe The sixt saieth that it reiecteth the small faithe The seuenth saith that it preacheth repentaunce not principally Thus they disagree amonge thē selues no lesse then the Sacramentaries or Babylonians or those builders of idols that Esaie speaketh of where one thinketh to holde vp the idoll with glue another with nailes and the third with chaines But all these gloses bothe destroy them selues one another and the definition also Thus farre Illyricus Doth not Illyricus affirme here that Melanchthons diuines varie one from an other and sett vp seuen sondry opinions neuer a true and all repugnant one with an other no lesse then the sectes of the Sacramentaries and that they agree as the builders of the towre of Babilon in olde time Saithe not directly all this Illyricus And what saieth Smidelinus VVe in the principall articles and grounde of our doctrine do not vary Which if it be true then must we saie that the doctrine of penaunce and of the Sacrament of the aultar appertaine not to the grounde of Christen religion nor are not necessary articles of the same For Smidelin in his litle booke whiche he set forth against me standeth stiffe in this minde That it forceth not whether two or thre partes of penaunce be taught nor skilleth any whit whether you beleue vprightly or embrace that seuenfolde heresie contrary in it selfe in the matter of penaunce Againe in his booke against my table writing of the altercations betwene the Illyricans and the Adiaphoristes he saith Although one write bitterly against the other yet in their churches there is no alteration of doctrine but they professe and teache the pure doctrine of the ghospell in perfit agrement with vs and them selues euen as before this altercation beganne Howe soūdeth thinke you these wordes of Smidelin with the saieng of Illyricus In like maner doth he defend Andreas Musculus For where I write that he teacheth the Godhead of Christ to haue as well died in the Crosse as the māhood Smidelin goeth about to purge him in these wordes I haue vnderstode nowe that Staphylus dothe iniuriously slaunder Andreas Musculus For Musculus in open writing published and printed hathe purged him self against Staphylus Thus saithe Smidelin It is the nature and custome of all heretikes not to continew longe in one minde But to denie to morowe which they saide to daie So dothe Musculus And although Smidelin as he confesseth him selfe be vtterly ignorant of the debate betwene Musculus and Stācarus wherein those wordes be vttered yet he sticketh not to write that I slaunder Musculus Truly bicause he would be counted a common pacifier of all contentions a physician for all sores and a reconciler of all vnruly heresies But what will bothe Musculus and Smidelin saie vnto me if I bring their owne brethern and felowe heretikes witnesses against them The Lutheran churches of Pole sent to the vniuersite of Lausana for the determination of this matter betwene Musculus and Stancarus and the doctours of Lausana sent them this awnswer Although well beloued brethern we can neuer saie inough
vtterly detesting all sectes and heresies becometh a right good Catholike And surely so it happeneth that who so ones departeth from the church if he entre but a litle with other heresies he is accompted an heretike of the heretikes them selues From the which our Lorde of his tender mercy preserue vs alwaies Amen Our forefathers the auncient Germans were euer accompted men of grauite constancie and of a setled iudgement not light brayned inconstant or wauering with euery wind as peraduenture some other countres were noted for For lightnes in dede in men of wisedome is a greate blotte But what can be more light or more vaine then to beleue euery light person without any sure grounde of his doctrine He that beleueth quickely saith the wise man is light of hart These preachers and newe ghospellers that nowe a daies runne from countre to countre be vile vagabondes light and wilde persones men of no grauite nor whorthy of any authorite And that their outewarde behauiour declareth Their bearde they let growe only vppon the vpper lippe like the Turkes their cotes be cut shorte at the buttokes with large wide sleues as the sergents or catchepolles in times past were wont to haue and thus like frogges they leape in to the pulpit crieng and creking there Our Confession of Auspurg is grounded vppon the writings of the Apostles and Prophets and hathe endured these thirty yeares Beholde good Catholike reader a wonderous matter The Confession of Augspurg is thirty yeares olde Is not this a maruailous loÌ„ge continaunce and yet these felowes will not be a knowen that our Catholike religion hath continued these thousand fyue hundred yeares and aboue twise their thirty without breache or interruption Nowe where they bable that their Confession is grounded vppon the writings of the Apostles and Prophets doth not euery secte and euery heretike crake the same Do not the Anabaptistes crie it is writen in the xxvj of Marke He that will not beleue shall be condemned But children haue no faith and can not beleue ergo they can not be saued nor ought not be baptised â—Like wise the ZuingliaÌ„s crie they not that it is writeÌ„ in the vj. of Ihon. The flesh profiteth nothing and therefore they will haue it but bread in the Sacrament Againe the scholers of Osiander alleage they not the saying of the prophet the 23. of Ieremie Iehouah is our iustice Who can denie but all these allegations be the writinges of the Apostles and prophets why theÌ„ do the LutheraÌ„s abhorre the Anabaptistes why condeÌ„ne they Osiander and his felowes why doth Luther call Zuinglius an heretike Do not they crie that their doctrine as well as the other crie that their Confession is grounded vpon the writings of the Apostles and prophets yes they crie truly so euen as lowde and as truly as the Lutherans What theÌ„ lacketh in this matter Truly not who alleageth Scripture for that euery heretike doth but who can proue his doctrine in dede not only in wordes by Scripture For who caÌ„ abide the preacher be he neuer so Catholike that crieth only that his doctrine is grounded vppon the writings of the Apostles and Prophets It is not sufficient to alleage and hudle vp many places of scripture which the heretikes do as roundely as the Catholikes but you must by good reason and sure grouÌ„de proue that those your places be well and duly alleaged and expounded But by what grouÌ„de and reason may this be proued By thre maners of waies First the teacher of any doctrine or preacher ought to proue and euidently declare that his doctrine or interpretation of holy Sripture is Catholike deriued from the Apostles receaued through out whole Christendom and continued vnto our time Secondarely that all the ordre maner and disposition of the church of Christ in the newe lawe was figured and shadowed by other obseruaunces and doings in the olde lawe Thirdly that euery principall article of our Catholike religion hath beÌ„ confirmed with some miracle whereby the verite of it hathe vnuincibly ben warranted As for example Amonge vs Catholikes it is a sure and vndoubted point in our religion that in the blessed Sacrament of the aultar vnder one kinde the whole and perfit body of Christe is contained as well as vnder bothe This point we first proue by the expresse worde of God vttered by the Apostle saying that Christ can not be diuided Nowe that this saying of the Apostle is well applied to the one kinde of bread in the Sacrament the common practise of Christes Catholike churche these many hundred yeares dothe abundantly witnesse Againe it is proued by an euident figure of the olde lawe For we reade in Moyses that although some gathered more some lesse of Manna which vndoubtedly as S. Paule witnesseth was the figure of our Lordes supper yet he that gathered lesse had as much as he that gathered more So Hilarius pope of Rome decreeth saying Where parte of the body is there is the whole for the like is in the body of our Lorde that was in Manna that figured it For not the visible quantite is to be considered in this misterie but the spirituall efficacie and vertu of the Sacrament Last of all this hath ben confirmed by so sundry and strauÌ„ge miracles wrought from God that who so hath any sparckle of Christen faith remaining in him can neuer doubt but that the body of Christ is as well vnder one kinde as vnder bothe The stories of the Iewes may testifie clerely this matter which happened in diuers places as at Passau Breslau Regenspurg and Tekendorph in Bauaria in the yeare of our Lorde 1337. and afterward at Berlin in the Marchise of Brandeburg in the yere 1512. and now lately in Pole in the dyocese of the Archebishop of Gnesna In whiche all places it hathe ben seen that out of the Hoste of our Lordes body foined in with daggers by the Iewes bloud hath gushed out and many other miracles haue befallen The which all surely almightie God of his mercie hath wrought for the confirmation of his churche in this article that vnder the forme of bread is fully contained his precious body and bloud and for the conuicting also of the damnable heresie of the Maniches who aboue a thousand yeares agone affirmed that vnder the forme of bread was the body without bloud This I haue brought in for an example to show howe the Catholike doctours are able to proue euery article of Catholike religioÌ„ That is by the Catholike vniuersal and receaued expositioÌ„ of holy scripture by the figures and shadowes of the olde lawe by the operation of miracles Surely who can thus proue his doctrine he may boldely saie that it is grounded vppon the writings of the Apostles and prophets Nowe if the Confessionistes speake as they think when they saie their doctrine is grounded vppon the Apostles and prophets and that they will proue it to be so in
Smidelin a trim pacifier doth he not by good reason reconcile these protestants together In the booke against my table he raileth and saith he must nedes be a wicked person which woulde saye that amonge the Swinglians were eight diuers and seuerall opinions and who is so blinde that seeth not Luther him selfe in his wordes aboue alleaged to recite eight contrary opinions of the Swinglians It foloweth then by the iudgement and sentence of Doctor Smidelinus that Luther is a wicked and pernicious felowe Surely very well and as it should be for such honour vse kinde scholers to geue to their masters But truly they are bothe vsed according to their deserts while the Master proueth his scholer a liar and the scholer proueth his Master a knaue and nowe it happeneth as we commonly see of a frowarde curre a peuish whelp But what will Smidelin saie if that amonge the Lutherans them selues be sacramentary sectes and schismes and that not a fewe This present yeare 1560. in the seconde of Octobre was printed at Heidelberg the iudgement of Philip Melanchthon touching the Supper of our Lorde dedicated to the honourable prince Electour CouÌ„te palatin of the Rhene where he writeth thus It is not hard but somewhat dangerous to awnswer yet I will declare that debate and controuersie which happened at Heidelberg and admonish men as much as I may at this time I will also praie vnto Christ our Lorde that it will please him prosperously to directe these our aduises and their doinges Greate and greuous coÌ„tentions shal vndoubtedly arise in the worlde vpon the Controuersie of our Lordes supper for the worlde must nedes be punished for their idolatry and other hainous offenses Let vs then praie that the Son of God teache vs and direct vs. But seing that many are yet in many places feble in the faith and not well instructed in this doctrine off the church but rather nouseled in many errours it is mete that first we take order for such I like ther fore very well the aduise of the most honourable prince Electour that all such as contend of the Supper of the Lorde be put to sileÌ„ce lest dissensioÌ„ and variaunce arise in the church yet tendre and weake whereby the febleiÌ„ faith might perhaps be seduced and disquieted And I would wish also that the contentious persons on bothe sides were some other where VVhich being seÌ„t awaie the rest might agree into some forme of wordes And in this controuersie me thinketh it were best to kepe the wordes of S. Paule The bread which we breake is the participation of Christ his body much also must be saide of the frute of the Supper to stirre vp men more to loue this pleadge and the oftener to vse it Againe the worde Participation is to be declared and expounded For S. Paule saith not as the papistes do that the nature of bread is chaunged nor that the bread is the substaÌ„tiall body of Christ as the ministers of Bremesaie Nor as Heshusious saith that bread is the true body of Christ but that it is a participation or communion that is by the which we are coupled and made one with the body off Christ. VVhich copulation and making of one consisteth in the vse not without it imagining that mise could knawe that bread The papistes and such as are like them to earnestly contend that the body of Christ is vnder the forme of bread or included in the bread beside the vse and when it is not receaued they wil haue it adored also as Doctor Morlin of Bruns wicke saith Thou must not saie Mum. Mum But what is that which the priest hath in his handes Sarcerius would haue all the parcels that sal doune to be gathered vp and to be burned together with the earth on which it fell Two yeres past wheÌ„ we were at wormes a quaestioÌ„ was asked vs out of the Courte whether the body of Christ passed downe in to the bely and so forthe Such absurde questions ought not to be moued better it is that the forme of S. Paules wordes be kept and that men be well instructed of the vse and frute of this Sacrament The forme of wordes of the Supper ye may see in the ordinatioÌ„ of the church of the Megapolians where also aduertisement is geueÌ„ of the frute thereoff The Son off God in the ministery of the ghospell is present and worketh also in those that beleue But he is present not for cause of the bread but for mans sake as he saith him selfe Tary in me and I in you I in my father and you in me and I in you And with this true Comfortes he maketh vs his membres and testifieth that he wil raise vp and quicken our bodies Thus do olde writers expounde the Supper of the Lorde but some terme this true and plaine doctrine buskins or showes mete for euery foote and will haue that the body is in the bread or in the forme of bread as though the Sacrament were made for the breads sake or to be adored papistically Then other imagin that the body should be enclosed in the breade some will haue it euery where and in all places Melanchthon dalieth here at his pleasure but all holy fathers and olde writers haue continually hitherto taught the conuersion transmutatioÌ„ and chaunging of the creature of bread in to the body of oure Lorde that we may truly say with Christ This is my body Heshusius saith he can not agree with Origen terming the bread and wine the signes of the the body and bloud So he reiecteth Clemens Alexandrinus ready to do the like to Augustin Ambrose Prosper Dyonisius Tertullian Bede Basill and Gregory Nazianzen which calleth the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Theodoret which writeth that the nature of bread remaineth Is theÌ„ the authorite of Heshusius so great that we will rather bâ—leue him theÌ„ the olde writers which testifie clerely that the church in their time had no adoration nor no such doctrine as the papistes no we teache For seing these are newe and straunge in the church we doubt whether it be conuenient to bring in newe doctrine in the church And I am not ignoraÌ„t that many alleage forged bookes vnder the name of olde writers but let the lerned iudge hereof I will not make any longe debate of this matter presently nor entre to dispute with contentious men defending the idolatry and robberies of their forefathers VVhose tyranny and cruell persecutions I feele also I thought good only to declare my minde herein what were best to be done in respect of our weake and tender church Therefore I am still of that minde that bothe partes be put to silence and that one forme of wordes be vsed VVhich if some like not and will not therefore come vnto the Sacrament they may be permitted to do as they see good so that yet they styrre vp no dissension amonge the
Augustin when they sayde that the worde Catholike was not ment of the societe and communioÌ„ of the whole worlde but in obseruing of al gods commaundements and all his sacraments Thirdly the protestants of Lunneburg and of the Lantgraues dominions were offended with the Saxons in the publishing of their coÌ„fession bicause they yelded to much to the Catholikes in the question of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and authorite off bishops whereupon Melanchthon was expresly commaunded to yeld no farder Fourthly whereas in that confession presented to the Emperour in the yeare 1530. in the tenth article we reade this They teache that the true body and bloud of Christ is truly present in the Supper vnder the formes of bread and wine the next yere after the same Confession being printed at VVittenberg they frame the same article after an other sorte and write That the body and bloud of Christ are truly present and distribued to those which receiue in the supper By the which addition they exclude all reseruation of the blessed Sacrament for the sicke and tie Christ to the pleasure of the receiuers But in the yeare 1540. wading furder in the moire of heresy they make that same article yet fouler For this they saie That with the breade and the wine the body and bloud of Christ is truly exhibited to those whiche receiue in the Lordes Supper Thus lo at the length this monster of Luther was brought to perfection I meane his proper heresy about the SacrameÌ„t But what Doth all the brotherhood of that Confession staye here Nay the zelous Lutherans denie it and complaine of it For from this their Confession Brentius and the Masters of WitteÌ„berg in their conference helde at Wormes in the yeare 1557. haue departed openly yelding to the heresies of Zuinglius and Osiander directly repugning to that ConfessioÌ„ as Nicolaus Amsdorffius a zelous Lutheran chargeth them in open writing His wordes you may reade in the beginning of the thirde parte of this booke Thus you maye see howe the sprit of Melanchthon and his felowes agree with the doinges and behauiour of olde heretikes And although Philip Melanchthon at the first visitation of the protestants in Germany was praysed for his modesty and meakenes yet afterwarde as he grewe in heresy so did he in malice and cruelty The thrusting in of OsiaÌ„der in to Prussia procured by him displacing Morlinus by force his open writing against the visitatioÌ„ of Bauaria his bitter and dispiteous inuectiues againste the lerned vertuous and Noble man Fridericus Staphylus hath sufficiently declared to all the worlde that as good men eunt de virtute in virtutem encrease and go forward in vertu so he proceded in mischefe and malice of harte as the property of heretikes hathe allwaies ben Illyriâ—us and other zelous Lutherans ceased not daily while he liued to entwit this vnto him And I haue here recited onely for the intent God is my witnes that his credit hereafter may be the lesse amonge suche as by his hereticall ciuilite haue ben deceaued and trained into heresies from the vnite of Christes churche where only saluation is to be hoped for For that is the body off Christ as S. Paule saieth and the piller of truthe and as S. Augustin writeth Whosoeuer beleueth that Christe Iesus is come in to fleshe and in the same fleshe hathe suffred for vs hath risen again and is ascended vp and that he is the son of God God with God and one with the father by whom al was made and yet do so dissent from his body which is the church that they do not communicat with all the whole corps of Christendome certain it is that they are not in the Catholike churche What Christen maÌ„ therefore is there so destitut of the grace of God and all good reason that will hazarde his soule to folowe that guide which woteth not him selfe which waie to walcke or to lerne a newe belefe contrary to all Christendome beside that nowe is and euer hathe ben of suche a Master as knoweth not him felfe what he may saie and was euen to his deathe but a lerner and scholer For then onely began he to professe him selfe a Caluiniste and a Sacramentary hauing all his life time before taught and deceaued a number after the trade of Luther And howe can his scholers be assured that theÌ„ he founde out the truthe We will therefore nowe come to Caluin him selfe to whom Melanchthon hathe yelded and see whether he be a ghospeller worthy to be folowed againste the vniforme consent of Christes churche Perusing diligently the doctrine of Iohn Caluin in his Institutions commentaries vppon the holy Scripture his resolutions vppon the Sacraments and other his workes touching his doctrine of the blesâ—ed Sacrament of the aultar whiche he allwaies termeth the Supper off the Lorde and recording with my self howe the greatest swaye of the lost flock of our time forsaking Christ the heauenly shepearde and his vicar here on earthe haue folowed more that wolfe of Geneua Iohn Caluin then the foxes of Germany Luther Melanchthon Osiander and other truly I bothe lamented much the losse of so many ChristeÌ„ soules straiyng after so perilous a guide and maruailed yet more at the blindnes of our wicked time that would be so soone lead out of the highe waie of Christes churche wherein onely saluation is to be sought and folow the trade of such a doctour or Master which like a madde will full man being out off the waie runneth vpp and downe among the bushes and briers this waie and that waie seking of purpose any waye rather then he will take the common highe beaten waie that all Christen people haue walked in I saie this good Readers not as enemy to the man whom thanked be God I neuer sawe nor heard but as finding him such in his writings as I haue saied and intending by Gods helpe to sett him so before your eyes that yow shall also saie and iudge no lesse of him then I do vnlesse you are which God forbidde of the number of those obstinat Iewes who seying would not see and hearing woulde not heare I trust rather in allmighty God that no man hath so pinned his soule to Caluins doctrine but that he will yelde to the expresse worde off holy Scripture and euident reason when he shall see the same doctryne to fight directly against them bothe And first we wil coÌ„sidre how is doctrine fighteth against euideÌ„t reason which by two maner of waies we will declare you First by certain of his propositions importing absurde consequences and impossibilites nexte by clere and most euident contradictions of his owne saiengs wherby not onely the faithfull Catholike but the deceiued protestant may euidently iudge and pronounce that this mans doctrine can not be of god and his holy Spirit which is the Spirit of truthe and vnite but is of the diuel and his wicked sprit which is the sprit of falshood and
bloud And after he concludeth thus I saie therefore that in the mistery of the Supper by the signes of bread and wine Christ is geuen vnto vs truly yea his body and bloud to the entēt that first we maie be made one body with him then being made partakeners of his substaunce we maie also receaue the vertu thereof for the enioieng of all his benefits All this he saieth against thē which acknowledging a certain communiō with Christ in this Sacramēt make vs onely partakners of the Spirit of Christe as in his wordes somewhat before he expresseth Woulde a man desire any more Catholike doctrine then this is truly it semeth no. But you shall see within fewe lines he marreth all that he made before For when he cometh to declare after what maner we receaue the body and bloud of Christ for by euidence of scripture he was forced to confesse that we receaue it thē lo he stretcheth him selfe and calleth his wittes aboute him how he may defeat the real presēce of Christes body and bloud He graunteth we do truly and as he writeth vpon S. Paule really receaue the body and bloud of Christe But he will not haue it as the church teacheth really present Howe then shall we really receaue Christ We nede not saieth Caluin imagin any presence of place to receaue Christ by Howe then This benefit saith he Christ geueth vs by his Spirit By ▪ the Spirit of Christ we are coupled and ioyned to Christ. and the Spirit of Christ is as a certaine cundite pipe by the whiche whatsoeuer Christ is and hathe is deriued vnto vs. for if we see the Son shining on the earthe with his beames for the engendring and quickening of thinges geue as thoughe it were his substaunce vnto the earthe why should the Spirit of Christ be inferiour or of lesse force then the shining downe the son for conuaying vnto vs the communion of Christ his fleshe and bloud Wherefore scripture speaking of our partaking with Christe referreth the whole power thereof vnto the spirit One place shal suffise for all For S. Paule writing to the Romanes in the eight chapter teacheth that Christ dwelleth no otherwise in vs then by his Spirit Whereby yet he taketh not a waie the communiō of fleshe and bloud that we nowe speake of but teacheth vs that by the onely spirit we possesse whole Christ and haue him dwelling in vs. These lo hetherto are the wordes of Caluin euen as they lie in his Institutiōs the 18. chapper The effect of his whole tale is this That by the Spirit of Christ onely we receaue the body and bloud of Christ. And is not this cleane repugnant to that he saide before blaming them whiche taught that in this Sacrament we were partakners of Christ in Spirit onely For howe receaue we the body and bloud of Christe by the Spirit of Christ onely but spiritually only The fleshe and bloud of Christ are no spirituall thinges Valentinus and Marcion were condemned for suche doctrine Howe then receaue we thinges of a corporall substaunce not mere spirituall onely by the Spirit This is a mere imagination of Caluin as we haue before declared you No scripture termeth the Spirit of Christ a cundite pipe No scripture telleth vs that the Spirit of Christ cōuaieth vs his fleshe and bloude It is beside scripture and against all reason and therefore not to be admitted by the only warrant of Caluins mouthe We must not leaue the doctrine of the churche though it had no reason to defend it for the bare assertion of Caluin being against all reason For this is against all reason that we should really eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ being not really present though Caluin to sett a gaie colour on the matter attributeth this straunge meanes and order to the operation of the Spirit of Christ God him selfe For as we haue before proued god him selfe worketh no contradiction as it is to receaue that which is not present to be receaued Therefore notwithstanding all the shiftes that Caluin maketh it is no real communion of Christ his body and bloud that he teacheth as he would it should seme to be but a mere spirituall which before he blamed As touching the Son if Caluin speake like a philosopher it is no body mixte and made of the elemēts as the natural flesh and bloud of Christ is but a pure simple and celestial body and so we graunte the substaūce thereof is deriued to the earth by the shining thereof For that substaunce is a lightsom and shining substaunce and differeth no whit from the light and clerenes thereof Now Christ toke very fleshe in all conditiōs like to our flesh except the corruptiō that sinne bringeth This fleshe of Christ is so endued with diuinite that it loseth not his natural substaūce Therefore the substaūce of the Sō and the substaūce of Christ his body are thinges farre differēt Againe if the substaūce of the son quickeneth the earth that substaūce is really present with the earthe By this reason therefore Christ also should be really present with vs feding vs with his substaunce Which we do confesse but Caluin denieth How thē dothe that similitude make for him Truly nothing Farder ▪ The Son by the meanes of his shining saieth Caluin geueth his substaunce to the earthe and so Christ by the meanes of his Spirit geueth vs the communion of his flesh and bloud Marke that Caluin saieth the communion of the fleshe not the fleshe it selfe to be deriued vnto vs. For by the communion of the fleshe of Christ he meaneth as vpon S. Paule h◠writeth Vim ex Christi carne viuificā a certain quickening power oute of Christ his fleshe Nowe this quickening power of Christ his flesh is not the fleshe of Christ it selfe VVhich by Caluins doctrine in his institutions of it felfe is not quickening or geuing life But it is the Spirit onely of Christ which geueth life and quickeneth saieth he Lo then againe you see notwithstanding all his faire wordes before his doctrine is nowe that we haue but a spirituall foode onely in this sacrament conuayed vnto vs by the Spirit as the son by his shininge conuaieth his substaunce vnto the earthe Is not this ones againe a plaine contradiction to that whiche he wrote before blaming those that make vs partakners of Christ in Spirit onely is not his doctrine the very same is not the communion that he imagineth to be conuaied vnto vs a spirituall thing dothe he not call it a certain quickening vertu oute off Christ his fleshe this quickening vertu is it not by the doctrine of Caluin a mere spirituall thinge seing that he teacheth blasphemousely with the olde heretike Nestorius that the flesh of Christ notwithstanding it is Propria Verbi one person with the Son of God is not of it selfe quickening I trust you see nowe euidently that though Caluin write we receaue truly and really the
had for the blessed fleshe and precious bloud of oure Sauiour pronounced to be in this most dreadfull mystery by the mouthe off Christ him selfe substituted materiall bread and wine and yet to make a coulour of holynes as the woÌ„te of the deuill is had tolde vs that he separated not the verite from the figure Christ from the bread fearing lest perhaps by this tale some scrupulous sacramentary would haue worshipped the verite not separated from the figure to witt Christe ioyned with the bread he turneth his tale and telleth them at the ende of his talke whiche he thought shoulde beste sticke by the readers that the sacrament is but a signe and hathe not the thinge or verite of the signe included in it Nether dothe he coÌ„ceale his wicked purpose but boldely vttereth it euen straight saieng they that worship in the Sacrament Christ make an idoll of it I haue lo discouered vnto you good readers the wicked deuise of this proctour of the deuill Ihon Caluin stoppe your eares at the wiâ—ked enchantmeÌ„ts of this flattering Circé and harken rather to the doctrine of that holy and lerned Father of the Church S. Augustin who speaking of the worshipping off Christe in this blessed Sacrament saieth Non solum non peccatur adorando sed peccatur non adorando that is VVe do not onely not sinne or offend in adoring it but we do sinne if we do not adore it Lo this lerned Father feareth no idolatry in adoration of the Sacrament but pronouÌ„ceth it a sinne not to adore it wherein he declareth the doctrine and belefe of Christ his churche at that time and he spake these wordes in pulpit preaching to his people and expounding them the worde of God Nowe this cursed caitif Caluin bereueth oure blessed Sauiour of his due honour and telleth vs we make him an idoll well the deuill yet hath gotte small worship at his proctours hande here making him to speake suche contradictions as shal worke at the length I truste in god his vtter confusion and all enemies of gods honour And therefore we will yet discouer you more of his contradictions and sory lessons lerned of his master the deuill the spirit of dissension and contrariete In the thirtenth article of his resolutions he saieth the sacrament is an instrument by the whiche god worketh If the sacrament be an instrument whereby Christ worketh howe is it a figure of Christ as these Sacramentaries will haue it onely to be who euer heard that the figure of the workeman as a figure were his Instrument or the instrument his figure Is not this doctrine a mere confusion and contradiction The truthe is that bread is nether the figure of Christ nor the instrumeÌ„t whereby he worketh No scripture saieth so The churche neuer taught so No reason persuadeth so It is but a dreame off Caluin In the fiftenth article he saieth the Sacrament doth warrant vs Christ. In the tenth he sayed it was but a bare signe and that we shoulde not regarde it Beleue nowe whether parte ye liste Truly bothe can not be true In the sixtenth article he sayeth the sacrament warraÌ„teth Christ onely in the elected and predestiant In the .18 article he saieth that in the sacrament Christ is offred aequally vnto all and that the promis of god is not weakened by the incredulite of men If the sacrament warranteth and confirmeth Christ onely in the elected is not the promis or verite of god promised in the sacrament weakened by the incredulite of men for they by theyr incredulite saieth Caluin can not receaue Christ which is the substaunce of the sacrameÌ„t and that which Crist promiseth You see his constancy and agrement Is not this a worthy guide for a man to builde his faith vpon and forsake his former belefe In the twentith article he saieth it maye happeÌ„ that the vse of the Supper which profited vs nothinge in the acte or doing of it bicause of oure negligence or slacknes maye afterwarde bringe forthe better frute This point lo is contrary to all his doctrine in his institutions and coÌ„mentaries vpon holy scripture where he teacheth the effect of the Sacrament that god fedeth vs not with bare signes that he geueth life withall thath oure soules are fedde with Christ truly and really For nowe a man maye receaue the Sacrament and lacke all this He maye I saie receaue it well and worthely and haue none of all these For if the vnworthy receauer receaueth forthewith his damnation as S. Paule saieth Caluin can not meane this of the vnworthy receauer especially saying withall that it may afterwarde bringe forthe better frute whiche to the vnworthy receauer it can not do In the sixe and twentith article he saieth we muste not tye Christe to the bread and to the wine and yet in the ninthe article he him selfe tieth Christ thereto For he sayeth Nous ne separons pas la verite d'auec les figures we separat not the verite from the figures If Caluin do not separat Christ whiche is the verite from the figures of bread and wine dothe he not couple and tye Christ thereunto Truly the Sacramentaries and Lutherans bothe do it making the bread and the wine to remaine The Catholike churche dothe not beleuing that the coÌ„secrated and blessed bread is no more bread but as Christ saieth His body and the the wine his blode Lo you haue good readers a number of contradictions gathered oute of this small treatise of Caluin wherein yet according to the title thereof he minded to geue the worlde a full and perfit resolution of the Sacraments But whiles he laboureth to vtter his heresy vnder coulour of some Christianite and to persuade his falshood vnder the cloke of some truth he is miserably driueÌ„ to tell contrary tales to saie one thinge and thinke an other brefely to confounde him selfe with his owne wordes For what better reason may possibly be founde to discouer false forged doctrine of an heretike then to trippe him in his talke and take him in contradiction Nothing can more discredit the Author of a secte or declare more his wicked pretence then to espie diuersite of doctrine and variaunce of opinions in him nor neuer I thinke appeared it better in any heretike except allwaies that fonde frere Martin Luther them in Ihon Caluin And yet this is he vpon whose onely warrant and worde diuers deceaued persons haue hazarded their soules and loste their life I beseche god geue the remnant grace to see knowe and deteste from henceforthe suche a teacher as you see nowe Caluin is Diuers other contradictions might be gathered oute of this mans doctrine touching this blessed Sacrament if we listed to scanne eche of his propositions and saiengs But bicause I haue ben ouer longe allready and yet in so good a purpose me thinketh I can neuer be longe inough I wil nowe passe to the repugnaunce in his doctrine against holy scripture Our Sauiour sayth
the worlde and that in eating the bread we eate nothing els â–ª And truly if you remembre his doctrine before yow see he meaneth nought ells S. Paule speaking of our Lordes body and bloud geuen vs in the blessed sacrament saithe thus He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his owne damnation not discerning the body of oure Lorde Caluin in his coÌ„mentaries vppoÌ„ this place saithe That the wicked person therefore eateth vnworthely bicause he refuseth the body of our Lorde offred vnto him eating thereby the onely signe to wit bare bared Marke the differeÌ„ce of S. Paules doctrine and Caluins imagination For howe dothe the wicked eate the body and therewith his daÌ„nation whiche S. Paule teacheth iff he eate but bread and refuse the body which Caluin imagineth I will graunte who refuseth Christ refuseth life and thereby worketh his owne damnation But this is not to eate his damnation in such sorte as S. Paule speaketh there Our Sauiour in the sixte of Ihon saithe Your fathers did eate Manna in the desert and are dead This is that bread whiche cometh downe from heauen that a man maye eate thereof and not die Caluin in his commentaries vpoÌ„ the first to the CorinthiaÌ„s the tenth chapter teacheth that the Iewes eating MaÌ„na did eate the very body of Christ spiritually as we do and receaued the same effect by eating the Manna as we do by the communion He laboureth muche in that place to proue this fonde doctrine and forgeth a sory shifte to auoide these wordes of our Sauiour in S. Ihon. Christ saythe he hauing to do with the Iewes preferring Moyses before him in his answer to them expounded not what Manna signified but letting all other thinges passe framed them an answer mete for their capacite speaking not according to the nature of the thinge but according to the meaning and sâ—ns of the hearers Thus muche Caluin But beholde I beseche you the sophistry of this wily heretike He woulde make vs beleue that Christ in S. IhoÌ„ plaied the RhetoriciaÌ„s part and withall is not afeared to make our Sauiour O blasphemous Sacramentary a lyar For Christe saithe plainely That the Iewes eating Manna died for not by eating Manna but by beleuing in the Messias to come they were fedde of Christ But the bread which he would geue shoulde be life euerlasting to those whiche eate off it Iff nowe as Caluin saithe the eating of Manna serued their turne no lesse then the bread of life Christ him selfe serued oures to witt that they receaued also the bread of life spiritually in eating Manna as we do in eating the blessed Sacrament then were not that sayieng off Christe true nor his comparison good preferring the bread of life which he would geue vs before the Manna of the Iewes For their Manna as Caluin saithe was bread of life to them then was it not inferiour to that whiche Christe woulde geue but all one and the same But nowe to an other Our Sauiour in S. Ihon hath these wordes Who eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Caluin correcteth these wordes in his doctrine of the Supper and maketh this proposition Who beleueth in the death and resurrectioÌ„ of Christ the coÌ„munion of his flesh is deriued vnto him by the vertu of his holy Spirit First in this doctrine where Christ biddeth vs eate his flesh and so promiseth him selfe to dwel with vs and in vs Caluin biddeth vs beleue in Christ his death saieng thereby we eate his flesh and theÌ„ in stede of Christ God and maÌ„ abiding in vs which our Sauiour in this most holy SacrameÌ„t promiseth and no doubt perfourmeth vnto vs Caluin warraÌ„teth vs of a certain coÌ„munioÌ„ of the flesh remaining only in heaueÌ„ which shal be deriued he sayeth by the Spirit off Christ vnto vs. This is lo not to haue God and man Christ him selfe abiding in vs which bicause Christ promiseth vs we must vndoubtedly beleue so but to haue him onely spiritually abiding in vs to witt coming to vs onely by spirit and abiding onely in heauen by fleshe How false and howe farre disagreble with the wordes of our Sauiour this doctrine of Caluin is we haue in his absurdites and contradictions declared Presently it suffiseth to knowe that he dothe bothe in termes and in sense comptroll and alter the wordes and meaning of oure Sauiour S. Paule writing to the Corinthians of the due accesse and reuerence of this blessed Sacrament saith Let euery maÌ„ trie him selfe and so eate of this bread Caluin in his Institutions and vpon the sixte of Ihon teacheth that by beleuing we eate Christ. Nowe seing that no man trieth him selfe but first he beleueth and in beleuing we eate Christ then before we trie oure selues we do eate contrary to the expresse wordes off the Apostle bidding vs first to trie our selues and so to eate of this bread of life And truly according to the doctrine of Caluin as you haue sene before beleuing in Christes deathe and resurrection we eate and receaue the body and bloud off Christ allwaies no lesse then in the vse of the Supper or communion Which excludeth all triall of our selues required by S. Paul For the maintenance of this wicked Sacramentary doctrine Caluin abuseth and turneth from their right vnderstanding not onely suche places of holy scripture as directly make against him as you haue hetherto partly sene but also suche as by any consequence of reason might seme to hinder the course of his wicked doctrine For example I will pnt you in minde of one or two Whereas it is writen in S. Ihon that Christ entred where his disciples were the doores being shutt bicause this miracle might importe to the body of oure Sauiour a possibilite of being in sundry places at ones and so destroy the false grounde of these sacramentaries tying Christ to the right hande of his Father Caluin in his institutions saithe that Christ entred not the dores being shutt but that the dores opened of them selues Otherwhere he writeth that an erthequake was made and so the dores opened Brefely he inuenteth what shifte he maie rather them he will yelde to the truthe of the churche With like confidence this presumptuous SacrameÌ„tary Ihon Caluin peruerteth by false traÌ„slatioÌ„ the wordes of holy scripture in the prouerbes of SalomoÌ„ coÌ„taining a clere prophecy of this blessed sacrameÌ„t We alleaged you the place before and after what sort it was by him corrupted If we would in other pointes and articles of the Catholike faith by him denied and impugned vse the like diligence we could be as loÌ„ge in the retical and setting forthe of theÌ„ as he is in the whole corps of his workes where such doctrine is taught But nowe I will procede to the other partes of oure promis touching this one article and after saie somewhat of some other point of his doctrine Oure Lorde in holy scripture by the mouthe off his prophet
thinge In the same place not many lines after thus he concludeth his doctrine of the B. Sacrament I saye therefore the holy mistery of the Supper consisteth of two thinges to witt the earthly signes setting before oure eyes according to oure caepacite the inuisible thinges and the Spirituall verite figured and exhibited by the signes The matter also of this spirituall verite he expoundeth him selfe to be Christ with his deathe and resurrection And in an other place of his workes writing against the councell of Trent thus he speaketh The bread remaineth bread terrestriall and corruptible but the celestiall body of Christe is ioyned thereunto and hereof saithe he by the authorite of Ireneus this mystery consisteth of two thinges the one terrestriall and of earthe the other celestial and of heaueÌ„ to witt the celestiall body off Christ and the materiall bread of earthe Hetherto you see Caluin in the blessed SacrameÌ„t to acknowledg no other body of Christ then Spirituall and celestiall euen as the heretike Valentinus did and to coulour his doctrine also by the authorite off Ireneus Now you shall vnderstande that Ireneus writing against the foresaide heresy of Valentinus for the confutation thereof amonge other arguments vseth the common belefe of the Catholike churche touching this blessed Sacrament Oure doctrine saith he is conformable to the Eucharistie terming so this blessed Sacrament and the Eucharistie confirmeth our doctrine for we offer vnto god that whiche are his owne declaring accordingly the vnite and coniunction of the fleshe and of the Spirit For as the material bread receauing the inuocation of god is no more common bread but the Eucharistie coÌ„sisting of two thinges the one of earth the other of heauen so oure bodies receauing the Eucharistie are no more corruptible but haue certain hâ—pe of resurrection Thus farre Ireneus In the whiche wordes against Valentinus he affirmeth that the Sacrament containeth Christ him selfe whiche consisteth of two thinges or natures being one person to witt of earthely fleshe taken of the virgin and of the celestiall godhead descending from heauen Nowe Caluin bicause he will denie the reall presence of Christes flesh in the Sacrament imagineth the celestiall body of Christ withoute flesh to be ioyned with the material bread as Valentinus the heretike dyd abusing also to that purpose this very place of Ireneus wherein he showeth him selfe other very ignorant of Ireneus meaning and disputation in that place or very malicious in deprauing it after his owne brainesicke fantasie For S. Irene directly reproueth the opinion of Valentinus denieng the incarnation of Christ and his true fleshe bicause in the Sacrament we receaue his true and naturall fleshe and therefore a fewe lines before he saythe Quomodo constabit eis cae Howe wil they be assured that the same consecrated bread is the body of their lorde and the cuppe of his bloud if they denie it to be the Son of god maker of the worlde Doth not here that holy Martyr and lerned Father proue the very flesh and naturall body of Christe against that heretike vpon the grounde of oure belefe touching the reall presence of Christ him selfe in the Sacrament Doth not Caluin taking awaie this grounde of oure belefe and denieng the reall presence of Christes flesh in the Sacrament leauing vs onely a spirituall verite consequently allowe the heresy of Valentinus Againe Valentinus denied the resurrection of oure bodies Ireneus proueth it vnto him by the doctrine of the Sacrament saieng in the same place aboue alleaged Howe dare they saie that oure flesh shall come to corruption and not receaue life which is fedd with the body and bloud of oure lorde Nowe Caluin in his Catechisme in his Institutions and euery where teacheth that oure soule not the body eateth the body of Christ really and truly but not corporally and is nourished there with in hope of life euerlasting Doth not this his doctrine graunting that celestiall foode and onely warrant of oure resurrection to the soule destroie the resurrection of the body as Valentinus the heretike dyd Is he not ones again most manifestly fallen into brokeÌ„ pudles of olde condeÌ„ned heresies Our Sauiour saith Onles you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall haue no life in you he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life and I wil raise him vp againe in the later daie Nowe if the soule onely eateth this heauenly foode as Caluin teacheth the soule onely shall haue life and be raised vp at the later daye For the onely warrant of resurrection is the participation of the flesh and bloud of Christe For thoughe the bodies of infidels of heretikes and of euill Christians shall arise again yet they shall not arise to life nor in suche maner of resurrection as oure Sauiour meaneth whiche is as his blessed Apostle S. Paule teacheth vs to put on immortalite to be made incorruptible and to be glorified For so shal onely the true beleuers in Iesus Christ and partakners of this holy sacrameÌ„t arise As for infaÌ„ts baptised though they receaue not sacrameÌ„tally the flesh and bloud of Christ yet euen as by the faithe of holy church they beleue and are accoÌ„pted to haue faithe so by the communion of Saintes and societe of the Catholike churche they are incorporated to oure Sauiour and assured of their resurrection It wil peradueÌ„ture seme impossible to the fauourers of Caluins doctrine and prisers of his ghospell that he should euer meane any such hainous doctrine as this is Verely what he thought in conscieÌ„ce we wil not iudge but what his writings declareâ— him to be you see I thinke euidently In his Cathechisme labouring to wipe awaie this suspicioÌ„ froÌ„ him he saieth he hathe a witnes and a warrant of the resurrection of his body and of the saluatioÌ„ thereof in that he eateth the signe of life But I praie you could he more manifestly denie the saluation of the body then to attribut it to that thinge whiche can not geue it For what auaileth it for the assurance of life to eate as he saithe the signe of life whiche is nought els but a morcell of bread Where findeth he suche assuraÌ„ce of life in holy scripture What scripture telleth him that by eating the signe of life his body shal rise to incoruption Christ promiseth vs life and resurrectioÌ„ by eating his fleshe and drinking his bloud Is the flesh and bloud of Christe a signe of life Is he not the true bread of life Is not his holy fleshe vnited to the godhead and made one person with god true quickening fleshe and geuing life Surely this doctrine off Caluin vtterly ouerthroweth the resurrection of oure bodies Peter Richier a frenche ghospeller Caluins scholer denieth this fonde doctrine of his Master to witt that by eating the signe of life the body should be assured of resurrection and imagineth an other shifte that the soule being raised spiritually by eating the body of Christe shall
the Iewes were as verely and as truly baptised in the clowde vnder Moyses whiche Caluin most impudently affirmeth as we are in the fonte vnder Christ and his minister why were they baptised againe of S. Ihon or of the Apostles when they came to the faithe of Christ What a numbre of baptims dothe Caluin teache vs beside the one onely baptim of Christ whiche the Catholike church hathe lerned in holy scripture Circuncision the clowde the sea the baptim of S. Ihon and al these the very same and of the selfe same effect and force as the baptim of Christ. Is not Caluin trowe ye a ioyly Anabaptiste Nay dothe he not farre passe the Anabaptistes They go aboute to repete one twise Caluin maketh vs fyue for one off the which euery Christned Iewe by his doctrine hathe foure and euery vnchristened Iewe hathe three I woulde nowe passe from his heresies to his contradictions But I muste nedes put you in minde off one ioyly tricke of Caluin which he practised in the planting of this heresy In his commentaries vpon S Paule where he teacheth this doctrine after longe labour and strife seing he coulde bringe forthe no true childe but that it proued to a mōster and ougle vnnatural thinge and perceauing one foule faute in it which he thought most of all those of his generatiō would abhorre he goeth aboute to cloke it and colour it as wel as he maie The greate faute that he espied him selfe in this doctrine is that it had no expresse scripture for it You shall heare him finde the faute and see howe he will remedy it These be his wordes Sed rursum obijcitur nullum de his verbum extare I d ego fateor sed neque dubium hoc est quin Deus spiritu suo defectum externae praedicationis suppleuerit that is But they will obiecte againe That there is no worde extant hereof That do I confesse but it is not to be doubted but that God by his Spirit hath supplied the lacke of external preaching Lo Caluin nowe is glad to runne to the refuge of the holy ghoste for his doctrine whē scripture faileth him But when the Catholike churche directed allwaies and assisted by the holy ghoste teacheth vs any thinge that is not expressed in holy scripture Caluin can not abide it Hereupon in his Institutiōs he raileth at the adoratiō of Christ in the blessed sacrament bicause in holy scripture saieth he Nulla eius mentio ostendi potest quae tamen non fuisset pretermissa si deo accepta foret that is No mentiō there of cā be showed which notwithstāding had not bē omitted if it had liked god And in the matter of reseruatiō though he graūt that the primitiue church vsed it yet bicause it is not expressed in scripture he wil none of it Thus whē it pleaseth Caluin scripture is requisit and whē it pleaseth him not scripture may be lacked and the spirit of god maie supplie it In like maner though he crie vpō scripture alwaies and as we noted you before oute of his Institutitiōs wil not allow the church no farder thē she bringeth expresse scripture for her yet not only in this place he teacheth beside scripture and cōfesseth it to but also in many other places In the matter of the blessed sacrament of the aultar you haue sene in howe many and sundry pointes his doctrine repugneth to holy scripture while he laboureth to persuade men that to be but bread and wine which oure Sauiour pronounced to be his body and bloud It cometh nowe to my minde howe impudenly he shifteth awaie the authorite of expresse scripture where with he sawe him selfe pressed You shall heare his wordes In his Institutions the 18. chapter thus he writeth Vtcunque verborū Christi tangi se religione quiritentur quo minus figuraté intelligere ausint que sunt tam aperté dicta non est tamen hic satis iustus praetextus cur omnes quae contra obijciuntnr rationes ita respuāt that is Howesoeuer they crie and cōplaine that for the reuerence of Christ his wordes they dare not take it for a figure which was so plainly spoken yet this is no sufficient pretēce why they shuld refuse al such reasons as we bringe against thē This he writeth against the Lutherās which will not go frō the real presence of Christ in the Sacramēt And see we not here the vncredible arrogancy of this proude heretike Doth he not showe him felfe to be a very Antichriste For what can Antichriste require more off men then to haue the expresse wordes of Christ yelde to suche reasons as he will obiect against And dothe not Caluin require the very same Doth he not bidd the Lutherans beleue his reasons against the expresse wordes of Christ And where as the Lutheran alleageth that bicause the wordes of Christ are plaine saieng This is my body he can not be brought to make it a figure as Caluin dothe what other shifte hathe Caluin then to saie that this is no sufficient pretence why they shoulde refuse his reasons for the contrary Which is as much to saie Though Christ speake plainely yet you must harken also what we can saie against it and ye must geue eare to suche reasons as we can laie against him and then folowe my reasō what soeuer Christe or the ghospel telleth you Nowe what cā Antichriste require more Verely as S. Iohn saied of the heretikes of his time Antichristi multi sunt there are many Antichristes so may we most truly say of our time there are many Antichristes but none a more righter Antichrist thē this heretike Calui You haue sene good readers what heresies and howe diuers Caluin hathe partely renewed partly forged of his owne in his doctrine aboute these two Sacraments which onely he acknowleadgeth and taketh for Sacraments If we woulde vse the like diligence in other points of his doctrine we coulde be longe and should be I feare tedious And truly it were to be wished that neither the heresies of this man neither any heresie at all were knowen to the common and vnlerned people But bicause this suttle heretike hathe so wined him selfe in to mens hartes that he hathe trained them not onely from the Catholike churche of Christ but also from the Lutherās and Melanchthonistes which before bore all the swaie of this new gospell I thought good to discouer his heresies and other abominable doctrine aboute these two Sacraments as two of the waightiest articles nowe in controuersy and most of all other touching oure saluation to the entent that not onely the Catholikes and suche as god of his goodnes hathe hetherto staied in the faithe of the churche may as they do vtterly abhorre his doctrine neither yelde by the wickednes of the time to any one point thereof but also oure dere deceiued countremen that so gladly reade his workes and so gredely deuoure his diue lish doctrine maye lerne of
Osiander wickedly wretheth and corrupteth holy scripture this man saith that the interpretations of them bothe are not contrary Againe in the same booke of the Countes of Mansfeld thus we reade Neither is this errour of Osiander sightely to be passed ouer by the which he bindeth the benefits of Christ to certain circunstaunces to bring men thereby to desperation while the minde of man hangeth in doubt whether he be fit to receaue the benefits of Christ or no. But cleane contrarely writeth Smidelin in the booke aboue named If that Osiander saithe he or his aduersaries bicause of this contention inschole pointes only are to be counted heretikes what shall we saie I praie you of the olde fathers But howe swetely agree the semen The Ministers of Mansfeld saie that the doctrine of Osiander hath such a notable errour annexed vnto it that it forceth men to desperation Smidelin saieth it is but a light contention in schole pointes But this felowe perceauing that such manifeste and diuers heresies can in dede by no meanes be reconciled together he bringeth in the olde fathers for example as thoughe they had vsed to confute heretikes by false interpretation of holy scripture which caÌ„ neuer be proued of them Yea it is impossible that heresies may be ouerthrowen by false doctrine For as Aristotle teacheth it is impossible that of a false grounde any truthe may be coÌ„cluded Farder in this booke of Mansfeld the Ministres saie VVe ought to suspect the doctrine of Osiander bicause it is new and not heard of before in the church and we finde nothing in holy scripture that is anything like to the doctrine of Osiander Let vs nowe here what saithe Master Smidelin in his booke alleaged A childe of seuen yeares olde which had lerned but his cathechisme maye euidently perceaue that bothe these doctrines of Osiander and of the VVitenbergers disagree neuer a whit If there were in oure Germain tongue any one worde that might thouroughely expresse an impudent and shameles felowe surely it would nowe serue well the turne to tricke this doctour in his termes So impudently and so past al shame in the face of al the worlde he lieth so lowdely and boasteth so bestly that amonge them all is no difference in doctrine no variaunce in opinions but all smothe all quiet all vniforme and agreable yea and that so euidently so swetely so like pigeons they agree and coll together that a very childe of seuen yeare olde woulde be the better to see it But seing this good man slepeth so soundely in the swete concent and vniforme harmonie of his brethern that it semeth he hathe forgot all the worlde and remembreth not the prety pageants they haue plaied of late and what notes of discorde hathe fallen amoge I wil be so bolde as a litle to wake him and call him to remembraunce of the fourten Lutheran churches which all of late wrote and set forthe in print their writinges against the Confession of Andreas Osiander amonge the which the chefe are The Ministers or diuines of Wittenberge the Ministres of the younger Lordes of Vinaria the Ministres of Magdenburg The ministers of Franckford on this side of Viader The ministers of Ihon of Costrin the Marquis of the dukes of Pomerain and of the cites on the seacost of Saxony as of Lubek of Hamburg of Breme of Luneburg and diuers other Vnto all the which churches and Ministres Osiander in his booke entituled Schmeckbier awnswered paieng them home with such coine as they laide out so that nowe they are bothe on fire one against an other cursing and charging eche other with hainous and abhominable heresies He that listeth not to beleue me let him proue and trie the truthe in their bookes that are abiode in all mens handes let him serche the printers shops of Germany and he shall finde bitter contentions and greuous controuersies betwene the Lutherans and the Osiandrins Yet Smidelin winketh and noddeth still and will not see all this But if he be an vpright and plaine dealing man let him come forthe and proue in open writing that any thinge here saide in false or fained Well Smidelin goeth forthe after his fashion and laboureth against al reason to make the worlde wene That amonge the Lutherans and the Zwinglians there is no variaunce of any waight or force touching any articles of our faith of Christian religioÌ„ But against this saieng of Smidelin Luther him self directly pronounceth codemning the Swinglians in these wordes I must nedes eschew and auoide them as men condemned by their owne iudgemeÌ„t nether may I ioyne with them in any meanes nor by letters nor by writinges nor by worde nor by dede as the Lorde hathe commaunded whether he be Swenckfeldius Zwinglius or what soeuer he be called For I accompte them all a lyke as in dede they are whosoeuer beleue not that in the Supper of the Lorde the bread is his true and naturall body which as well Iudas and the wicked man doth receaue as S. Peter and all the Saintes VVhosoeuer will not beleue this let him not medle with me or in writing or in talke nor let him not looke for any communion with me For he shall but lese his labour And a litle after It shall nothing helpe the Swermers or Sacramentaries that they trifle aboute the Sacrament of the spirituall eating and drinking of the body and bloud of Christ and of the charite and vnite of Christians c. It is in vaine that they beleue in the father the Son and the holy ghoste and in Christ our Sauyour All this I saye nothing auaileth them howe truly and sincerely so euer they pronounce this faith with their false and blasphemous tongue as longe as they denie this one article or reproue it as false where Christ saith of the Sacrament Take breade and eate This is my body For this is the maner of all heretikes first to beginne but with one article and then after to denie all the rest euen as a ringe if it be ones broken or cleft it is vnprofitable and vnfite and as a bell if he be crackt or crased in any part he leseth his so wnde and is worth nought Thus farre Luther Let vs nowe on the other side here the awnswer of the Swinglians of Zuriâ—h In the third treatise of their booke made against the last Confession of Luther thus they write Luther craketh him selfe to be the prophet and Apostle of the Germans which neuer lerned of any man but all other of him that no man did any thing but Luther hath done all and whatsoeuer he hath not done hath remained vndone VVhatsoeuer he hath saide it must stand and no man so hardy to gainsaie it Iff men speake not iust as Luther doth then they are cursed and persecuted as heretikes And a litle before Luther hath forsaken god and all his honour calling vs a condemned and cursed
secte But let him take hede lest with this teasty and wicked talke he condemne not him selfe and proue him selfe an archeheretike seing that he nether will nor can haue the societe of such as sincerely teache and confesse Christ our Lorde And howe wonderfully doth Luther here betray himself with all his felow sprets and deuills VVhat foule wordes vseth he mete only for the deuill For he saith that there dwelleth in the Zwinglians a malicious deuill bothe nowe and euer that their hart and mynde hath the deuill dwelling in them raining ouer them and percing thourough them that their mouth is full of all lies and the deuill him selfe is poored in them poored ouer them and poored thourough them Did euer any man heare such talke of any sobre or reasonable mans mouth yea or of any furiouâ—e deuill or raging sprit Againe in the same place Luther seketh onely after his owne he is obstinat prowde and high minded condemning boldely and deliuering vp to the deuill all which will not agree vnto his minde He raileth and curseth like a deuill There is no token of mekenes or beneuolence in him Here would I wish M. Smidelin to come forthe and tell vs what Luther meaneth by such wordes of his as we haue here alleaged I am very sure he is neuer able to make accorde betwene the opinions of Luther and Zwinglius touching the Sacrament although he laboureth much about it As when he writeth in an other place VVâ—eÌ„ the one part saithe he teacheth bread in the holy Supper to signifie the body of Christ to be the figurâ— of the body of Christe to be the value of the body of Christ to be the pleadge of the body of Christ yet all these teache beleue and professe one doctrine and one opinion the difference is only in the interpretation as Luther VVitnesseth and in the phrase or maner of speaking not in the thing it selfe This saithe Smidelin and Amsdorffius in his confession obiecteth it vnto him with these wordes There be Lutherans which saie they condemne the Zwinglians but the preface of Brentius vpon Master Iames Smidelins booke testifieth the contrary For here they go about on gods name to reconcile godly Luther and Zwinglius together which is vtterly impossible For who euer heard that contradictories could be made one Such childish matters and impossible thinges they are not ashamed to warrant which beare themselues for Masters of Christian religion as though al we were stockes and blockes Let here the ChristiaÌ„ reader confer together these debates aâ—d contentioÌ„s of the two prophets of god Luther and Swinglius and set Smidelin as a pacifier and arbiter to bring them at one surely I doubt not but he shall soone perâ—eaue that Smidelin in this enterprise other hath lost some peace of his brayne or hath vtterly cast awaie al honesty and shame Luther saieth directly and plainly that the SwingliaÌ„s doctrine is not only contrary bothe in worde and in dede to his doctrine but also that their opinion is so pestiferous and execrable that he doubteth not to pronounce theÌ„ al starke heretikes that subscribe and agree vnto it yea and this with such a vehemeÌ„cie he vttereth that he affirmeth who so euer swarueth in this artikle of the sacrament he is an heretike in all other artikles and pointes of the faith Now cometh Smidelin and saith that the opinion of Luther and Swinglius touching the Supper is all one and that all the controuersie remaineth only in wordes And in his latin booke set forthe against me he saith of them It is most certain that their opinion and minde is all one therefore they agree in doctrine And where as I noted that amonge the Suinglians were eight sectes that Smidelin denieth also and saith Although Zwinglius varied and swarued some what from Luther yet of their schisme there were but two partes Therefore in his booke against my table he raileth in this sort Of these two partes this nightrauen so terming me hath made eight sectes The first part whom he calleth Adessenarii which beleue the praesence of the true body and bloud of Christ in the Supper he diuideth in to foure sectes as the Significatiui the Tropistae the Energici and the Arabonarij wherein who loketh nere to the matter shall see he hath plaied the wicked and naughtie mans parte I knowe very well that the vnlerned man reading these his wordes must nedes suppose that I haue iniuriousely slaundered the Swinglians and done like a false felowe to charge honest men with eight diuers heresies whereas the Lutherans and the Swinglians are diuided only in two partes and those two partes also as Smidelin saith consist only in the phrase or maner of speaking not in the thinge or dede What theÌ„ haue we here to awnswer Luther shal take the paines to do it for me whiche in his brief Confession writeth after this sorte At the very first these men meaning the Sacramentaries were well warned of the holy ghost when vpon that one text they diuided them selues in to seuen sprits eche one differing alwaies froÌ„ the other First Carolstadius would haue the text so that This is my body should signifie Here sitteth my body Then Zwinglius saith that could not be well saide though the father of heauen had reueled it therefore being moued with another holy sprit of his owne thus he turned the text Take eate This signifieth my body The third Oecolampadius brought forthe his third holy sprit which turned that text in to another hewe as this Take eate this is the token of my body The fourth Stencfeldius thinking to make his stenche to smell as muske brought vs forthe out of his holy sprit this rule These wordes This is my body must be remoued from our sight for they do let vs of the spirituall vnderstanding c. The fifte holy sprit being but the excremeÌ„ts of that other do thus reade that text Take and eate That which is deliuered for you is this my body The sixt holy sprit saith Take and eate This is my body in remembraunce as though Christ had saide Take and eate this is the monument of my body The seuenth holy sprit Ioannes Campanus bringeth this exposition Take and eateâ— This is my bready body or body of bread Beside all these an other sprit flieth about for the deuill is an holy and a greate sprit which persuadeth men that herein is no article of our faith and therefore we ougth not to contend of this matter but leaue it fre to euery man to beleue herein what he list Thus farre be the wordes of Luther Is not here Smidelin an honest and an vpright man is he not a kinde scholer towarde his Master Luther The master saith There are amonge the Swinglians eight diuers factioÌ„s or sectes The scholer saieth That the Zwinglians amonge them selues do perfitly agree and from Luther they differ only in wordes and maner of speaking Is not thinke you Master
was also a spirituall foode yea and the very same which we receaue in the Sacrament the doctrine of Caluin defendeth though blasphemously as you shal see anon in the conferences of his doctrine with holy scripture Hereof will it folowe by the absurde doctrine of Caluin that the figure shal excell the verite Manna shall passe the body of oure Lorde the synagoge of Iewes shall be off more perfection then the Church off Christ ransomned with his precious bloud Againe if the soule onely be fedde in this blessed Sacrament the paschall lambe shall also passe and excel it The paschal lambe was eatē contra spiritum percussorem against the destroyer spirit for a sure preseruation of the Iewes bothe bodely and ghostely euen as this heauenly passeouer wardeth vs bothe body and soule frō the assautes of the deuill And our Sauiour beginning with his disciples this heauenly banquet calleth it a passeouer as Tertullian expoundeth it and Origē saying I haue inwardely desired to eate this passeouer with you before I suffer ▪ if the Iewes passeouer excelled this as the sacramētary doctrine of Ihon Caluin importeth why desired Christ so inwardly to eate this passeouer with his disciples doth the lambe of God Christ him selfe not so much profit the due receauers thereof as the paschall lambe of the Iewes Whereunto thinke you tendeth this doctrine but by litle and litle to traine vs euen to infidelite who tendreth his soule helthe and life euerlasting let him spedely beware of it Thirdly I might aske Caluin and all the ranke of sacramentaries swarming nowe so miserably in oure dere countre to the vtter destruction off the same where they reade in holy scripture that the soule onely fedeth on Christ and receaueth the body off Christ. The wordes of holy scripture declaring vnto vs the promis of this heauenly foode be directed vnto men consisting of body and soule not to the soule onely Beside that life and resurrection the promis of this blessed Sacrament are no lesse requisit to the body ▪ then to the soule as we shall hereafter more at large declare when we come to the olde heresies depending of Caluins doctrine Where you shal see that this doctrine of the Sacrrmentaries graunting only to the soule the eating of Christes his flesh denieth the resurrection of the body As touching the seconde pointe to witt that we receaue the body of Christ truly and really and yet so that the same body of Christ is as farre distant from vs as heauen is from the earthe I knowe not what can be more absurdely saide Caluin in dede will haue this to be a miraculous operation of the holy ghoste For saith he the vertu of the holy ghost is such that it is able not onely to gather together thinges by distaunce of place separated one from the other but also to vnite them together and make them one Marke and ponder well the saing of Caluin for this reason is the onely ancre off this point of his doctrine He semeth perhaps to some that lightly ouerrunne his wordes to speake reason Let vs thē cōsidre his wordes It is most true that the holy ghost being god him self can do al thinges that can be done and therefore can as Caluin saith knitte in one those thinges that are farre distant as God can by his omnipotency ioyne heauē and earthe together which we see are most distant but then they being so ioyned shall no more be distant We graunte that by the vertu off the holy ghoste the body off Christ which is in heauen may be the foode of oure soules But then it shall not onely be in heauen but here also or els oure soules shall be there to and then seing oure bodyes remaine here I see not but whosoeuer communicateth after Caluins doctrine he must dye the soule being separated from the body and we saie not onely he can do so but the Catholike churche teacheth vs he doth so Nowe Caluin bicause he will denie the real presence of Christ ▪ in the Sacrament imagineth that we eate the body of Christe really withoute the reall presence But this imagination is a plaine contradictition And contradiction is of those thinges that can not be done A thing can not be present and distant to A thing can not be hotte and cold to in one very place and moment of time And therefore all lerned men haue euer saide that God worketh no contradiction This then being a plaine contradiction to haue Christ present and not present to haue him in the Sacrament and not in the Sacrament we saye the holy ghoste dothe not worke it Not bycause off any impossibilite off God but bycause the thinge it selfe is impossible And euen as we may wel say God can not sinne and yet derogat no whit from the omnipotency of God so maye we saye God can not worke a contradiction God can not make a thinge present that is in dede absent and not present and yet we diminishe not the omnipotency of allmightye God For that consisteth in suche thinges as are semely for his diuine Maiesty and are of them selues possible Nowe contradiction is of it selfe vtterly impossible Againe the workes of God are permanent and vniforme the one of them destroieth not the other But in contradictions one parte destroyeth the other as a thinge to be present taketh awaye the absence thereoff And likewise the absence destroieth the presence To saie therefore as all lerned men saye that God can worke no contradiction argueth not an impopotency or lacke of abylite in God But rather the doctrine of Caluin making God the authour of contradiction argueth it Theodore Beza and his companions at the late Synod off Poissy in Fraunce praesenting vpp their confession touching this blessed Sacrament thoughe they were all scholers of Caluin yet they dyd not attribute this contradiction to the operation off the holy ghoste but vnto faith The wordes of their Confession presented the laste daye of September vnto the councell are these Bycause the worde off God vpon the which oure fayth is stayed warranteth vs the true and naturall body by the vertu of the holy Ghoste In this respect we acknowleadge that the body and bloud of oure Lorde Iesus Christ is in the Supper By these wordes Encestesgard In this respect we meane that we apprehēd this great and excellent mystery by faith which is of such vertu and efficacy that it maketh thinges absent to be praesent Hitherto the wordes of their confession Wherein they attribute that to faithe whiche Caluin their Master attributeth to the operation of the holy ghoste But be their faithe neuer so stronge and vehement yet shall they neuer obtaine thereby that one selfe thinge shall be bothe present and not present For this being a contradiction is a thinge impossible and suche as God him selfe worketh not Faith saieth S. Paule est argumentum rerum non apparentium Is a certainte off thinges which are not sene By faith
we are assured of suche thinges as seme not to be but are in dede But a thinge to be whiche is not oure faithe can not assure vs. So by faith we beleue the present being off Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament which appeareth not present vnto vs. Nowe then if Caluin shooteth much amisse to attribut his fonde imagination to the miraculous working off God howe muche were his scholers beside the marke that seing Gods power failed woulde flie to their faithe and attribute suche operation to it as God him selfe worketh not And this doctrine being so absurde Caluin hath inuented bycause he woulde destroye Transubstantiation That is to saye Rather then with the Catholike churche he will graunte that Christ maye be in many places at ones as in heauen and in the blessed Sacrament to whiche is no contradiction but a worke though aboue the commō course of nature yet wel agreable to the omnipotēcy of almighty God and vniformely of al holy fathers acknowledged he inuenteth an imagination of his owne making God the authour off contradiction saieng we eate Christ in the Sacrament aud yet being as farre distant from vs as heauen is from the earthe whiche bothe is a thing that God neuer worketh and such as neuer man before the dayes of Iohn Caluin taught in Christ his churche I haue ben good readers some what long in debating this one point bicause I wish euery mā to vnderstande me As for the deceaued scholers of Caluin in oure dere countre if they will not beleue the Catholike churche touching the omnipotency of Christe to be in diuers places at ones they are confuted by the greate worke of Brentius a Lutheran de vbiquitate sette forth this very yeare for the proufe of that onely pointe though it be otherwise hereticall Caluin in his commentaries vpon S. Iohn saith in expresse wordes I confesse we eate Christ by no other meanes then by beleuing And what beleuing he meaneth in his Catechisme he doth expresse In beleuing that Christe is dead for our redemptiō and hath risen for our iustificatiō our soule eateth the body of Christ spiritually Finally he meaneth no other eating of Christ in the sacramēt thē by faith For vpon the sixt of Ihon he affirmeth eating to be the worke of faith and in his Institutions he calleth it the effect of faithe And this againe is a greate stay of al the Sacramentary doctrine to make men wene that we ought to looke for no other eating of Christ his flesh and drinking his bloud in the blessed sacramēt then by faith For this their faith is so precious a thing in the eye of Caluin that he is not ashamed to write in his cōmētaries vpō S. Matthew these wordes If we could sufficiently be mindefull of the passiō of Christ it were but superfluous to haue the commō vse of Sacraments for they are remedies of oure infirmitie This doctrine bicause it is a most perilous and most blasphemous doctrine and yet as I vnderstande to my greate grief much rooted in the hartes of many of my dere deceaued countremen I wil labour with such reasons as I may to remoue it frō their hartes For truly this proude confidence of faith planted by Luther watered by Caluin and encreased by the pricking forthe of the deuill in his Ministres excludeth all meanes to call for grace all due preparation to the holy Sacraments all endeuour of vertuous liuing First if by beleuing in Christ we eate Christe and eate no otherwise then by faithe then is all excommunication vaine Bothe the Catholike church hathe allwaies practised and the protestants of our countre for the maintenaunce of their wicked doctrine do gredely practise that for certain hainous crimes men are kepte from the holy table as they calle it or embarred the receauing of the blessed Sacrament as the Catholike churche termeth it The doctrine off the Catholike church teaching vs as the wordes of our Sauiour expresly importe to eate not onely by faith but in dede the fleshe of our Sauiour in the blessed Sacrament worthely excludeth from that most holy mistery open penitents as the primitiue church speaketh that is suche as hauing committed notorious crimes either wickedly perseuere in the same or though repenting thereof haue not yet done due satisfactiō therefore But the doctrine of Caluin and al the Sacramentaries excluding the reall presence off our Sauiour and graūting this heauēly foode to faith only what auaileth it thē to excōmunicat or remoue frō their table any notorious offender keping yet not withstanding his faithe and beleuing allwaies in the passiō of our Sauiour and resurrectiō also if by faith onely he receaue Christ then may he eate as well at home in his house as if he were admitted in to the congregation For though he be excommunicat he loseth not yet his faithe vnlesse perhaps as they saie according to the doctrine of their graundfather Luther that who hath faith hath withall necessarely good workes whereupon they builde their perilous doctrine of only faith so contrary wise they will saie that a notorious offender a bearer of malice a disobedient person and so forthe leseth with al his faith by the lacke whereof he can not eate Christ vnlesse he be absolued if they saie this first I aske what if the person repent before the pretended bishop or Ordinary absolue him In this case other he beleueth and so eateth Christ though he stande yet excommunicat as being not absolued or he beleueth not and so his faith dependeth vpon the external absolution which were to superstitious a doctrine for the newe ghospell Againe though we graunted them this suttle shift and suffred them so to pluck their heades oute of the coler that their excommunication were good bicause their excommunicats haue loste their faith and are become infidels though truly their excōmunicatiō be nothing els but the diuels curse yet by this their doctrine they condemne the primitiue church embarring penitents such as lacked no faithe pardy onles a man maie bewaile his sinnes and haue no faithe some three some seuen some ten yeares some euen to the houre off their death from the receauing of the blessed Sacrament Nowe if they boldely condemne the primitiue church what maie they not be bolde to do yet they beare men in hande forsothe that they reduce all to the state off the primitiue church and will be tried by the first six hundred yeares after Christ. Well this only practise in the primitiue Church excluding penitents from the blessed Sacrament directly destroieth oure Sacramenaries doctrine teaching vs to eate Christ no other wise as Caluin saythe then by beleuing Againe the practise of the primitiue church was that the Cathechumeni that is such as were not yet baptised and beleued not withstanding bothe in the passion and in the resurrection of Christ should not only not be admitted to receaue the holy Sacramēt but were not suffred to tary in the church
as a Sacrament hauing efficacy thereunto but to be a signe of that entring to the entent that being first grafte in Christ or being borne of Christen parents by the vertu of Gods promise or being borne of infidels by faith and repentaunce as he teacheth manifestly in his institutions being as I saie thus grafte in Christ before then by baptim as by a sure token we maie be accompted for Christians not made such And this to be his very meaning I will by his owne wordes declare you oute of his Institutions In his chapter of baptim not farre from the beginning thus he writeth Baptim promiseth vs no other cleāsing then by the sprinckling of the bloud of Christe whiche is figured by the water who then will saie that we are cleansed with this water which dothe assuredly testifie that oure true and onely cleansing is the bloud of Christe Lo here he teacheth baptim to figure oure cleansing procured by the sheading of Christ his bloud whiche he calleth oure true and onely cleansing It is most true that by the precious deathe and passion of oure Sauiour we are purged from the sinne of our father Adam and all other actuall sinnes And yet it hath pleased God to vse meanes for the appliēg of this souuerain benefit vnto vs. Those are amonge other his holy sacraments And Caluin him selfe writing vpon S. Paule to the Corinthians saith plainely that by the blessed Sacrament of the aultar Sacrificij beneficium nobis applicatur The benefit of the sacrifice is applied vnto vs. And writing vppon the sixte of Ihon he blameth them which teache the fleshe of Christ to profit vs onely as it was crucified and saieth Quin potius comedere eam necesse est vt crucifixa profit that is Na rather we must of necessite eate it to the entent it maye profit vs which was crucified And againe in in the same place he saieth Nihil nobis prodesset victimā illam semel esse immolatā nisi nūc sacro epulo vesceremur that is It shoulde nothing auaile vs to haue that sacrifice ones offred onles we did nowe also eate of this holy bāquet Caluin him selfe therefore acknowledgeth that not only the passion of Christ suffiseth but that also this Sacrament of Christ his body and bloud must feede vs. The like truly we saie of baptim For as our Sauiour saied Onles you eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud you shall haue no life in you so he saide Onles a man be borne againe of water and of the holy ghoste he shall not enter in to the kingdome of heauen And though Caluin call here the bloud of Christe oure onely clensing yet S. Paule is not afeared to call baptim also Lauacrum regenerationis the cleansing of our new birthe saieng we were saued thereby Againe Caluin him self writing vppon S. Paule to the Romans teacheth no lesse For there he saith that by baptim we are graffed in to the body of Christe and liue by the substance thereof euen as the graffe by the stocke sauing that the graffe kepeth his naturall taste and sape but we kepe nothinge offour owne but chaunge vtterly our nature in to the nature of Christ. Howe then is baptim as he made it before a figure of our clensing and a testimony onely Yow see he cōdemneth him selfe And this I haue thought good presently to declare allbeit beside oure principall purpose leste that the other doctrine of Caluin being apparently plausible might corrupt the vnlerned and well meaning Reader But now to the matter againe In the same chapter of baptim Caluin mocketh at the whole Catholike churche as Pelagius the heretike did a thousand yeares paste teaching that originall sinne is taken awaye by baptim Brefely in the next chapter folowing of his Institutions at the ende thereof he maketh so light of baptim in the children of Christen parents that if contempt and negligence be not on our partes oure children saieth he without daunger may lacke baptim Thus lo you see howe Caluin maketh baptim but a figure and token or testimony of clensing and euen so much maketh he the blessed Sacrament off the aultar comparing it vnto baptim to witt a figure a signe a testimony which a man may as well lacke as haue and withoute the which a man maye as well receaue Christ as with it imagining that these two most waighty and holy Sacramēts for of al the rest he maketh no accompte at all are naught els but as certain markes and tokens whereby Christ may knowe his flocke lest perhaps in seking for them he should misse See to what point oure Christen religion is brought by these newe ghospellers of late yeares Forsothe to mere signes tokens and figures As though we were yet vnder the shadowes off Moyses lawe as though that which happened to thē in figures were not brought nowe to a sure verite as though the coming of Christ procured not better and more present remedies for mans saluation then such as were betokened in the tabernacle finally as though the church of Christ redemed with his most precious bloud were fedde with figures and traded ▪ with signes and tokens as the synagoges of the Iewes was Would Christ thinke we threaten vs damnation for lacke of signes as he dothe for wante off baptim saieng vnto Nicodemus Onles a man be borne again of water and the holy ghoste he shall not enter in to the kingdom of heauen Would he denie vs the life of resurrection for lacke of tokens as he doth for not receauing his precious body and bloud saieng vnto the Iewes Onles you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shal haue no life in you Would S. Paule pronounce dānation vpō vs for the vnworthy receauing of a piece of bread as he doth for the vnworthy receauing of Christ his body Was S. Peter deceaued when he wrote that by baptim we were saued as Noe was by water or S. Paul writing that Christ cleāsed his church with the washing of water in the word of life or the whole church in S. Augustins time condemning Pelagius for an heretike for that he denied as Caluin dothe nowe that by Baptim originall sinne was taken awaie We recited you before in this laste conclusion of Caluins whole doctrine touching this blessed Sacrament oute of his resolutions vpon the sacraments that we receiue Christ no lesse withoute the vse off the Cōmuniō thē in vsing it You haue heard there his reasons why Truly he vttereth this doctrine off his not in one or two but allmost in all places of his workes where he treateth of this matter In his cōmentaries vpon the sixte of Ihon where Christ promiseth life and resurrection to those whiche eate his fleshe and drinke his bloud Caluin saithe Nō de Coena habetur cōcio sed de perpetua communicatione quae extra Caenae vsum nobis constat that is Christ preacheth not of the Supper but of
flesh and bloud off Christ yet he meaneth nothing so But why did he thus dally and delude the world a man maye demaunde Forsothe as I suppose euen for this cause Caluin being lerned and knowing the truthe wel if he had listed to vtter it perceaued right wel by the expresse wordes of scripture in sundry places that Christ of his passing mercy and goodnes woulde be ioyned to man not onely Spiritually and by grace but euē really and truly by the participation of his body and bloud Caluin knewe all this and acknowledged it as you haue heard in his wordes before for expresse scripture moued him thereunto Notwithstanding being vndoubtedly malitious and selfe willed and in dede a very heretike desirous to plāte a newe doctrine to bringe the churche in cōtēpt pricked with malice against the clergy which in his workes he vttereth many times though he graunted that man receaued whole Christ bothe in body and Spirit as he writeth in the 18. chapter of his Institutions yet he would not graunt the reall presence off Christ his body which the church teacheth and all holy fathers haue acknowledged as a most necessary consequent to the reall receauing but as you see imagineth a communion of Christ his fleshe to be deriued vnto vs by the Spirit off Christ as by a pipe Bicause therefore truthe and falshood can not possibly agree he falleth often in to open contradictions sayeng one thinge as truthe and conscience taught him and then saieng an other thinge as pride malice ▪ and enuy moued him the walking mates of heresy Hereof rise the sundry and manifold contradictions in his writings not onely aboute this most holy mistery but in the doctrine off baptim and of fre will especially as we shall in parte note hereafter vnto you And truly it hath so pleased God to confounde the counsell of these Achitophels rebelling againste their Liege Souerain the churche of God that not onely one against the other teacheth most contrary but also eche one with him selfe disagreeth And this mercifull prouidēce of God hathe ben allwayes a souerain meanes for the vtter cōfusiō of heretikes Let vs returne to the wordes of Caluin aboue alleaged and see why Caluin graunting first a reall and true receauing of Christ his body and bloud afterwarde denieth the reall presence thereof whiche is to denie that he saied before He saieth that Scripture speaking of oure partaking with Christ referreth the whole power thereof vnto the Spirit for S. Paule saieth he writing to the Romanes in the eight chapter teacheth that Christ dwelleth in vs no otherwise then by his Spirit Marke here well good Readers and see the truthe off Caluin S. Paule saieth in that eight chapter that the Spirit of god dwelleth in vs and againe that the Spirit of him that raised vp Iesus from deathe dwelleth in vs and that he whiche raised vp Christ from deathe shall quicken oure mortall bodies bicause of his Spirit that dwelleth in vs. In all these wordes S. Paule teacheth the Spirit off god god him selfe to dwell in vs to quicken oure mortall bodies that they die no more in sinne but liue to god Other thē this S. Paule in all that chapter speaketh not touching the dwelling of the Spirit of god in vs. Reade the chapter and see Nowe is this to saie that Christ dwelleth in vs no otherwise then by his Spirit Marke the saieng of S. Paule and the consequence of Caluin S. Paule saieth the Spirit off god dwelleth in vs. and Caluin saieth Christ dwelleth in vs no otherwise then by his Spirit is this a good consequence The spirit of god dwelleth in vs. Ergo he dwelleth in vs no otherwise then by his Spirit Euē as good as this VVe are iustified by faith ergo by only faith These wordes no otherwise then are the wordes of Caluin fathered vpon S. Paule not the wordes of S. Paule they are the limitation of a prowde heretike set vpon holy scripture not the wordes off holy scripture He folowed herein his father Luther who translating the wordes of S. Paule per legem cognitio peccati By the lawe cometh the knowledge of sinne turneth it thus By the lawe cometh naught els but knowledge of sinne which texte to what purpose he so peruerted you haue sene in the seconde parte of this Apologye But what will some scholer of Caluin saie though S. Paule saie not expressly so yet perhaps he meane so seing that no scripture beside expresseth any other dwelling of Christ in vs thē by his Spirit I awnswer All were it true that scripture expressed no other dwelling of Christ in vs then by his Spirit yet were it not true that S. Paule saied so in that chapter as Caluin saieth he doeth But the Scripture saieth plaine that we are ioyned to Christe not onely in Spirit but also in body heard you not before that S. Paule sayed that we are membres of Christ his body bones of his bones and fleshe of his fleshe And dothe not Caluin saie that this can not be perfourmed onles whole Christ bothe in Spirit and in body cleaue vnto vs they are his wordes before alleaged oute of his Institutions in the. 18 chapter And dothe not Caluin here ones againe write a plaine contradiction he tolde vs euen nowe that Christ dwelleth in vs no otherwise then by his Spirit and that S. Paule taught so Nowe he telleth vs that whole Christ must cleaue vnto vs bothe in Spirit and body and that bicause S. Paule teacheth so sayeng that we are membres of Christ his body bones of his bones and fleshe of his fleshe Lo you see him in cōtrary tales nowe truste his euidence who liste Thanked be god Caluin hath turned the weapon vpon him selfe minding to strike the churche of Christe Againe Caluin disputing against the Catholikes that the euill men receaue not Christ in the Sacrament maketh his argument of the body of Christ whiche if euill men receaued seing they receaue no life but damnation they shoulde saieth Caluin receaue a dead body and the body of Christ without the Spirit of Christe If this reason of Caluin be good thē the good and worthy receauer muste nedes receaue the body of Christ not onely the Spirit of Christ he muste nedes haue Christ dwelling in him bodely not onely Spiritually as he saied before His wordes are these in his commentaries vppon S. Paule to the Corinthians Ego hoc axioma teneo neque mihi vnquam excuti patiar Christum non posse a Spiritu suo diuelli vnde constituo non recipi mortuum eius corpus neque etiam eum otiosum aut disiunctum a Spiritus sui gratia virtute that is I holde this principle and will neuer be brought from it that Christ can not be diuided from his Spirit wherefore I determin that his dead body can not be receaued nor he also vnfrutefull seuered from the grace or vertu off his Spirit Here Caluin
labouring to confute the Catholike doctrine confoundeth him selfe For this is his reason The euill maÌ„ receaueth not the Spirit of Christ therefore he receaueth not the body of Christ which can not be without it A man might here saie to Caluin why Sir no more dothe the good maÌ„ nether for you saied euen nowe that the Spirit of Christ onely dwelleth in vs which if it be so the body and fleshe off Christe dwelleth not in vs theÌ„ if we that receaue Christe as muche and in as ample sorte as he may be receaued receaue onely the spirit of Christe what nede you feare in the euill mans receauing diuiding of Christ from his spirit or his dead body to be receaued it were enough to saie the euill man receaueth not the Spirit of Christ in the sacrament and therefore he receaueth not Christ. But nowe you reason as though the euill man if he receaued Christe should receaue his body withoute the Spirit and as though he good man receaued bothe body and Spirit Whiche were contrary to that you saied before That not the fleshe of Christ but a communion of his flesh which is as you teach a mere spirituall thing to witt a quickening vertu out of Christ his fleshe is deriued vnto vs by his Spirit What could Caluin awnswer here being pressed of one that would not forsake his aduauntage Wel He is gone and paste all awnswering But he hath scholers good store on liue Let them awnswer and defend these contradictions if they can Or if they ne can ne list to defend them let them put him oute of credit and beleue such a false felowe no more I beseche oure Lorde they maye so do Caluin in his institutions as you heard before saieth The Spirit of Christe is as a certaine cundyt pipe by the which whatsoeuer Christ is and hath is deriued vnto vs. And this spirituall pipe he imagineth to be a meanes to receaue the communion of Christ his fleshe by Now in other places he maketh the flesh of Christe to be as a pipe for conuaiaunce of life vnto vs. In his commentaries vppon the sixte of Ihon thus he writeth Sicut aeternus Dei sermo fons vitae est ita caro eius veluti canalis vitam quae intrinsecus in diuinitate residet ad nos diffundit that is As the aeternall worde off God Christe is the fountaine of life so his fleshe like as a pipe deriueth vnto vs life abiding within the deite Before he saied The Spirit of Christ deriued vnto vs all that Christ is or hath and so coÌ„sequently life Now he saieth The fleshe of Christ conuaieth life vnto vs. Before he made the Spirit off Christ a pipe for conuaiaunce of life Nowe he maketh the â—leshe of Christ to be that pipe Doth not this doctrine confounde it selfe vnlesse to establish his doctrine he will confounde the two natures of Christ God and man flesh and Spirit making eche one instrument to the other and appointing to them both like actions and functions Which were the heresy of the Monothelita Caluin in his commentaries vpoÌ„ the sixt of Ihon and vpon S. Paules first epistle to the Corinthians disputeth earnestly that euil men receaue not Christ in the Sacrament His reasons therefore in the fourthe contradiction we touched Woulde it not nowe seme a straunge matter to heare Caluin saie the contrary and confesse that all which come to the communion receaue the body and bloud of Christ but the good and worthy receaue onely to saluation euen as the Catholike doctrine teacheth were it not a wonderous matter to see Caluin agree herein with vs and disagree with him selfe Lo then his wordes In his institutions the 18. chapter prouing oute of S. Paule that bicause we must be membres of Christ his body bones of his bones and fleshe of his flesh we must cleaue vnto him bothe in spirit and in body he inferreth thus Talem corporis sanguinis sui communionem caete Such a communion of his body and bloud Christ in the holy Supper dothe testifie offer and deliuer to all that sitt downe at that spirituall banquet although cum fructu profitably he be receaued of the faithful onely Lo you heare Caluin saie that all which sitt downe at the spirituall banquet of the Supper receaue the body and bloud of Christ offred and deliuered vnto them And bicause you might not doubte but that the euill receaue also he putteth a distinction betwene them and the good saieng that the faithefull onely receaue cum fructu profitably geuing vs to vnderstande that the other receaue but vnprofitably els had it ben in vaine to saie the good or faithefull onely receaued profitably it had ben inough to saie the good onely receaued But it is a common saieng oportet mendacem esse memorem a lyar had nede haue a good memory Caluin here remembred not that he had in other places defended the contrary but labouring here to sette forthe to the vttermost his doctrine of the Supper and to make men wene that he taught according to scripture the real receauing of whole Christ in the SacrameÌ„t pronounceth stoutely that Christ in the Supper not onely offreth but deliuereth him selfe and that re ipsa in very dede as in an other place he writeth to all that sitt downe at that Spirituall banquet Truly I maye saie here and in all these other contrarietes of Caluin as ofte as the one parte is true for many times bothe partes are starke false that whiche S. Augustin wrote of the Donatistes who being in a solemne conference at Carthage sometimes vttered the truthe against theÌ„ selues vnwares as Caluin dothe nowe that is O Violentia veritatis Quod semper illa tenuit inimicoruÌ„ confessio confirmauit O the force of truthe That which truth alwaies held the confession of her enemies hath coÌ„firmed Which yet in his other contradictions more clerely shal appeare Caluin in his institutioÌ„s writeth this Omnino isthaec pijs tenenda regula est c. This is a sure rule to be kepte of all good meÌ„ that as ought as they see the signes appointed of God bread and wine in the supper they think assuredly and persuade them selues that the verite of the thinge betokened is also present For to what purpose should Christ geue in to thy hand the signe of his body but to make the right sure of partaking thereof For if it be true that the visible signe is geuen vs for confirmation of the vnuisible thing to be geuen the signe of the body being taken let vs not doubte but the body also is geuen vnto vs. Nowe in his resolutions vppon the sacraments thus he writeth Oultre plus L'vtilité que nous recepuons aux sacramens ne sedoibt restraindre au temps de la reception d'iceux comme si le signe visible si tost qu'l nous est proposé nous apportoit auec soy en vng mesme instant la grace de
Ieremy speaking against the perilous presumption of those which forsake him and his holy worde pronounceth the plage that falleth on theÌ„ in these wordes They haue forsake me the fouÌ„taine of life and haue digged theÌ„ selues pittes and pudles al to broken and suche as can holde no water geuing vs to vnderstand that who so forsaketh the right waie prescribed vnto vs by allmighty god in his holy worde and refuseth the moste holesom drinke of the fountaine god him selfe is forced forthewith being as a man berefted of his right vnderstanding and sence to lappe in suche pudle as the fonde imagination of his owne braine instructed and supported with the deuill ready to thruste forwarde when god forsaketh can inueÌ„t Of suche it is saied in holy scripture Who loueth the peril shall perish in it and againe VVho toucheth the pitche shal be filed therewith You haue sene howe Caluin hathe forsaken the expresse wordes of god in his ghospell to furder thereby the plausible doctrine and pleasaunt poison of his owne imaginations You shall nowe see what pittes and pudles he is faine to lappe in forsaking the doctrine of Christ in the ghospell Truly they are suche and so filthy that I feare the recitall thereof maie be to good Christian hartes more noysom then profitable Notwithstanding bicause this man is of suche credit amonge the deceaued sorte of oure countre that his Institutions the very fardle of all his beggarly doctrine and boxe of his venimous heresies is commaunded to be read of suche as haue charge of soules a sufficient meanes truly to drawe all the vnlerned of England but if god staie them to eternall daÌ„nation I will by the grace of God geue you for a taste suche instructions touching the most blessed sacrament of the aultar and the sacrament of Baptim which only for sacrameÌ„ts he alloweth that you maie hereafter litle lust after the perilous persuasions of his doctrine in other inferiour pointes of oure Christen faithe the dearest and most precious iewell that we haue on earthe The pittes and pudles that Caluin hathe digged him selfe are olde heresies condemned aboue a thousand yeares and nowe renewed by him partly in expresse wordes partly by most assured and necessary consequence of his writings Caluin in his commentaries vpon S. Ihon hathe these wordes It is to be noted there are thre degres of life The liuing Father hathe the first place as the fountaine off life but yet farre distant and hidde The Son foloweth him whom we haue sette before vs as a riuer by the which the life abiding in the father is deriued vnto vs. the thirde life is that which we drawe of him Thus farre Caluin This doctrine beside that it is a mere imagination of Caluin and a broken pudle of his brickle brain it conteineth in it sundry heresies First if the Son of god Christ him selfe be a folowing that is a second cause of life as Caluin saithe then is it not equall with the first and so is it a creature not god the Creatour which is first and chefest and secoÌ„d to none TheÌ„ he coÌ„pareth Christ to a riuer and god the father to a fountaine Now the fouÌ„taine is before the riuer and is cause of the riuer theÌ„ by the doctrine of Caluin god the father is before the Son and cause of the life in the Son For al this he meaneth of god the Son not of the flesh off Christ which he denieth to geue life or to be quickening of it selfe This lo is the cursed and detestable heresy of Arrius condemned in the first general councell of Nice aboue twelue hundred yeres paste If Sâ—ruetus whom Caluin burned at Geneua for an Arrian were nowe aliue again and Caluin to he might chalenge M. Caluin for the like and call him worthely to the stake Againe this doctrine of Caluin resembleth much in wordes but in effect passeth farre the doctrine of Faustus Manicheus who sayde that god the father occupied the chefest and principall light but the Son consisted in a seconde light Which fonde opinion of him Saint Augustin confuteth as a detestable heresy Muche more maye we so do in this distinction of degres of life that Caluin imagineth to be in the blessed Trinite Thirdly he affirmeth the life whiche we receaue of Christ the Son to abide in the Father as though Christ of him selfe gaue not vs life by the participation of his diuine fleshe Which to saie is the heresy of Valentinus whom S. Irene confuteth Caluin in his commentarie vpon the resolution of the Sacraments saythe that Vnto the substaunce of bread remaining bread the body of oure lorde whiche is the verite figured by the bread is so coupled and vnited as the godhead was to the fleshe of Christ it remaining true and naturall fleshe And this his doctrine he goeth aboute to proue by the wordes of Gelasius in his epistle to kinge Frauncis prefixed before his Institutions It is also the doctrine of Caluin that Christ is in the Sacrament onely by faithe not corporally â–ª For so sayeth he he is onely in heauen Then will it folowe by the reason of Caluin that the godhead was ioyned and vnited to the fleshe of Christ onely by faithe and that the fleshe was not deified and one person with god This was the heresy of Paulus Samosatenus condemned all most thirten hundred yeares paste The doctrine of Caluin in his Institutions is as you partly heard before that in the blessed Sacrament the maner of receauing Christ is by the operation of his Spirit whiche saythe he is as a certain â—undyt pipe whereby what soeuer Christ is or hathe is deriued vnto vs. and by the Spirit of Christe he sayth we receaue in to oure soules his body and bloud whiche yet departeth not from the right hande of the father This doctrine separateth Christ making his holy Spirit to serue as a cundyt pipe for the conuaiaunce of his fleshe in to oure soules Beside the absurdite of the doctrine whiche we before declared you it sauoureth of the heresy of Nestorius For as he denied the fleshe off Christ to be inseparably vnited to the godhead and therefore taught that we receaued not whole Christe but his fleshe onely and not his godhead for these were his wordes as Cirillus recordeth Qui manducat carnem meam non dixit qui manducat diuinitatem that is Christ sayde he that eateth my fleshe he sayde not he that eateth my diuinite c. so Caluin denieth we receaue whole Christ graunting vs a spirituall foode onely For so in his commentaries vpon S. Paule he concludeth saieng that a certain quickening vertu is deriued vnto vs out of the flesh of Christ by his Spirit thoughe the flâ—sh be farre distant from vs and not ioyned with vs. The doctrine of Caluin as it containeth variable and contrary assertions so it bredeth diuers and sundry heresies You heard euen nowe that by making the Spirit of Christ a pipe for the
that continuall communion which we surely haue withoute the frequentation of the Supper And this continuall communion withoute the frequentatioÌ„ vse or accesse of the Supper he meaneth to be the very same which we haue in the Supper as his wordes folowing declare where he saithe Simul tameÌ„ fateor nihil hic dici quod non in Coena figuretur ac vere praestetur fidelibus that is Yet I confesse withall that nothing is here spoken which is not figured and truly exhibited to the beleuers in the Supper Then the doctrine of Caluin is clere and euident in this point that we receaue Christe no lesse and haue him no lesse dwelling in vs coÌ„tinually though we come not to the communioÌ„ or Sacrament then if we come and resorte thither What nede I speÌ„de wordes time and paper in refelling this moste absurde doctrine if this be so why scorne they of Caluins secte against suche as liste not come to their table Maye not good men tell theÌ„ that by the doctrine of Caluin they coÌ„municat and receaue Christ allwaies by faithe in their hartes no lesse then at their table or coÌ„munion and that they take nothing there but suche as they had before they came thither Caluin teacheth this most directly as you haue heard and as they maye more see whiche liste to reade his litle treatise entitulâ—d A resolution vpon the Sacraments in the fourtenth and ninteth articles I will here aske one question of the Caluinistes and scholers of Geneua in our countre If as Caluin saithe vpon the sixte of Ihon we haue a perpetuall communion of Christ no lesse withoute celebrating the Supper of the Lorde then in celebrating it what nede Christen meÌ„ celebrat that Supper They will perhaps awnswer that in the Supper we receaue Christ SacrameÌ„tally not only Spiritually as without the Supper we do If this be the only differeÌ„ce touching our part and the frute that we receaue thereat theÌ„ the differeÌ„ce onely is this that at the communioÌ„ we receaue a piece of bread more then they whiche stande by and looke on Spiritually saithe Caluin al true beleuers receaue Christ and eate his body before they come to the Sacraments for els saithe he we should tye Christ to his sacraments Sacramentally we receaue Christ by Caluins doctrine when we receaue the signes to witt bread and wine Lo what the coÌ„munion of oure countre is â–ª a piece of bread and nought els They will perhaps saie we celebrat in the Supper the remembraunce of Christ his passion I awnswer So do they whiche stande by no lesse then those whiche receaue Againe is eating your bread and drinking your wine a remembraunce of Christ his deathe and passion A likely matter truly You are wonte to crie on scripture and allow no doctrine withoute it Tell vs then from the beginning off the Genesins vto the ende of S. Ihons Reuelation where the remembraunce of Christ his passion is taught to be celebrated by eating a piece of bread at a table in the churche and drinking a drawthe off wine at the hande of a Minister vpon whom no handes haue ben layed by the order of priesthood as by S. Paule we lerne to be necessary Showe this and them your communion shall be somewhat more then a piece of bread and a cuppe of wine Nowe is it nothinge elles And this verely is the cause of so many drie communions in oure countre this is the reason why in Germany as Friderikus Staphylus recordeth some of the Sacramentaries come not ones in ten yeres to the communion some neuer at all As touching the hearing of the ghospell if as Caluin in his wordes aboue recited and in his resolutions teacheth we receaue Christ and are made partakners of all his benefits no lesse then by the communion then is it ynoughe to heare the sermon and no nede at all to tary oute the communion then was the primitiue churche muâ—he deceaued suffring the Catechumins and open penitents to heare sermons excluding them afterwarde from the communion S. Chrisostom in his homelies complaineth that in the pulpit he had as greate audience as was possible but at the aultar he was lefte alone Truly by Caluins doctrine he was a foole so to complaine for the people had receaued Christ all ready at the sermon What neded they then to tary oute the communion Againe what scripture haue these men that at Sermon we receaue Christ no lesse then at the communion truly if men see not these absurdites they wil see nothing By the sermon we are instructed not clensed as by baptim we lerne Christ we do not communicat Christes body as in the blessed Sacrament But these men as longe as they may saye and teache what they liste vncomptrolled what may we thinke they will at length do truly they wil haue nor communion nor baptim nor churche nor minister but a faire pulpit in the fielde where euery man as the Spirit moueth him maie teache what he liste and the other beleue as they liste It is all ready in some countres brought to this point And there is no cause but we maie feare the like vnlesse spedy policy refraine their vnruly liberty You haue good Readers the effect of Caluins doctrine touching the blessed Sacrament with certain of the absurdites depending thereof We come nowe to his coÌ„tradictions aboute the same matter whiche when you shall see to be in him diuers and most manifest recorde with your selues that as in coÌ„moÌ„ plea where the witnesses are taken in contrary tales the euidence must nedes be naught so in the controuersy of this most highe mistery Caluin being the enditer against the olde possession of oure belefe herein and chefe pleader if you maie take him in coÌ„trary tales you maie not doubte but the euideÌ„ce of his doctrine must nedes be starke staring naught Beside his coÌ„tradictioÌ„ shall serue vs as a most stroÌ„ge weapoÌ„ to ouerthrow his doctrine layde in against vs for thus he him self shal cut is owne throte condemne and confute his owne sayengs I will first drawe you out the effect off his doctrine against the reall presence off Christ in the Sacrament and show you how he accoÌ„breth him selfe how he turneth and windeth seking by some probabilite to coÌ„founde the doctrine of the catholike churche and yet after many wordes confoundeth him selfe by his owne contradiction Marke therefore his wordes we bring you nowe and howe the other that we shall bringe you after do agree In his institutions treating of this Sacrament see howe he dothe coÌ„trary him selfe First he saith We caÌ„ not be meÌ„bres of Christ his body bones of his bones and fleshe of his fleshe which all S. Paul affirmeth we are vnlesse whole Christ bothe in Spirit and in body cleaue vnto vs. and oure Lord saieth Caluin doth testifie offer and geue in the holy supper to all that receaue that spirituall banquet suche a communion of his body and of his