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
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
to heresy And truly euen as the beginning and course of Luthers doctrine hath thouroughely resembled the maner of olde heretikes so his ende was not much vnlike to witt a soden and vnprouided death For being mery and makinge greate feste ouer night he was fouÌ„de dead in the morning Such soden deathe was neuer reade off any Apostle or Euangelist of Christ. But of diuers heretikes especially of Arrius thoughe as by that the Arrians were nothing moued so the Lutherans of this make smal accompte And this much of Luther the father protestant of oure time as touching the pointes of his doctrine where you see bothe what a godly ground he layde and howe in the course and issue there of he hathe showed him selfe to be but a scholer of olde heretikes as he hathe ben the Master of many newe For this man worse then any gutter or sinke whiche receaueth onely the filthe that is brought vnto it bredeth none not onely toke olde heresies of other but added also thereuÌ„to some of his owne breding of his owne filthy brayne as foule fonde doctrine as any foolish heretike before him And of these his proper inuentioÌ„s one of the maddest is that he teacheth the bread remaining bread to be the very naturall body of Christ in the Sacrament Which hathe semed such a fonde doctrine eueÌ„ to the ghospellers theÌ„ selues his scholers and brethern that the farre greater part off them hath in consideration of this point chefely not doubted to condemne him for an archeheretike â–ª as you may see by the wordes of the brethern of Zurich in the thirde parte of this booke And by reason of this absurde doctrine not onely at the first Zuinglius Oecolampadius and Caluin drewe with them diuers countres from the vnite of Luthers ghospell but also the Lutherans them selues hauing many yeares serued the idoll Luther daily faile and shrinke from him cleauing to the cursed Sacramentaries proceding allwaies in mischef and encreasing with time their heresies and abominations About this time two yeare Brema a greate cyte of Saxony and one of the firste that had receaued the light of Luthers ghospel hauing coÌ„tinued in the foresayde doctrine of Luther aboute fourty yeares as zelous and vpright Lutherans now after greate strife and contention amonge them selues hath openly condemned the same and are become Caluinistes Likewise in Augspurg where the famous CoÌ„fession of the Lutherans was made â—â—fred to the Emperour and confirmed by all the Nobilite of the protestants yet nowe there are mo Caluinistes then Lutherans mo that disproue that CoÌ„fessioÌ„ and doctrine of Luther theÌ„ that approue it How other couÌ„tres also haue flitted froÌ„ Luther hauing many yeares serued hiÌ„ you haue in the thirde part of this booke declared Our countre also being at the firste chaunge all Lutheran is nowe become for the moste parte Caluiniste and Lasconicall as not onely oure doings at home declare but other countres abrode haue noted of vs. Peter Martyr at his first coming to Oxforde was a right LutheraÌ„ in the matter of the Sacrament as he declared him selfe not onely in priuat communication but also in his open lessons where inueighing at a time against the argumeÌ„t of the SacrameÌ„taries Christ is in heauen ergo he is not here in the Sacrament he cried oute Profecto est nodus Diaboli that is Sothely this is a shifte of the deuil him selfe He was wonte also at his first coming to Oxford to complaine Anglos nimiuÌ„ vergere ad Zuinglianismum that we english men enclined to much to the Zwinglians Afterward as al the worlde knoweth he condemned Luther and became him self a ZuingliaÌ„ For he had lerned an other lesson in the Courte Philip Melanchthon him selfe the very darling of Luther and father of the Confessionistes in his later daies became a very Sacramentary as his familiar letters to the Counte Palatin of Rhene printed at Heidelberg in the yeare 1560. hathe declared to al the worlde Thus the proper heresy of Martin Luther that he him self by the spirit of the newe ghospel had inuented in the despite of the Pope for so he protesteth him selfe in a letter of his to the brethern of Strasburg was at the first much misliked and is nowe allmost euerywhere vtterly abhorred Ioachimus VVestphalus the onely staye and piller of this Lutheran doctrine coÌ„plaineth him selfe hereof For thus he writeth No false doctrine is so farre spredde none with so much labour and hypocrisy defended non hath more beguiled the worlde then this false doctrine of the blessed Sacrament â–ª meaning the heresy of the Sacramentaries And Nicolaus Amsdorfsius an other zelous Lutheran writeth thus The Anabaptistes and the SacrameÌ„taries do blinde and deceaue Germany with their pretended holines euen as the monkes before blinded the whole worlde And this verely hathe happened on Luther and his felowes not without the iuste iudgemeÌ„t of God For whereas vpon dispiteous malice he laboured by his new doctrines to ouerthrow the church of Rome where it hath pleased our Sauiour to place his vicar here on earthe as in diuers of his writings it appeareth he hath wrought his oune destruction and shame for though in very dede through the pernicious persuasions of that wedded frere certain places and corners of Christendome haue swarned froÌ„ the Catholike church and authorite of that Apostolike see in these northe partes of the worlde yet it hathe thousands folde more ben enlarged in the west partes and the newe landes founde oute by Spanyardes and Portugalles in these late yeares as the letters off the Iesuites directed from those countres in to these partes do euidently and miraculousely declare And truly eueÌ„ so befel it at what time Grece and the easte churche departing from the head and vnite of Christes church gaue them selues to sundry schismes and heresies For then sprange vp the faithe in Germany Pole Dennemarke Swethen Norwaie and other northe Countres For thus from the east to the northe and from the northe to the west of the faithe of Christe passeth donec as Christe saithe impleantur tempora gentium Vntell the times of the gentils be acomplished Oure Lorde graunte that it passe not from vs by heresy and schisme as it passed from the grekes and from Afrike the southe parte of the worlde For bothe these people through schismes especially of the Arrians and their ofspringe lost the faith of Christe as the histories declare vnto vs. But to returne to our matter the church of Rome the see Apostolike that Luther laboured by heresy to ouerthrowe standeth yet in his full force and interest notwithstanding the miserable losse of a numbre in our countre and otherwhere Truly Luther him selfe cometh very short of the counte he made being reiected nowe allmoste euery where The Catholike also may lerne to auoide and shunne hereby all maner of protestants what so euer name or secte they be of proceding all of this heade beinge all the corrupted issue of
dissension For truthe is allwaies vniforme and agreable with it selfe And as the philosopher saieth of vertu so in truthe there is but one waie to hitt the marke a man may shoote aside diuers waies Wherefote two contrary sayings maye bothe be false and vntrue but truthe can neuer stand with a contrary Who then teacheth contradiction as he must nedes teach some falshood so possibly he may teach al false and beside the marke euen as it happeneth with all heretikes that leaue the common highe waie of their forefathers and seke out by pathes of their owne inuentioÌ„s wherein the faster they runne the farder they straye and the harder they finde the right waie againe Secondarely as touching the repugnaunce that is in Caluins doctrine against the expresse worde off God I will also by two maner of waies declare First by a number of his propositions and assertions coÌ„trary to the expresse wordes of Christ and his Apostles next by the auouching of such doctrine as concurreth with olde heresies condemned aboue a thousand yeares past in that state and time off Christ his church as Caluin him selfe doth in sundry places especially vpon the prophets and in his epistle to Sadoletus allowe and reuerence We recited you before diuers olde carren heresies that Luther stirred vp but Caluin beside all those hath nouseled yet a litle farder and digged deper then Luther did For euen as a a bestly sowe coming in to a faire garden sett with diuers swete flowres and pleasaunt herbes if in some corner thereof she espie a donghell or heape of rotten wedes or other filthe cast aside will straite nousell there and tomble her selfe in the filth and carren thereof not medling with the swete floures or pleasaunt herbes so truly these bestly heretikes of our time especially Luther and Caluin liuing in the church of Christ compared in scripture to the garden of the bridegrom wherein are bothe swete herbes of heauenly doctrine and most delectable floures of vertuous liuing lacking not yet her spottes and wrincles of euil life wich she alloweth neuer but tolerateth of necessite and lamenteth hauing also not in her but by her and cast oute of her a nuÌ„ber of olde coÌ„demned heresies they like bestly swine nether embrace the vertuous liuing that she vseth but raiseth at the infirmities whiâ—h she is constrained to suffer nether folow the steps of her heauenly discipline and vpright belefe but getting them to the donghell nouâ—ell them selues in the olde condemned heresies and veÌ„t them abrode to the world But nowe to come to the matter it self let vs considre first the absurde doctrine that he leaueth vs in his writings I entend not to discourse vpon all the pointes of his hereticall doctrine but for a taste off the rest I will examin his assertions about the blessed SacrameÌ„t of the aultar bicause this article doth most nearest touche the glory and maiesty off oure Sauiour being the most precious iewell that he left vnto his church After also we wil note diuers heresies bothe olde and new in his doctrine vpon the sacrament of baptim Last of all a fewe notable contradictions aboute his doctrine of the fre will of man But now to the first point Caluin in his Institutions in his treatise of the Lordes Supper teaching howe by his imagination we receiue Christ in the Sacrament after long dalying as though he would graunte a reall receiuing off Christ his body at the length he concludeth in these wordes Corporis communionem Spiritus sui virtute Christus in nos diffundit that is Christ pooreth downe vpoÌ„ vs the communion of his body by the vertu of his Spirit Which is as much to saie Christ communicateth vnto vs his body by the vertu of his Spirit This is in fewe wordes the communion of Caluin and all the Sacramentarieâ—â— denieng that we eate in dede the body of Christ otherwise then by faith Nowe let vs see what absurdites folowe thereof First no scripture hath this doctrine And how absurde a thing it is to folowe any doctrine without Scripture Caluin him him selfe telleth vs. In his institutions thus he writeth I ought not to seme to any man coÌ„tentious that I staie so earnestly vpon this point that it is not lawfull for the Churche to make any new doctrine that is to teache or deliuer for truthe any more then the Lorde hath reueled by his worde For wise men do see howe great a danger that is if so much authorite were graunted to men They see what a windowe is opened to the mockes and scoffes of wicked men if we sayie that to be taken for truthe among Christians which men shall thinke good Let now then any scholer of Caluin showe in all Scripture where it is writen that Christ by the vertu of his spirit pooreth downe vppon vs the communion off his body For Caluin as he writeth in his Harmony vpon the ghospelles thinketh it an absurde thinge to saie that the flesh of Christ it selfe should be deriued vnto vs. But he sayeth the communion of Christ his flesh is deriued vnto vs which he interpreteth to be a quikening vertu out of Christ his flesh correcting Christe promising vs his very flesh Now as I saied of the deriuation of any such communion of Christes fleshe no Scripture mencioneth But it is a sophisticall suttelty of Caluins imagination not reueled in any place by Gods worde This is lo then one dangerous absurdite by the confession off Caluin him selfe onles perhaps he haue some priuiledge more then the whole Churche hathe For in the Churche he alloweth nothing beside the expresse worde off God Againe let vs consider what is the communion of Christ his body poored downe vpon vs. It is saieth Caluin vis quaedam viuifica ex Christi carne in nos diffusa that is a certain quickening power poored downe vpon vs out of the flesh of Christ. Christ saieth in S. Iohn that his flesh is meat in dede and biddeth vs eate his flesh and drinke his bloud and in the other thre Euangelistes he saieth Eate this is my body but Caluin saieth we eate the bread and haue a certain quickening power out of the fleshe not as in his Harmony he saieth the flesh it self and that we haue a communioÌ„ of his body poored downe vpon vs which is not to eate the body as Christ badde vs. This lo is not only beside scriture but expresly against holy Scripture Thirdly where Christ biddeth vs eate his fleshe saying he that eateth my fleshe abydeth in me he teacheth an action on oure part touching the receiuing of Christ But where Caluin telleth vs that a communioÌ„ of Christ his body is deriued vnto vs he putteth no action on oure part touching the receiuing off Christ but only touching the eating off the bread For we eate not the body of Christ by Caluins doctrine but a coÌ„munion of the same body is deriued vpon vs and poored downe
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
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
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
geue life to the body and raise it also What wicked dreames and inuentions are these off proude and presumptuous heretikes The promis of life and resurrection is made to the fleshe of Christ not to the bread nor to the soule Thus lo it fareth with them which content not them selues with the sure knowen doctrine of the Catholike churche but by drifte of reason or pricke off pride and malice serch out newe inueÌ„tions of their owne It is the doctrine of Caluin and all the sacramentaries that in the celebration of oure Lordes supper be no coÌ„secration of the misteries For that they saie the bread there is no other wise blessed theÌ„ other creatures of god are by the vertu of their creatioÌ„ Caluin in his InstitutioÌ„s saith that Christe in the benedictioÌ„ which he vsed directed not his wordes to the bread and that to blesse the bread is wich crafte and charming The like he writeth in his coÌ„mentaries vpon S. Paul to the CorinthiaÌ„s This doctrine lo is the very heresy of Faustus Manicheus we saith that Maniche vse the same religion in all creatures of god as you vse in the bread and the chalice Lo this heretike acknowledgeth noother kinde of religioÌ„ in the holy misteries then in other creatures of god That is that the one is as much blessed as the other But what aunswereth here S. Augustin For he reporteth these wordes of the heretike in his bookes against him Doth he acknowledge no other benediction in the Sacrament then in other creatures of god Is he ashamed of the benediction vsed in the church of Christ Doth he call it witchecrafte or charming See therefore what he awnswereth Oure bread and chalice saithe S. Augustin is not coÌ„mon but by certaine coÌ„secration is made misticall is not borne so And therefore that which is not so made to witt by certain consecration thoughe it be bread and cuppe it is foode for refection not the sacrameÌ„t of oure religion thoughe allwaies we blesse and geue thankes to god in all his giftes as well corporall as spirituall Thus farre S. Augustin declaring that in the misteries we vse a certain and propre consecration whereby the misteries are made other then they were by nature For he saith of the bread it is made misticall non nascitur it is not so by nature geuing vs vnderstande that by vertuâ— of consecration the bread is made that wiche by nature it was not to witt the body of oure Sauiour Againe S. Augustin saith that whiche lacketh consecration is foode for refection not the sacrament of oure religion So the Caluinistes in their communion by the iudgement of S. Augustin haue foode for refection not the sacrament of oure religion Finally S. Augustin confuting the olde heresy of the Maniches dothe also confute the newe heresy of Caluin yea and the order of oure communion where no consecration nor benediction is vsed Thus we see Christian readers what broken pittes and pudles Caluin hathe digged him selfe and all sacramentaries are forced to lappe in forsaking the fountaine of life Christ him selfe in this blessed sacrameÌ„t of the aultar We see who liste to be a scholer of Caluin a ghospeller of Geneua or a Sacramentary protestant he muste also be an Arrian a Nestorian a Samâ—satenical a Marcioniste a Donatiste a Mâ—niâ—he and a Valentinian diuers waies These heretikes with al their doctrine were condemned aboue a thousand yeares in that state of the churche whiche onely oure aduersaries approue for pure and vertuous If that state had the right doctrine those heretikes were by them worthely condemned If they were worthely condemned these sacramentaries can off no good Cristen men be allowed folowed or supported As in our discours vpon Luther beside a numbre of olde cursed heresies by him renewed and common to al protestaÌ„ts we declared you one proper heresy of his owne for examples sake euen so after the ranke of these olde condemned heresies which Caluin hath incurred only in mistaking or rather willfully departing from the Catholike faith off the most blessed Sacrament of the aultar I will recite you one most horrible and blasphemous heresy of his owne imagination for examples sake of many more which might be brought if we listed in this short discours to saie all that might be saied In his institutions vpon the article of our Crede Descendit ad inferos He descended in to hell he teacheth that Christ there suffred the paynes of hell and mocketh at the belefe of the Catholike Church teaching vs that then our Sauiour deliuered the soules of the fathers off the olde law according as the scripture witnesseth speaking by the prophet most euidently of our Sauiour Tu quoque in sanguine Testamenti tui emisâ—sti vinctos tuos de lacu in quo non est aqua that is Thou also through the bloud of thy testament hast let thy prâ—sonners out of the pitt wherein is no water which â—aying of the prophet the lerned fathers haue allwaies expounded of the descending of Christ in to hell and deliuering there the soules of the fathers of the olde law But as touching the heresy of Caluin which in place of this receiued doctrine this presumptuous heretike auoucheth you shall heare his owne blasphemous wordes and lerne of what a master our ghospellers of Geneua haue lerned their false faith These be his wordes first in latin Nihil actum erat si corporea tantum morte defunctus fuisset Christus sed opera simul praecium erat vt diuinae vltionis seueritatem sentiret quo irae ipsius intercederet satisfaceret iusto iudicio vt cum inferorum copijs aeternaeqâ—e mortis horrore quasi consertis manibus luctaretur Correctionem pacis nostrae illi impositam fuisse propheta docet fuisse propter scelera nostra a patre percussum attrituÌ„ propter nostras infirmitates Quibus significat in locum peccatorum sponsorem vadem adeoque instar rei submissum ad dependendas persoluendasque omnes quae ab illis expetendae erant poenas vno hoc duntaxat â—xâ— pto quòd doloribus mortis non poterat detineri Ergo si ad infâ—res descendisse dicitur nihil mirum est cum eam mortem pertulerit quae sceleratis ab irato deo infligitur Hetherto are his wordes as they lye in his institutions in latin Now let vs see the english Nothing had ben done saieth Caluin if Christ had dyed only by bodely deathe O hainous blasphemy of these cursed heretikes What could be saied more blasphemously Hath not now the death of Christ satisfised for our sinnes Be these the ghospellers that sette forth and commend so much the passion of Christ Is the bodely death of Christ nothing Must his soule suffer also in hell You shall heare forth the wordes of Caluin But it was also requisit saieth he that Christ should fele the rigour of gods vengeaunce whereby he might appease his wrath and satisfie his iust iudgment that he
from the Zuinglians and as the Illyricans do now from the Melanchthonistes For the first bothe allowed the real presence in the Sacrament as Luther did and vsed also many olde ceremonies of Christ his church as the Melanchthonistes and the ciuil Lutherans do yet in Wittenberg in Misnia in Franconia at Norimberg at Vlmes where passing by of late we sawe in the churche the holy Roode and aultars of stone yet standing in the Dukedom of Wirtenberg at Breslaw at Briga in Silesia and in many other places The last and present order off communion denieth the reall presence as Zuinglius and Caluin do and reiecteth the ceremonies of the Masse as the Zuingliās and Caluinistes do in the fiue Cantons of Suitzerland Basil Zurich Berna Schafusa and Clarona at Geneua in Sauoye in Scotland and emong the seditious rebelles in Fraunce Now Luther in his litle confession De caena Domini condemneth Zuinglius and his cōplices for heretikes So do Nicolaus Amsdorfius in the booke aboue alleaged and Nicolaus Gallus in his booke intituled Theses hypotyposes etc. Likewise Melanchthon condēneth Illyricus and his felowes as in diuers writings of Illyricus it is to be sene By the iudgement then of Luther of Melanchthon and of all the ciuill Lutherans yea and by the iudgement of all the ghospellers in Kinge Edwardes time and of the stinking martirs of that age our communion now practised in England is hereticall and against the pure doctrine fo the ghospel It were ouer long to recite here all the variaunces in doctrine amonge our protestants I remitt you to the daily experience which you may see better at home then we which are abrode And thus much of the argument of this booke What remaineth then for our part to do but as S. Paule commaundeth vs that we be Solliciti seruare vnitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis that is carefull and diligent to kepe vnite off minde in the bonde off peace being one body and one minde as we be called in to one hope and vocation For there is but one lorde one faith one baptim one God and father of all that we hence forth be no more children wauering and caried aboute with euery winde of doctrine by the wilynes of men and craftines laying waite to deceaue vs. It is truly a world to see what labour and toile what posting and running what paines and charges men sustaine for their right in temporall traihe in worldly commodites and present pleasures which we haue renounced in our baptim which with care being gotten with sorow is kept and yet soone loste and how colde negligent and careles we are aboute the true and sincere worshipping of God which we haue promised and professed in our baptim and which only hath his sure certain and euerlasting rewarde We spare no labour no coste no trauail for the one we moue not a foote nor will not departe from a peny for the other but nodding and sleping in wilfull ignoraunce fuffer our selues to be lead by the noses with euery tinkard and cobler prating in pulpets and planting poisonnous doctrine If rebells arise ageinst their Prince they are with all spede possible and force brought downe again Well and worthely And shall we winke at the rebelles of Christes holy worde and his church The thefe that robbeth and pilleth our temporall riches is hanged and worthely and will we not labour to espie oute and auoy de heresies which bereue vs of the treasure of eternall life If we be thus recheles and careles for our saluation we perish worthely and the plage of god ligh teth vppon vs for our deserts if we will not wittingly be deceiued but haue a care of our soule helth and think vppon the life to come let vs in this perilous ti mes of schismes and abundāce off iniquite harken to such as can teache vs to discerne the true and right in terpretation of gods worde from the peruerted persuasions of heretikes let vs beware of such guides in matters of conscience as stick not to corrupt the ve ry text of gods worde against all honesty and conscience Let vs behold for the better assurance of our Catholike faith which is but one the horrible schismes of the Lutherās Sacramētaries Anabaptistes Cōfessionistes and other amonge them selues all the which are here liuely and expressely sette forth by Fridericus Staphylus and we shall I trust gladly kepe our selues vnder the wing of our mother the Catholike church and geue no more eare to euery new forged fantasie of seditious schismatikes As touching the Author of this booke Fridericus Staphylus in his life time for within these fewe moneths he departed the worlde to the great grief of all good men he was a vertuous lerned and wise Noble mā His vertu wel appereth not only in the feruēt zele of gods worde and the truthe for the setting forth of the which he toke such trade of life as bothe empaired much the helth of his body and procured also greatiosse of his substaunce as he writeth in the first part of this worke but also in the great patience and modesty that he vsed alwaies against his aduersaries writing pasquils libels and famous epigrams against him calling him Iudas runneagat traitour and so forth as the modesty of this new ghospel vseth bycause he forsoke their abhominable heresies after a thourough knowledge of them and detected their iuggling deceites to al the worlde as especially he doth in this worke folowing And this only were they able to obiect against him which declareth well the innocēcy and vprightnes of his life For as herein they spared no kinde of rethorike to exaggerat his departing from them which was a singular grace of God and most in him to be commended so if they had had better matter it should not haue lacked the telling on their part Smidelinus one that of all other to his perpetuall shame and ignominy toke vppon him to encounter with Staphylus labouring to fasten vppon him some great blow of reproche and shame at the lēghth for lacke of better aduauntage entuiteth him his naturall behauiour that he vsed commonly to loke downe to the grounde as he walcked thinking he had thereby raught him a great rappe Which how light a philip it is euery wise man seeth And that gre at ghospeller and doctour of Gopping had forgotte it was writen of our Sauiour that Non secundum visionem oculorum iudicabit He shall not iudge according to the eye sight Truly it is no small argument of his innocency that his most aduersary could laie no greuouser matter vnto him His lerning well appeareth in this and other his workes as in his Absolut apology his epistles and orations against Melanchthon Flaccus and other where he showeth him selfe no lesse lerned Diuin then eloquent oratour and expert of the tongues But of his education in lerning and prospering in the same of what estimation also he was amonge the protestants them selues yow shall vnderstand
by them left vnto their lawfull successours with the very text of the scripture therefore it is cōmonly called the Tradition of the holy fathers and oftentimes the vnwriten verite in respect of the writen texte And bicause the truthe off the text and of the right vnderstanding of the texte must nedes be all one truly our aduersaries do slaunder vs fayning that in triall off cōtrouersies we woulde beside the worde of God sett as iudge the traditions of men directly against the worde of God The third principle is that holy continuall succession of the See Apostolike and other bishops in the Catholike churche For if we be able to proue by order of continuall succession that all bishops as well before vs as nowe haue allwaies expounded the holy scriptures euen as the first Apostles did can there be any more certain waye for the vnderstanding of scripture then this is I would gladly heare what can be saied against it The fourthe principle is the vnite and consent of the Catholike churche Whereby it is made that the like truthe be in euery part that is in the whole and so contrary wise These are moste Reuerend Prelate the right principles of Christian doctrine these are the foundations of all truthe these as foure quarres or corner stones holde vp the Catholike churche and therefore it is called One Holy Catholike and Apostolike churche For of these principles dependeth the Authorite of the councels Of these the holy Canons haue their beginning and of these all laufull and laudable rites of the church take force and strength These then being the principles of our religion not those which Brentius falsely chargeth vs withal Princes and rulers ought to looke more nerer vnto the doings and sayings of their preachers But nowe Bretius to make an oppositiō of the foresaide forged principles our principles are saieth he the worde of God Christ and an assured certainte of oure confidence in Christ But what is I praie you this your worde of God This it is that all maner of folke mē and womē cookes and coblers baudes and buchers tinkers and tailers pedlers and poticaries minstrels and mummers and all such like be priestes be bishops be doctours and pastours and haue authoritie to administrat the Sacraments to interpret Scripture and what interpretation eche one by the drifte of his braine draweth out of scripture that to be the pure ghospell off the Lorde and the expresse worde of God This is not right Reuerend father the worde of God but the worde of the diuell him selfe inuēted of Luther not inspired by the sprit of God For that man entending to peruert all that appertained to God or to man laboured trauailed and endeuoured by al meanes possible that there might remaine no spirituall magistrat whiche might by authorite discerne betwene leper and leper maintaining the right doctrine of the ghospell and remouing the bastard And this labour of Luther being well liked of Sathan he imagined an other worde of God as that among Christen men shoulde be no ciuill magistrat for all princes were fooles tyrans and men of no religion to thentent that if perhaps the heresies of Luther were condemned by the Spirituall magistrat and so forth with cōmitted to the secular sworde princes therunto might haue no authorite Hereuppon he forbiddeth Christen men to kepe warre against the Turke and commaundeth subiects to rebel against their princes Strait vppon this arose an other worde of an other God that all lawes of chaste and single life shoulde be taken awaye teaching amonge a sorte of maydes and yonge men that Man was no more able to refraine his fleshly lustes then not to spet when nature prouoked Againe that fasting and abstinence from flesh nothing helped prayer nothing furdered deuotion made nothing to sobriete These smaller pointes being first all most conquered he reacheth to higher and diuiner matters First bicause he teacheth that sinne is not by the grace of baptime taken away in dede but is saide and fained only to be taken away hereof he savve it vvolde folovve that mē oughte not be estemed righteous and good in dede but onely accompted and imputed for such Then bycause he made no difference nor degre of grace he admitted no encrease in vertu and therefore could not abide the Sacramēt of Confirmation Fardermore bicause if sinne be not rooted out if there be no encrease of grace nor goodnes but al is only by maner of accōpte and imputing thē must he also infer that the presence of Christes body may not be in earthe that no sacrifice be admitted and vvhich folovved thereupon no priesthood nether And of this point the Zuinglians picked out one worde of their straunge God and the Lutherās an other of this spring also arose the doctrine teaching mā to be iustified by only faith hope charite repentaunce and other good workes being pernicious and hurtefull to saluation what frute then thinke you proceded hereof This sothely and many other For if God doth compell man to sinne as Luther and the Caluinistes do write howe can God require good workes or by what lawe can be punish sinne seing that he worketh sinne in vs and good workes are thought to be pernicious And truly if there be no rewarde for vertu there shall be no punishment for sinne And then there is no hel nor place of punishment as in the seacoste townes of Germany it is taught there is no diuell to execute that punishment as Osiander teacheth This worde not of God but of the diuell beyng laied this principle being put an other principle concerning Christ ensued as that the humain nature of Christe is god as the Swenckfeldians will haue it or contrairely that Christe is not God as the Seruetians teache and Mathias Flaccius affirming that the worde in the first of Iohn is not the sonne of God Lo how fertill and abundant was this principle of Luther and Brentius There were in times past and are also nowe a dayes whiche openly denie Christ to be the son of God affirming him to be the son of Ioseph and Mary Which Mary also had as they saye many other children beside Christ. Other there be nowe which teache the ghospell of S. Iohn to be a tale of Plato baptim to be the inuentiō of the diuell And that there is not in God the Trinite of persons some other doubting whether this Trinite be man or woman So taught euen this winter a certayn new ghospeller in Sternberg a towne of Morauia and that with the fauour of the people but much against the will of the Bishop of Omoluke their diocesian There be nowe in Hungary also which in their baptim leaue out cleane the name of the Son There be in many places the Seruetians which call the blessed Trinite by the name of the hellhownd Cerberus whom the poetes fained to haue thre heads With like horrible blasphemies two other ghospellers daily
preache the one in the hilles of Gutni the other in Zary a village of Silesia In Pintzou a towne of Poleone George Brandat and Peter Statorius teache openly that there is not one but thre Gods and eche of them of diuers and distinct natures no lesse then thre diuers men So that there is not one substaunce of the godhed but thre and thre different operations thre diuers willes And that the Son is lesse then the father As for the crede of Athanasius that it ought rather be called the crede of Sathanasius the diuell him self And these felowes Brandat and Statorius being admonished of such blasphemous doctrine and required by what authorite or whose persuasioÌ„ they durste sowe suche blasphemies they answered they were moued thereunto first by the authorite of Caluin of wolfgangus Musculus of Peter Martyr of Bullinger and such like masters then by the euidence of the holy truthe which hitherto hath layen hidd and nowe was from God vnto them reueled These thinges to be as we saye Stanislaus a Baron of the realme of Pole Mathias Stadnitzky and Franciscus Stancarus do write But bicause this parted confusion of so diuers opinions can not well be perceaued and is harde to be tried or discerned of such as gladly receaue al nouelties there is vpsterte this very winter in Bohem a newe Secte The which to take awaye this confusion and to sett forthe a brefe and compendiouse waie of the Lutheran doctrine teacheth openly and affirmeth that all other opinions and doctrine of God of the worshipping of God of faith of good or euill workes and to be short of any saluation of man be but olde wyues tales and fonde inuentioÌ„s This onely to be a sure and infallible lawe and the true sincere doctrine that man bothe body and soule after this life vtterly perisheth no sence or life remaining after death here Lo to what point the preachers of the newe ghospel haue brought their doctrine vnto Lo the marke and scope of all their doings The third principle of the Lutheran ghospell is saieth Brentius an assured certainte that euery maÌ„ hath of his faith in Christ. But for the loue of God what is this assured certainte of faith May we not as well call day night and light darknes But what I praye you is this so assured and vndoubted certeinte of faith amonge the Lutherans It is peraduenâ—ure that certainte of faith which for the clerenes and euidence of it hathe so surely and with suche constaÌ„t consent and maruaylous agreement ioyned together the Lutherans that in all their new ghospell no dissension can be founde no variaunce in any article of their faythe no heresyes at all in their doctrine may be espied For if constant certaynte bredeth true concorde and agreement as a certain philosopher wittely reporteth then surely vncertainte and wauering in opinions muste nedes brede strife Hereof then we may clerely gather howe trew this thirde principle of Luther is for such is the certaynte of their faithe as the agreement of their opinions is The whiche howe greate and of what maner it is they haue them selues declared and we will not dissemble it These are the principles of the reformed ghospell laied by Luther repeted by BreÌ„tius and admitted of the whole swarme of sectaries Nowe bicause in the principle all is contained and many labels depend thereof what roufe thinke yow will the diuell buyld vppon these foundations of Luther For the effect neuer excelleth the cause Truly these consequents and labels depended of suche holy principles To make of chaste membres of Christ filthy membres of an harlot of deuoute and well disposed Christians wicked and vnruly subiects of sober and temperat glutons and Epicures yelding to all filthy lust and pleasure whose bely is their God whose faithe is perfidiousnes and no faith at all And to this butte and scope of Luther many haue preuily aimed at but those of BoheÌ„ haue nowe openly shott at it and stroken the very marke preaching in open pulpits that the soule dieth with the body But bicause Epicure him selfe taught that to get pleasure a coulour of vertu must be caste and the diuel perceauing wel that publick magistrats could better be chauÌ„ged theÌ„ vtterly takeÌ„ away he thought better to traine this herde of Epicures fleshly and worldly meÌ„ to the yoke of MahometaÌ„s doctrine being so sure they should be his owne theÌ„ to leaue theÌ„ vnder the roufe of the Catholike church where he stoode allwayes in doubte to lese them The diuell therefore hath so directed allwaies and trayned all contentions and variaunces in religion that all heresies ende in the Alcoran Mahomets lawe All historiographers that write of the first beginning of Turkes affirme with one assent that the lawe of Mahomet writen in the Alcoran was compiled by one Sergius an Arrian and Ihon a Nestorian bothe auncient heretiques and of a certain Iewe of the Talmudistes Now although the heresies which haue in our vnhappy time spronge vp be many and diuers yet if the chiefe of theÌ„ and moste receaued were examined and coÌ„ferred diligeÌ„tly with those thre sectes aboue mencioned we should plainely and euidently perceaue that the drift of the diuell is no other nowe a dayes then by the meane of these heresies to traine vs vnwares from the faith of Christ to the cursed infidelite of Mahomet Petrus Statorius chargeth Franciscus Stancarus with the heresie of Nestorius and he againe the other with the heresie of Arrius And bicause Stancarus is a famous Iew and Talmudist and Statorius is by professioÌ„ a Caluiniste partes hath so hotly and earnestly beÌ„ taken on bothe sides that nowe not only in Pole and Hungary whiche are Realmes nighe vnto the Turkes but also in Silesia in Morauia in Bohem and other prouinces more remote greate contentions haue ben kindled thereupon and be yet hotte And what other thinge o mercifull God can we looke for If Christen men call the faith of Christ in doubte if they denie it openly if they embrace the abhominable doctrine off Mahomet is it likely that whose doctrine they allowe his power and rule they will refuse no truly But these may seme paradoxes and beyonde all credence Woulde God they were so But I feare me they are as true as the ghospell The causes be euident and open surely the euent of all likelyhood will be correspondent Let them enquire that be ignoraÌ„t and those that see and knowe the thinges to be as we saie let them well waighe them But I will not make so euill abodement I will rather wish and hope well and much more rather woulde I be counted a lyar and vnprouident that it might not so proue then true and wise that they shoulde so proue But nowe to couple more closely and to strike more directly oure aduersarie whom I labour here to saue I saye the only remedy for the mischef that hangeth on vs the only meanes to escape this vtter destruction of ChristendoÌ„ is
laste confession writen against the Sacramentaries saieth that faith is like to a bell which as longe as it is whole kepeth his true sounde but when it is anything crased or cleft it iarreth and leseth cleane his proper tune like as an ear then vessel as longe as it is whole and sounde is called a pot a crocke or some like thing but ones broken or cleft it leseth his name and is called a potsheard Let no man therefore comforte him selfe with this vaine hope that although their preachers and ministres erre in some pointes yet are good Christians in other pointes for that auaileth nothing You must be saued within the arke of Noe or be drowned with out it There is herein no middle waye Therefore you must take very good hede that you be not deceaued lest that while wantōly and negligently you harken to euery newe doctrine and forged interpretation of scripture that one or two newe preachers teache you lese youre soules in good earnest Remembre rather what the prophet saieth Euery man is a lyar He meaneth not al men together For I for my part and you for youre part and euery man a part may lie erre and be deceaued But all good men together that is the whole Catholike churche of Christ can not erre in any article of faith For it is builded vpon the rocke of truthe and vpon that consideration is called the piller and grounde of al truthe Therefore when the simple and vnlerned man heareth sundry and cōtrary expositions of holy Scripture let him haue recours to his faith and fully determinat with him selfe for that he is not lerned in holy scripture not to take any other waie or folow any other guide then the article of his Crede I beleue the holy Catholike church persuading him selfe vndoubtedly that to be the only true interpretation of scripture which is Catholike That is which together with the writen text hath by the Apostles and their successours ben spred trough the whole worlde and continued vniforme and vncorrupted euen to our time And this only rule may serue as a buckler for the vnlerned mā that as ofte as newe preachers set a broche any newe doctrine and straunge then to thinke this with him selfe I am a man vnlerned I can not perceiue the drift of their disputing I can not iudge of their cōtrouersie But seing that my Crede teacheth me to beleue nothing but that which is Catholike and hath allwaies ben kept and receaued in Christēdom what shall I do to knowe whether these newe preachers doctrine be Catholike or no Here this vnlerned man must remembre the counsell of Moyses saying Aske of the daies that are past which were before the sence the daie that God created man vpon the earthe and aske frō one side of the heauē vnto the other and in an other place Remēbre the daies of the worlde that is past Consider the yeares from time to time aske thy father and he will showe the thy elders and they well tell the. For this is the true guide of a blinde man and ignorant to aske and enquire what his forefathers what his neighbours what the townes and countres about haue allwaies obserued and beleued sence the time they were first traded in Christen religion and haue so many yeares continued in This is the faith of that cooliar which being at point of deathe and tempted of the deuill what his faith was awnswered I beleue and die in the faith of Christes church Being againe demaunded what the faith of Christ his church was that faith saied he that I beleue in Thus the deuil getting no other awnswer of the simple man was ouercomed and put to flight By this faith of the cooliar euery vnlerned man may trie the spirits of men whether they be of god or no by this faith he may resist the deuill iudge the true interpretation of scripture from the false and discerne the Catholike preacher from the hereticall Minister the true doctrine from the forged But to set this whole matter before your eies as it were in a glasse take this example Suppose there came to some greate cyte fiue different and contrary preachers as by name Caluin a Zwinglian Longinusa Swencfeldiā Functius an Osiandrin Illyricus a Lutherā and some Catholike doctour suppose the magistrates of the cite graunted these fiue euery one to preache and defend openly his owne priuat doctrine what shal the vnlerned laie mā do here that he folowe not a blind guide and so fall bothe in to the dike surely as we haue saied before so must he do he shall aske first of Master Caluin whether his doctrine be the pure and very worde of god when he writeth that in the Supper of the Lorde not the true body of Christ but only the figure of his body is there and is geuē Againe that originall sinne is but a naturall infirmitie of the minde not giltie of eternall dānation Or els that God is the cause of the sinne of man that god compelleth and forceth men to wickednes blasphemies horedome theft lyeng deceites and such other Here of Caluin awnswer that al this is the pure and cleare worde of god let him aske him againe in what place of the Bible he readeth expresly these wordes In the Supper is not the true body of Christ but the figure only Originall sinne is but an infirmitie not giltie of eternall damnation laste of all that men are constrained of God to sinne To this Caluin will surely awnswer that although this his doctrine be not founde in scripture expresly in these wordes or termes yet that this sentence and meaning is there Marke here then that the doctrine of Caluin is not the expresse worde of God but the meaning and interpretation of it And this lo is their first deceite Let the laye man go yet farder with Caluin and aske whether this his interpretation be Catholike whether that Christen religion began with this doctrine in Germany Fraunce Italy England or any other where whether this his doctrine was preached of the Apostles and their successours receaued and vsed in the Catholike churche and deriued from our forefathers to vs through out al these countres For I maye the laye man saie haue asked here of my elders which denie they euer heard any such thing I haue enquired of the cytes and countres here about they knowe it not but saie it is newe and very straunge vnto them And here Caluin can not denie but that it is so and our men are not ashamed to sai◠that these thousand yeares all truthe hath ben loste therefore the vnlerned man may here boldly saye vnto him Well Sir if it be so fare you well I entend not to medle with you nor your doctrine any more So Athanasius writeth to Epictetus the bisshop that it is inough to awnswere an heretike after this sort The Catholike Church neuer taught this the
vpō vs we suffring such deriuation and infusion Therefore betwene the saying of our Sauiour and the doctrine of Caluin there is as much difference as betwene doing and suffring action and passion Fourthly what meaned Caluin to imagin this communion of Christ his body to be deriued vnto vs and not the body it selfe He might haue muche peuish meaning beside which perhaps they onely know that are admitted to the secrets of his misteries as the Electi of the Maniches were But this one thing I am sure he meaned that bicause communion importeth a number of communicants and one alone cā not communicat which is the cause why these sacramentaries require allwaies a number at their table therefore he would haue no receiuing of Christe without a communion nor any other receiuing of Christ then by hauing a communion of him deriued vnto vs. Let vs suppose then as it maie easely happen that amonge the numbre of all that communicat one onely be a true and vpright beleuer and all the rest euill and miscreants as among so diuers sectes of protestants none other are to be found but such as for feare or otherwise sitt downe amongest them being no protestants in dede though in this point no good catholikes neither But let vs suppose that at the table of the protestants one onely were faithfull and duly prepared thereunto It will folow that bicause according to the doctrine of Caluin the infidel and wicked receiueth only the signe and bare bread the faith full person remaining alone through the infidelite of other shall not receiue Christ neither For being alone he can haue no communion of Christ his fleshe deriued vnto him euery cōmunion importing a number as these men saie Now what an absurdite is this that the good man shall not receiue Christ in the Sacrament bicause euill men receiue with him or bicause he can haue no cōpany of good men Fiftely if the communion of Christ his flesh be deriued vnto vs by the Spirit of Christe then the Spirit of Christ serueth the fleshe as an instrument Which Caluin in his institutions expresly saieth calling the Spirit of Christ a cundyt pipe by the which the flesh of Christ is deriued vnto vs. Nowe beside that this is a horrible blasphemy to make the Spirit of Christe which is his godhead inferiour to the flesh of Christe as an instrumēt of the same it is also cōtrary to al reason and common course of nature For the fleshe serueth well in thinges created as an instrument whereby the Spirit showeth forth his operations as by our eies we see by oute handes we feele and so forth but the Spirit neuer serueth the fleshe nor neuer may be saied to be an instrument of the same Last of all if the due eating of Christ is to haue the communion of flesh deriued vnto vs by his Spirit whereby we receiue life then the vnworthy eating of Christ is the communion of dānation How shall that be deriued vnto vs by the Spirit off Christ to what cā be a more horrible blasphemy by some euill sprit that were the doctrine of the Maniches And yet if it be true that the due receiuing of Christ is no other thing but to haue a cōmunion of him deriued vnto vs thē truly the vnworthy receiuing of Christ must nedes be a communion of damnation deriued also vnto vs. Lo in what absurdites Caluin hath entangled him selfe by departing from the Catholike faith For keping the Catholike doctrine none off al these absurdites shal ensue Wherefore it semeth I maie well saie nowe to Caluin and all suche as folowe this his doctrine that which S. Augustin saied to the Arrians Ego secundum fidem Catholicam Video quomodo exeam de questione sine offensione sine scandalo tu autem circumclusus quaeris qua exeas that is I folowing the catholike faithe ▪ can easely finde a waie to ridde my selfe oute this of question without offence or inconueniēce But thou being al compassed in arte to seke whiche waie to gett oute And euen so fareth it with Caluin For leauing the sure knowen doctrine of the catholike Churche teaching vs according to the tenour of Christ his owne wordes that we eate his fleshe and drinke his bloud in the blessed Sacrament and imagining a communion of Christ his fleshe to be deriued vnto vs by the Spirit of Christ as by a coundit pipe you see what hainous blasphemies and brutish absurdites he is forced withal to cōfesse And this point by vs nowe examined is the chefest Kaye of all the Sacramentary doctrine which being proued nought and full of absurdites declareth that all the store within is of no better stuffe And that shall you anon see and sensibly feale if priuat preiudice haue not vtterly bereued you of common sence Caluin in his commentaries vpon the first to the Corinthians disputing howe we receaue Christ in the blessed Sacrament concludeth his whole disputation in these wordes I conclude saith he the body of Christe is geuen vs in the Supper really as they commonly speake that is truly to the entent it may be holesome foode for oure soules I speake after the common fashion but I meane that oure soules are fedde with the substaunce of Christ his body to the entent we may be made one with him or which is all one that a certain quickening vertu is poored vpon vs oute of the fleshe of Christ by his Spirit though it be farre distant from vs and be not mingled with vs. In these wordes Caluin vttereth two straūge doctrines First that our soules are fedde with the body of Christ secondarely that we receaue the body of Christ really and truly though he saie after that body to be farre distant from vs meaning that it remaineth only in heauen as in the very nexte wordes folowing he declareth As touching the first point if oure soules are fedd with the body of Christ by eating the sacrament we must lerne whether he meane the soule onely to be fedde and not the body or the body also to eate the fleshe of Christ as well as the soule Caluin meaneth the soule onely to eate the body of Christ. For in his cōmentaries vpon the sixte of Iohn he pronoūceth our eating of the sacrament to be the worke of our faith and saith farder in expresse wordes I confesse we eate not Christ any other wise then by beleuing which doctrine howe absurde it is we shall anon speake off Nowe let vs see what absurdites folowe graunting the eating of Christ his body onely to the soule First if the bread of life whiche Christ geueth in the Sacrament be eaten onely off the soule then Manna the figure of this sacrament was more auailable to the Iewes then this blessed foode is to vs Christians For that the Iewes did eate Manna bodely not onely by faith and that it was a corporal foode vnto them the scripture doth clerely testifie Againe that it
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
at the oblation and distributiō thereof For after the ghospel they we re all by the deacōs excluded And to this daie at Rome where Turkes sometime resort and Iewes alwaies cōtinewe some infidels and some Catechumeni at the solēne festes when most resort of people is at the high masse after the ghospel a staie is made and a serch whether any Catechumeni other of the Iewes or of the grekes be present Notwithstanding these Catechumeni beleued in Christ some off them no lesse then the Christiās S Ambrose was a Catechumin and a beleuer in Christ though not baptised euē when he was elected bishop of Millain S. Augustin being yet a Catechumin wrote diuers litle bookes wherein he declared him selfe not only a true beleuer in Christ but an excellent diuin as it appereth especially by his Soliloquia which he made in that time Nowe if Caluin had liued in those daies and sene S. Ambrose and S. Augustin not yet baptised notwithstanding the faith and lerning they had to be thrust out of the churches after the ghospel and not to haue bē suffred so much as to be present at the sacring time and the residew of the Masse he woulde of al likelihood comforted thē with the faith of his ghospell and whistred them in the eare that they receaued and did eate the fleshe off Christ no lesse thē the other that receaued at the aultar seing they beleued no lesse then the other He might also haue checked S. Ambrose for keping the Emperour Theodosius so longe out of the church for the greate murdre he had caused to be done at Thessaelonica For the Emperour notwithstanding remained in his faith as it well appeareth by the greate lamentations he made at home in his house when he sente Ruffinus one of his Nobles to S. Ambrose to be admitted in to the churche And in very dede Caluin by this his doctrine not onely comptrolleth S. Ambrose and S. Augustin but condemneth all the primitiue church excluding the Catechumeni from receauing the blessed Sacrament if as he saie faith only geueth them this foode I beseche here all good Christen men and such as feare God and loue their owne soules diligently to aduise with them selues howe they folowe the Sacramentary doctrine of our preachers of Geneua lest that in folowing them they departe from the Catholike church bothe that nowe is and euer hath ben which in their Crede they professe to beleue Thirdly if when our Sauiour saied to his disciples Take eate this is my body by the worde eating he badde vs beleue what did he bidde vs in the worde taking do we take by faith as we eate by faith why then call they men so earnestly to their table maye I not as wel eate and take by faith at home as at their table doth not my faith serue me as well in the house as in the church they are wonte to saie we maie as well praie at home as in the church and why maie we not also as well beleue at home as in the church Then if bothe taking and eating the body of Christ be but a matter of faith what nede they storme and trouble such as will not receaue at Easter or other times maie not good men tel them that by their owne doctrine they receaue at home beleuing in the passion and resurrection of Christ Againe when Christ bad the Apostles take and eate his body did they looke vpon him beleuing him and receaued nothing outewardely yes they will saie they receaued the bread what was the bread the body of Christe the Lutherans indede would be glad to heare that For so should Caluin be a Lutheran and agree with Westphalus which while he liued he would not do for his life What wil here the Sacramentary saye What shift hath he yet He will perhaps saye that Christ bad thē take bread and eate his body This were in dede to make Christ a very sophister to witt that bidding the Apostles take and eate both together saying withall it was his body he should meane they should take bread and eate his body Brefely this I cōclude Yf Christ in these wordes Take eate this is my body meaned this Take and eate this bread which is my body then Caluin agreeth with Westphalus and is become a Lutheran against his will If he meaned this take bread and eate my body then was it a sophisticatiō For it is a point of sophistry to ioyne two termes together taking one properly and the other improperly As here by this laste meaning Christ bidding them take ment properly they should take in dede and bidding them eate mēt vnproperly that is they should not eate in dede but beleue For as al the worlde knoweth beleuing is a very vnproper signification of eating and suche as neuer was heard of before the daies of Iohn Caluin being ment of sacramentall eating But will you see that by the doctrine of Caluin the Apostles did not eate Christ at all in the last supper I meane by faithe For Caluin as you haue heard by his wordes in his Catechisme meaneth such faith as beleueth that Christ died for our redemption and hath risen for our iustification Nowe what faith the Apostles had when Christ made is maunde touchinge his death I will not nowe dispute Althoughe it may seme they doubted much thereof whē they wōdered so muche at his wordes signifiēg his deathe as that Iudas should betraie him as also S. Peter after denieng him But as touching the resurrection the scripture telleth vs plain that diuers of the Apostles at that time beleued it not For first S. Ihon in his ghospell writeth of him selfe that after he looked in to the graue and sawe nothing but the winding shete lefte Vidit credidit he sawe and he beleued And straight after he writeth of S. Peter and him selfe Nondū enim sciebant scripturā c. for they knewe not yet the scripture that he should rise frō deathe S. Thomas also an other of the Apostles woulde not beleue that Ghrist had risen vntell he put his finger in to his woundes And therefore our Sauiour saide after vnto him Quia vidisti me Thoma credidisti Thomas thou haste beleued bicause thou haste sene me Lo then S. Peter S. Ihon and S. Thomas beleued not in the resurrectiō of Christ whē they receaued the blessed Sacramēt in the laste Supper therefore if Caluins doctrine be true the Apostles did not eate Christ at all in the laste Supper See what godly doctrine ensueth of this ghospel of Geneua But here perhaps some scoler of Caluin will obiect what Sir Will you then conclude that bicause in the laste Supper the Apostles without such especiall faith receaued the body of Christ therefore nowe any man may receaue it without that faith Truly suche maner of reasoning of it selfe were naught But yet inioyning with Caluin it were not amisse For he vseth the like against the doctrine of the
Catholike church In his Institutions disputing against the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and awnswering to those which for possibilite of being in diuers places at ones alleage that the body of Christ is glorious and immortall and not subiect to place and measure as oure corruptible bodies are he writeth thus Some againe saieth he seke a more suttle escape to wit that the body of Christ geuē in the Sacramēt is glorious and immortall and therefore that it is not absurde he be in diuers places or in no certain place or in any certain forme vnder the Sacrament But I aske them VVhat body gaue our Lorde to his disciples the daie before he suffred Do not the wordes sounde that he gaue his mortall body and the same which shoulde forthwith be deliuered Thus farre Caluin If then this maner of reasoning be currant and allowablein Caluin Christ before he suffred gaue his mortall body to be eaten ergo he geueth not nowe any other in the Sacrament why then maye not we also reason against him The Apostles before Christ suffred beleued not in the resurrection and yet notwithstanding receaued the body of Christ in the Sacrament ergo it is not nowe requisit and necessary for the eating of Christ his body to beleue in his resurrection If this maner of reasoning be naught and vicious then you lerne that Caluin in reasoning against the churche speaketh not allwaies the ghospell but vttereth sometimes his ignoraunce And if this maner of reasoning be good then Caluin misseth much of the marke in his doctrine where he teacheth that to eate Christ is to beleue in his passion and resurrection Againe we do not reason in this sorte The Apostles at the Maunde beleued not in the resurrection ergo such faith is not nowe necessary as Caluin reasoneth The body of Christ was then mortal ergo it is not to be considered here as a glorious body or immortall But this is our reason The Apostles in the laste supper beleued not in the resurrection ergo Calvin defining the eating of Christ in the Sacramēt to be a beleuing in the deathe and resurrection of Christ excludeth the Apostles from eating of Christes body in the last Supper This is lo the effect of our reasō Nowe if we would infer beside that bicause the Apostles did not then beleue such belefe now is not necessary I graūte the argumēt were naught and yet were it such as Caluin vseth against vs as you haue heard I haue troubled you here somewhat longe But this you haue gained that not only the presēt point of his doctrine whereof we now purposely do entreate is proued to be absurde and detestable as the which excludeth the Apostles from the true receauing of Christ in the laste Supper but also we haue farder declared you an other false point of his maner of reasoning against the Catholike doctrine in this moste blessed Sacrament The fifte absurdite against this pointe of his doctrine maie be this If the eating of Christ his body be as Caluin saith vpon S. Ihon the worke of faithe or as he writeth in his Institutions the effect of faithe that is if by beleuing in Christ we eate and receaue Crist in to vs then to what purpose did S. Paule bid men proue them selues first and so to eate Christ For he that proueth trieth and examineth him selfe first he beleueth For without faith there is no triall of our hartes and he that cometh to god saieth the Apostle must first beleue then if he beleue before he proue him selfe he eateth by Caluins saieng the body of Christ before he be proued How standeth this with S. Paul bidding vs first to proue and so to eate Surely S. Paule mēt that the eating of Christ was not by faith only which we muste nedes haue before we can proue and trie our owne worthines or vnworthines but by receauing really after due probation and trial the very true and naturall body of our Sauiour Iesus Christ. Last of all if the eating of life whiche Christ promiseth in the Sacrament is the effect of faith the eating of iudgement and deathe is the effect of infidelite That is if by faith we duely receaue the blessed Sacramēt through infidelite and lacke of faith we receaue our owne damnation By this reason the Turke shall through his infidelite eate iudgment and dānation though he neuer eate the Sacrament nor the bread which S. Paule spake of This doctrine therefore of Caluin maie haue good rime but surely it hathe small reason it may sounde well in the eares of ignorant persons that we eate Christ no otherwise then by beleuing in him but it standeth with no reason at all as you haue I trust sufficiently heard and yet when we come to the contradictions of Caluin you shal here more and see Caluin confute him selfe I will note onely more most notable absurdite in this their doctrine whereby you shall perceaue to what point they bring this holy Sacrament and so come to the contradictions of Caluin as we promised Caluin teacheth in his Catechisme that we receaue the communion of Christ his body as well in baptim and by hearing the ghospell as at the Lordes supper But that in Baptim and by the ghospell we receaue him but in parte in the Supper we receaue him wholy and fully And in his resolution of the Sacraments he teacheth that we receaue Christ in the Supper euen as we had him before continually dwelling in vs. For saieth he Faithe being required of vs before we come to the Sacrament we haue Christ also before for oure faith is not without Christ And euen as the vse of the Sacraments profiteth no more the vnbeleuers then if they vsed them not at all so the beleuers communicat and haue the verite figured by the Sacraments which is Christ euen without the vse of the Sacraments Farder the profit which we receaue at the Sacramēts ought not to be restrained to the very time we receaue thē as though the signe being geuen vs we receaued withal incontinently the grace of God It maie well happen that the receit of the Sacrament that in the acte profited nothing through our defaute or slacknes maie afterwarde bring forth better frute Hetherto Caluin In these wordes Caluin concludeth his doctrine touching this blessed Sacrament Let vs nowe examin it What meaneth Caluin so to debace the excellent vertu of this blessed Sacrament as to compare it to baptim or hearing of the ghospell forsothe to persuade men that it were nought els but a morcell of bread a mere figure badge or token For see I praie you what his opiniō and doctrine is touchīg baptim Baptim saithe he in his institutions is a signe of the entring whereby we are receaued in to the felowship of the Church that being grafte in Christ we maie be accompted amonge the Children of God Here he meaneth baptim not to make vs entre in to Christ
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
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
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
the people knew theÌ„ selues the Senatours remained in authorite Particular fautes were redressed the whole order and estat remained Sucha Pacuuius I say was at the entry of these heresies to be wished and preseÌ„tly may also be heard For although that which is past caÌ„ not be reuoked yet it may be amended Let vs then with Pacuuius demaunde of such as lothe their auncient and receiued belefe what newe faith will they embrace For without some faith I thinke none yet that beare the name of Christians will line Will they be right and zelous Lutherans taking Luther for the very man of God and vndoubted prophet to reuele his holy worde in these our later dayes Will they reiect all Fathers all Councells all that Christendom hath hetherto beleued as you haue heard before Luther doth Then beside all that we haue saied of his doctrine and behauiour sufficieÌ„t I trust to proue him a right heretike if an heretike may be knowen by his frutes let them satisfie the ciuill and disordrely or repining Lutherans let them accrode with the Sacramentaries the Anabaptistes the Osiandrins the Swenkcfeldians and all the remnant of Luthers branches as you may see and vew in the petigrew of his ofspring drawen out by Staphylus If they set light by that fonde frier as the more part of protestants do to the great grief and bitter complaining of all zelous Lutherans what secte wil they be of Will they ciuilly beleue at pleasure as MelaÌ„chthon did and be euerlerning as S. Paule of heretikes pronounceth but neuer attaining to the truthe Who laugheth not at so fonde a chaunge if in so waighty a cause any Christen hart can laugh and not rather lament such willfull blindnesse or blind willfulnesse as in these ciuil Lutherans appeareth Will they forsake Luther vtterly and become Sacramentaries Yet then we may demaunde of what secte of Sacramentaries they will be For Caluin and Bullinger Geneua and Zurich agre not But if they will be Caluinistes as most parte of Sacramentaries are who yet will not disdayne there at knowing the pride of Caluin setting light by the holy Fathers his corrupting of holy Scripture wicked renewing of olde condemned heresies fonde auouching off most clere contradictions rashe teaching of moste absurd doctrine in that article where he we was thought moste to haue excelled All which and much more we haue in this simple discourse discouered vnto you gentle Readers to the entent that you may see what an euill chaunge you make to leaue the auncient fathers the Catholike and vniuersall belefe the faith you were baptised in and in the which all our forefathers these thousand fiue hundred yeares and vpwarde haue serued allmighty God and liued as Christen men and true membres of Christes church to leaue I saie all this and to become protestants or new ghospellers that is men of a new faith and religion which you must lerne of some one of these three Luther Melanchthon or Caluin or of such as haue lerned it of them By this consideration I trust you shall pereiue that though the vniuersall name of refourmed ghospellers and chalengers off gods worde haue pleased you though the generall name of papistry haue displeased and misliked you yet the particular being now discouered as well off the persons as of the doctrine you will either incontinently returne from whence you departed or at lest deliberat thereof and of these fewe lerne to mistrust the rest Fridericus Staphylus whose Apologie we haue here translated you being a Lutheran many yeares and so farre in credit with the protestants that he might haue ben a doctour of diuinite amonge them also a Superintendent at Augspurg at Brunsuick Lubeck and Hamburg by this very consideration became a Catholike For hauing many years ben a Lutheran and a familiar frend of Melanchthon aduised with him selfe to write also in defence of the Lutheran doctrine He had not yet at that time read the auncient fathers but had heard them much alleaged of Luther and Melanchthon and trusting to their allegations thought vndoubtedly that the doctrine of Luther was agreable with the lerned fathers and the primitiue church Hereupon he diuised after the imitation of the Master of the sentence and other schole men to set forthe in one volume the whole effect and summe of Luthers doctrine This booke he intituled Corpus doctrinae Lutheranae the body or summe of Luthers doctrine For this purpose he began to â—eke the doctours and serche the original of Luthers and MelaÌ„chthons allegatioÌ„s But here lo in this particular serche and examinatioÌ„he found the doctours and auncient writers to condemne directly the doctrine of Luther At this he was maruailousely astonned brake of his enterprise began with priuat study to peruse him selfe the auncieÌ„t and approued writers in Christes church as well the grekes as the latins and to conferre with them these new writers of our time About this study he bestowed as he writeth in this very Apologie two and tweÌ„ty yeares not medling with any other ciuil or worldly matters in al that time By this meanes though slowly and slackely as in the preface of this Apologie he complaineth him selfe he shifted at length him selfe out of the captious coÌ„trouersies of this time and became not only a right good Catholike priuately and in coÌ„science but opeÌ„ly also to al the worlde he declared it and discouered more theÌ„ any of our time hath done bothe the false grounde of all their pretended doctrine that is the bare title of gods worde without the right vnderstanding of the same and also their variaunces sectes and dissensions amonge them selues Whereby in diuers partes of Germany especially in the territory of Bauaria many haue returned from the dissolut heresy of Luther to the holesom discipline of the Catholike church This he did to his dere countre of Germany in this Apologie writen of him in his mother tongue This I haue made now common to my dere countre also hauing no lesse nede thereof then that miserable countre of Germany hath I trust herein I shall offende none but suche perhaps as firste muste be offended before they can be amended Heresy is compared to a caÌ„cre Vnlesse it be launced it festereth and groweth to the corruption not only of it self but of other To make an ende I desire the protestant to make the example of this lerned and vertuous maÌ„ Fridericus Staphylus to reade this his labour to consider the grouÌ„de of false doctrine taught by Luther and his successours to vewe the diuersite and contrariete of his scholers the numbre of sectes the blasphemies of eche one to waigh the issue off this doctrine the dissolut life and contempt of order the countres of Hungary Lifland and Prussia lost by Luthers heresy finally to beholde the olde heresies renewed by Luther and other his behauiour resembling heretikes the incoÌ„stancy variete and wilfulnesse of Melanchthon the fonde absurdites clere contradictitions and most hainous heresies of Ihon Caluin I besech the
Catholike that nedeth not this eure and instructions to thanke allmighty God therefore to praie for the protestant and all deceiued persons in matters of conscience and soule helth Vt idipsum dicamus omnes noÌ„ sint in nobis schismata simus autem perfecti in eodem sensu in eadem scientia that is that we may say all one thing and that there be no schismes amonge vs but that we be perfit in one self vnderstanding and in one self knowleadg Such perfectnes of vnite and agrement with amendment of life and true repentaunce our Lorde for his tendre mercy graunt our countre and all ChristeÌ„dom through the merites of his dere SoÌ„ our Sauiour and Redemer Christ Iesus To whom with the Father and the holy Ghoste be all honour and glory now and euer AMEN FINIS Quoniam viri doctissimi Angli sacraruÌ„ literaruÌ„ peritissimi apud me fide dignissimi ApologiaÌ„ hanc Friderici Staphylia Thoma Stapletono fideliter traductam attestati sunt itemque disceptationem ab ipso scriptam aduersus doctrinam Lutheri Melanchthonis Caluini vtilem per omnia Catholicam iudicarunt merito vtramque typis excudendam iudico Ita attestor Cunnerus Petri pastor S. Petri Louanij sacrae Theologiae professor .16 Nouembris an 1564. A TABLE OF THE SPECIALL MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE APOLOGIE OF STAPHYLVS IN THE DIScourse of the Translatour and in the prefaces off bothe Gathered by the order off the A B C. The figure fignifieth the leafe B the second side A short description of the Author of the Apologie fol. 9. b. seq Abhominable heresics of the Lutherans touching Christ. fol 17 Heresies of Caluin about the Sacrament of baptim fol. 231. and in the leaues folowing The opinion of Caluin touching baptim refuted fol. 202. A contradiction of Caluin about baptim fol. 203. Certain protestants call baptim a bathe for swine fol. 109. Certain false translations of the english Bible fol. 5. b. Item fol. 152. seq The duty of a conuerted Catholike fol. 56. b. VVhat is Catholike 49. b. The church ought to be obeyed 62. b 63. VVhy Caluin may worthely be charged with the heresies off the Arrians the Maniches and other fol. 224. Detestable doctrines off Caluin fol. 112. Absurdites in the doctrine off Caluin fol. 190. seq The confession off Ausgpurg resemble the Synods off the Arrians fol. 186. The ciuill Lutherans resemble olde beretikes fol. 185. b. Vniuersalite Antiquite and Consent sure notes off the Catholike doctrine fol. 144 Conferring off Scribture is no certain rule to interpret scripture fol. 159. b. 160. VVhat the communion off England is fol. 205. That we receaue not a communion of Christes body poored downe vpon vs in the sacrament fol. 190. The communion off Caluin destroieth the necessite off communicants fol. 191. b. People nede not resorte to the communion by the doctrine off Caluin fol. 198. b. 204. b. Caluins doctrine about the blessed Sacrament condemneth the practise of the primitiue church fol. 198. excludeth the Apostles from receauing Christ in the laste Supper fol. 199. excludeth the triall that S. Paul requireth fol. 201. Caluin denieth scripture fol. 237. An impudent foly off him fol. 238. he furdereth the cause off the Anabaptistes fol. 240 he auoucheth doctrine off his owne without scripture and wil not allow the doctrine off the church without the same fol. 241. he requireth to be heard against expresse scripture ibidem b. The principles off the Catholike religion fol. 15 The difference of the present communion from the first fol. 8. Olde condemned heresies renewed by Caluin in the doctrine off the blessed Sacrament fol. 222. Contradictions in the doctrine off Caluin fol. 206. and in the leaues folowing Caluin belieth holy Scripture fol. 209. The cause off contradictions in caluin fol. 208. b. The Lutherans haue corrupted the Crede fol. 97. b. They denie an article off the Crede fol. 106. The communion off the protestants is but foode for refection fol. 228. b. VVhat the iudge off praesent controuersies ought to be fol. 20. b. A clere example off debating a controuersy fol. 21. VVhat is all the controuersy betwene the Catholikes and the protestants fol. 35. Caluin teacheth Christ to haue suffred in hell fol. 229. VVhat his doctrine is fol. 233. b. Off the Ciuill Lutherans fol. 182. b. The difference betwene Catholikes and heretikes fol. 24. The Catholikes haue the worde off God no lesse then the protestants fol. 33. The late death off many great princes in a short time fol. 26. b. Such death a token off Gods wrath fol. 27. Difference betwene life and doctrine fol. 35. b. Doctrine how it is to be tried by the frutes fol. 38. b. How to discerne true doctrine from false fol. 41. A brief recapitulation off the schismes and dissensions amonge the protestants fol. 93. Item fol. 249. Testimonies off Lutheran Superintendents and Ministres witnessing the disagreement in doctrine amonge them selues fol. 78. and in many leaues folowing Dissension destroieth heresies fol. 98. b. It is a sure token off heresy fol. 99. Praier for the dead defended again M. Grindall fol. 163. and in the leaues folowing commaundement in Scripture to praie for the dead beside the place off the Machabees fol. 163. The meaning off the Fathers praying for the dead fol. 171. English corrupted translations lerned of Luther fol. 68. 71. b. 72. b. off Munster fol. 155. b. 156. off Caluin fol. 158. Excommunication off the protestants embarreth not from the communion by the doctrine off Caluin fol. 196. b. A good lesson for England fol. 126. 138. b. A corrupted text off Luthers in the english transl fol. 68. 71. b. .72 b. Brauling amonge the Archeprotestants for ecclesiasticall gouuernement fol. 45. 46. Holy Fathers despised by olde hertikes as by our protestants now fol. 32. b. 178. A very good faith off a coolyar fol. 53. Faith is one in all but trade off life diuers fol. 122. Lutherans do thaunge hope in to faith and cosidence fol. 124. The frute off only faith fol. 128. That we eate not the body off Christ only by faith fol. 196. b. A question to the Geneuians off England fol. 204. b. A straunge order off seruing the church in Germany fol. 43. b. A notable example off the sundry sectes in Germany fol. 56. b. 57. The ghospell off Luther decaieth daily fol. 121. The first Apostles off the Germans fol. 126. b. The ghospellers doubt and vary what the ghospell preacheth fol. 91. The mariages off new ghospellers fol. 96. b. The miracles off the new ghospell fol. 35. The markes off the heretikes off the primitiue church 24. The same marke in our heretikes fol. 25. A readie waie to trie out an heretike fol. 53. An answer to stoppe the mouth off an heretike fol. 54. A lesson off S. Antony to auoide â—eretikes fol. 62. The maner off heretikes fol. 67. Heretikes off great vertu in apparence fol. 38. Off the Canonicall howres off
praier fol. 69. Heresies suffred in the church for our triall fol. 2. .3 The duty off a Christen man in time off heresy fol. 3. b. Hungary loste by Luthers heresy fol. 128. b. The destruction off Grece through heresy fol. 129. Hierusalem destroied by schismes fol. 129. b. The miserable estat off Lislande through heresy fol. 130. Countres lost in Germany by heresy fol. 127. b The meanes whereby many haue fallen in to heresy fol. 146. The heretike more dangerous then the Turke fol. 150. b. Grece and Afrike loste the faith by heresy fol. 182. The ende of present heresies fol. 19. Good counsell of Sisinnius to defeat heretikes fol. 21. b. It behoueth not to dispute with heretikes fol. 22. b. Inconstancy of Lutherans fol. 97. b. Inconstancy of Lutherans fol. 44. b. A lowde lie of the Lutherans against the Catholike church 33. b A prety story of wronge interpretation fo 51. The liberty of Luthers ghospell fo 75. VVhat partes of scripture may be read of the laite fol. 78. b Liflande loste by Luthers heresy f. 128 The pride and presumption of Luther f. 132. Luthers penaunce fol. 133. He becometh a papist for a vauntage fol. 134. b. He is a false prophet fo 139. A murderer and stroÌ„ge thefe in the church ibi The Lutherans vary at their metings and conferences like the Arrians fo 186. b. The labells of the Lutherans principles fol. 18. b Sacramentary sectes amonge the Lutherans fol. 87. b The outward behauiour off Lutherans in Germany fol. 59. VVhy protestants barke at the euill life of the clergy fo 61. b. The church ought not to be forsaken for the euill life off men in the church fo 62. Laye men are not commaunded to read scripture f. 64. The hebrew text could not be read off the laye Iewes folio 64. b. The dangers proceding off the laites reading scripture fo 65. Luther will proue by Scripture there ought to be no Magistrats amonge Christen men f. 140. b. The marriage off Luther fol. 141. b. Contrariete in his doctrine fol. 142. The cause of Luthers breache from the church and the maner of the first entry thereof fo 149. a. b. Luther proued an heretike fo 179. His proper heresy touching the Sacrament hath wrought his owne confusion fo 181. b. Lutherans in Bohem teache the soule to die with the body fol. 17. b. Luther at the first planting of his heresy writeth against obedience to princes fol. 16. He maketh chastite a thing impossible ibid. Luther clippeth the coyne of Gods worde fol. 66. He addeth to the text fol. â—8 Enemy to virginite and wedlock bothe Ibidem b. He teacheth pluralite of wiues fol. 69. reneweth the heresy of the Pelagians and off the Manichees fol. 68. Item of Vigilantius fol 69. Chaungeth opinion in doctrine fol. 72. 74. con demneth good lerning fol. 73. writeth against obedience to Magistrats fol. 75. A notable testimony of the Caluinistes against Luther fol. 25. All new sectes haue begonne of Luther ibidem b. The frute off liberty preached by Luther fo 44. The pride of Luther fol. 36. A notable testimony of Luther of the life of his scholers lbi b. The frutes of the Lutherans doctrine fol. 39. The euill life of the Catholikes and of the Lutherans procede of diuers causes fo 40. b. 41. MelaÌ„chthon teacheth pluralite of wiues fol. 69. chaungeth opinion in doctrine fo 72. becometh a Suinglian fo 88. is a dissembling ghospeller fol. 90. he becometh a baker fo 107. b. Horrible blasphemies of a ghospelling Minister f. 112. b VVicked doctrine of Luther touching Matrimony fol. 96. Melanchthon inconstant in doctrine fol. 183. A corrupter off Luthers bookes ibidem b. A breder of sedition and rebellion f. 185. a. b malitious and cruell fo 187. b. The Machâ—bees proued to be of the Canon fol. 166. The writings of men in the churche to be folowed fol. 168. The fathers off the protestants fo 161. 162. Item fol. 165. b. and in the leaues folowing The doctrine of our protestants consisteth of olde heresies folio 161. 162. Item fol. 175. and in the leaues folowing The principle off the only written text how it is ment of protestants fol. 7. Protestants refusing the Councell show them selues to lacke Charite fol. 20. Luther proueth coÌ„tempte of Princes by scripture fol. 139. b. his counsell to â—rinces fol. 140. Protestants are proued to be heretikes fol. 98. The protestants are Manichâ—es fol. 111. b. Protestants confounde vniformite and diuersite fol. 122. b. The frutes of protestants confusion in doâ—â—rine fol. 123. Prussia loste by Luthers heresy fol. 127. b A necessary lesson for deceiued protestants fol. 58. A vaine crake of protestants fol. 59. No certainte of Faith in protestants fol. 18. Disagreement in doctrine amonge our protestants fol. 7. Outward pretence off agreement in the same ibidem b. Speciall articles off contradictions amonge the protestants fol. 80. b. Thirten heresies amonge the protestants touching the blessed sacrament fol. 90. b. Fiue amonge the Lutherans fol. 90. and eight amonge the Zwinglians 86. b. The grounde off all protestants doctrine false and deceitfull fol. 42. An other decitfull ground off protestants fol. 43. A persit rule to discern false preachers fol. 37. A charitable shift of the protestants fol. 29. b. Reall receauing can not stand without reall presence fol. 194. The cause of diuers professions of religion in the Catholike church fol. 125. Hereticall rebellion neuer proueth fol. 125. b. Scripture nedeth exposition 47. VVhy the protestants crie vpon only Scripture fol. 48. VVhat the vnlerned shall do in variete off interpretations off scripture fol. 48. b. A token to know false interpretation off scripture from true fol. 49. b. Euery heretike alleageth scripture fol. 59. b. How interpretation off Scripture is tried true fol. 60. The body of Christe vnder one kinde of the SacrameÌ„t perfit and whole 60. A similitude fol. 3. b. fol. 65. b. fol. 124. b. .189 b. Scripture corrupted by Luther fol. 66. and many leaues folowing The doctrine of Sacramentaries destroieth the resurrection of our bodies fol. 227. Caluin maketh the blessed Sacraments bare signes tokens and badges fol. 203. Of the Sacrament of the aultar see in the worde Caluin That the soule only is not fedd of Christ in the Sacrament f. 193 Chalenging of only Scripture cause of heresies fol. 114. The ground of the Leage at Smalcaldium brickle and variable fol. 110. The Sacramentaries desire to be vnder the winge of the Lutherans fol. 81. b. they condemne Luther fol. 84. b. Luther condemneth them fol. 84. and fol. 86. b. Foure Sacraments acknowledged of Melanchthon fol. 45. Scripture alone suffiseth not fol. 41. b. 42. Great confusion in the church by small alteration of the Scripture fol. 70. b. Scripture hard to be vnderstanded fol. 4. The custome of heretikes to denie partes of scripture fol. 165. doctrine defended without expresse coÌ„maundement in scripture fol. 169. Staphylus refuseth to be doctour of
conuaiaunce off Christ his flesh in to oure soules whiche he teacheth bothe in his Institutions and in his commentaries vpon S Paule he fell in to the heresy of the Maniches no lesse wicked and auncient heretikes then Nestorius Now you shal see that making the flesh off Christ a pipe for the conuaiaunce of Christ his diuinite vnto vs he falleth in to the heresy of Nestorius In his commentaries vpon the sixte of S. Ihons ghospell thus he writeth As the euerlasting worde off God is the fountaine of life so his fleshe conuaieth vnto vs like a certain pipe that life abiding in the godhead And in this sense the fleshe of Christe is saide to geue life bicause it communicateth vnto vs the life which it boroweth other where These are the very wordes of Caluin Nowe let vs considre the doctrine of S. Paule saieng As in Adam all do die so in Christ all shall be quickened or endued with life Vppon the grounde of this doctrine whiche can not be denied thus I reason If the fleshe of Christ dothe not of it selfe geue life as Caluin saythe but serueth vs as a pipe of the life abiding in god then the sinnerfull fleshe of Adam was not of it selfe damnable and the cause of our damnation VVe all sinning and dieng in Adam as S. Paule saithe but a pipe or instrument of deathe and damnation abiding in some euill God from whence the fleshe of Adam toke deathe and damnation as the fleshe of Christe acording to Caluin boroweth life of God For otherwise the saieng of S. Paule shall not be true attributing as properly and as truly life vnto our Sauiour as deathe vnto Adam Nowe to imagin a higher cause of deathe in Adam then Adam him selfe and an euill God in whom that death before remained to be from thence deriued to sinners is the very doctrine of the cursed Maniches making two Goddes or beginnings of all things one of the good and an other of the badde as in S. Augustin it is easy to finde But here perhaps some scholer of Caluins schole and zelous professour of the ghospell of Geneua will steppe in and saie that Master Caluin neuer taught neuer allowed nor so muche as dreamed off the approuing of suche hainous heresies as these are And therefore we deale not charitably herein but rather vtter our malice and stomache to no purpose To such bicause I thinke it were harde for me to frame an awnswer of my owne that might please them I will awnswer with the wordes of M. Caluin him selfe which I hope shall not mislike them Master Caluin in his Institutions hauing for his pleasure longe iested at the blessed sacrifice of the Masse and with a fewe sory reasons laboured to proue that such as saide Masse crucified Christ againe at the length moueth the like obiection as this is against him selfe and awnswereth vnto it in these wordes I knowe well saith he they haue a ready answer whereby they will charge vs as slaunderers For they will saie we laye that vnto their charge whiche they neuer thought and whiche they were sure they coulde neuer do But we knowe well inoughe it is not in their handes to make Christ liue or die Nether care we if they neuer thought to kill him Onely this I would showe what absurdite doth folowe by their wicked and hainous doctrine Thus awnswered Caluin thinking it a sufficient excuse to escape the note of a slaūderer and false accuser hauing well deserued it We awnswer the same being no false accusers of Caluin but true reporters of that we finde in his writings and saie that we passe not whether Caluin euer thought as Arrius Faustus Manicheus Valentinus Samosatenus Nestorius and the whole secte of the Maniches taught Onely we entend to showe that by his hainous and wicked doctrine such heresies do consequently folowe Whiche the vnlerned take so muche the sooner for that they come vnder the visard of a fauourer of the ghospell Whereas being nowe brought to light and their visard plucked of they shall appeare in their liknes to witt olde cursed and cōdēned heresies This I truste shall make men take better aduisement whiche waie they walke in matters of belefe nor lightely to trust euery newe Master bringing newe lerning and not heard of before Lest as Caluin hathe done by listening after newe doctrine they fall in to olde heresies But nowe to the residew of them That the paschal lambe offred and eatē by Moyses in the olde lawe was a clere figure of Christ the true lambe of god to be eaten and offred in the newe lawe for the redēption of mankinde it is a verite of all Christen men confessed and vndoubtedly receiued The wordes of our Sauiour saieng that it behoued him to fulfill all wich was writen of him in the lawe the psalmes and the prophets geue vs no lesse to vnderstād S. Paule also teacheth vs that al thinges happēed to the Iewes in figure to witt of suche thinges as vnder Christ should be accōplished Brefely Caluin him selfe in his commentaries vpon S. Paule to the Hebrewes confesseth that all the sacrifices of the olde lawe do leade vs to the sacrifice of Christe whiche doctrine he lerned of the holy fathers especially S Augustin who repeteth it in sundry places of his workes Caluin therefore in his Institutions treating of oure Lordes supper accordeth this figure of the paschall lambe with the supper off oure Lorde in this sorte The paschall lambe saithe he being bodely eaten did figure the spirituall eating of oure paschall lambe which is Christ. Vpon this his doctrine it foloweth that Christ was but spiritually not corporally offred vp for vs. For the paschal lambe of Moyses figured Christ not onely as it was eaten but also as it was offred If then the figure of the lambe eaten be accomplished by spirituall eating of Christ the figure of the lambe offred shall be also accomplished by the spirituall oblation of Christe For bothe actions were true figures of Christ and bothe were to be accomplished by Christ no lesse the one then the other Nowe to make the sacrifice of Christ but a spirituall sacrifice is the heresy of Marcion whom Tertullian confuteth The truthe is that as Christ was a true sacrifice figured by the paschall lambe to die for vs so was he a true sacrifice figured by the same to be eaten by vs. Bicause the heresy of Valentinus renewed by the hereticall doctrine of Caluin well espied and tried oute maketh muche for the verite of the reall presence in this blessed Sacrament we will yet farder see how the doctrine of Caluin destroying the reall presence vpholdeth and reneweth the heresy of Valentinus The opinion of Valentinus was that the body of Christ was a celestiall body descending from heauē through the wombe of the blessed Virgin taking no fleshely substaunce thereof Caluin calleth rem signatam the thinge figured in the Sacrament a spirituall and celestiall