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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Caesaris that There was no hope of remedy vnlesse all mens lawes being extinguished the people did rule and that we ought to praie to God that subiects obey not their magistrats He sturred vp the commons through out al Germany against the nobilite whereby after sondry battailles had there perished more then a hundred thousand of the commons Reade the storie of Sleidan Anabaptistes who first sprang vp by reading in an epistle of Luther to the Waldenses or Picardi That it is better baptim were omitted in children theÌ„ that they should be baptised without their owne faith Of these arose diuers sectes amonge the which these are accompted the cheafest Adamitae the Adamites whiche professe to folowe the innocency of Adam they wander in woddes and sometime naked as Adam and Eue did Stebleri which teache that scripture forbiddeth to cary sworde or wallet item that it is not lawfull for Christen men to accuse in iudgement that it is not the part of a Christen man to repell violence by force but to him that striketh on the one cheke he oughte to turne the other This Luther taught in his articles condemned of the Sorbon in paris Sabbataries which obserue the Sabbaoth daye like Iewes despise the Sonday and do inuocat the father only and seme to contemne the Son and the holy ghoste See Luther in his booke againste the Sabbataries Clancularij Close Anabaptistes whiche being asked whether they be Anabaptistes thinke they may lawfully denie them selues to be such supposing it inoug to knowe priuely what they ought to beleue and that it is not nedefull to confesse openly And these be commonly in greate cytes they enter in to no churches they learne and teache at home in their houses or els mete in gardens Such are commonly called â—arrenbrijder that is garden brethern Manifestarij Open Anabaptistes which being asked whether they be Anabaptistes think it a wicked thinge to denie it In Prussia this secte is common Daemoniaci which beleue as the Origenistes in times paste that the deuills shall be saued after the enof the worlde Communia habentes Commonholders which are of the opinion that wiues children and all other thinges in the common welthe ought to be common as Plato in his Common wealthe taught and in olde time the Nicolaite and off late the ghospelling prophets off MouÌ„ster They saie one to an other My sprit lusteth after thy fleshe come therefore and let vs do maruailous thinges See Sleidan in the battaill of Mounster Condormientes Byslepers which commaunde that for the vehement loue of the newe ghospel men and wemen younge men and maydens ought to lyue in one place and parler and slepe in one chamber So did other heretikes of olde time in BurguÌ„dy and afterward in Bohem the Grubenheymeri which putting out the candles cried one to an other Encrease and multiplie EiulaÌ„tes Howling Anabaptistes whiche thinke no deuotion pleaseth God so muche as to wepe and howle continually greate store of this secte are in the vpper Belgia Georogianidauidici Dauigeorgians whiche began in Friselande in the yeare of our Lorde 1525. They saie there is no deuil they denie the resurrectioÌ„ of the fleshe See SleidaÌ„ The Author and Master of this secte saied him selfe he was the third Dauid as Luther that he was the third Elias and OsiaÌ„der the secoÌ„d Enoch Memnonitae which denie that Christe toke fleshe of the Blessed Virgin Polygamistae Many wiuers which teache that one man maye lawfully haue two wiues at one time IteÌ„ that the brother maye mary his brothers wife he yet liuing So practised Ihon Leiden kinge off Mounster Se Sleidan and so taught Luther in his sermon set forthe of mariage Where he saithe If the wife will not let the maide come There be many other sectes of Anabaptistes which here to auoide prolixite we let passe The Second vncleane sprit and tode son of Luther and father of the Sacramentaries Carolstadius began the yeare of our Lorde 1521. Carolstadius and Zwinglius toke occasion to raise vp againe the olde heresie of Berengarius by these wordes of Luther in his assertions against pope Leo and in formula Missae Nether kinde of the sacrament is necessary to saluation And againe in his Resolutions Only faith of the Sacrament doth iustifie not the Sacrament These and other saiengs of Luther moued Carolstadius and Swinglius to beleue that the Sacraments were but bare signes as Melanchthon vppoÌ„ the epistle to the Romans teacheth These Sacramentaries are many and diuers First there are eight Sacramentary factions which Luther him selfe in parua Confessione attributeth to the Swinglians as we haue noted and recited before TheÌ„ Philip Melanchthon declareth six other Sacramentarie sectes amonge the Lutherans in his determination writen a litle before his death vnto the Counte palatin of the Rhene and printed at Heidelberg in the yeare 1560. whiche we haue also before touched But these which folowe are the most famous and most renouned sacramentarie sectes Significatiui Signifiers whiche affirme that in the Supper of our Lorde for so they call the Sacrament of the anltar is not the true body but only the signe of the body So Swinglius writeth in many and son dry bookes sett forthe De Caena Domini Tropistae Figurers which saie that in the supper of our Lorde is the figure of the body not the true body So taught Oecolampadius in many places Energici Valuers which teache that in the Supper of our Lorde is not the body it selfe but the vertu and value of the body so Caluin teacheth in many bookes and lately in his last admonition against â—oachimus Westphalus Melanchthon also as Caluin laieth to his charge and as it may appeare in his determination printed at Heidelberg affirmeth the same Arrhabonarij Pleadgers which are of the opinion that the Supper of our Lorde when it is geuen is geuen as a pleadge of the body as though it were like the inuesting or taking possession of a farme or any other thinge whiche is geuen So Franciscus Stancarus teacheth in Pole and in Sybenburgen Adessenarij Presentaries of whom there are sondry sectes For some write that the body of our Lorde is in the breade Some aboute the breade some with the breade some vnder the breade see the assertions of VVilhelmus Klebitius of Brandebourg against the disputation lately had at Heidelberg in the yeare 1560. Metamorphistae which affirme that the body off Christ after it ascended in to heauen was made god it selfe And that it ought properly de saied The body of Christ is God Therefore if ye aske howe the body of our Lorde is in the Supper they awnswer That the true body is there but suche a body as is the very substaunce of God and God himselfe not fleshe whiche is of the same substaunce that mans nature is of So writeth Swenck feldi us in many bookes but chefely in his booke De dupli cista'u Christi Iscariotistae Iudaistes whiche denie that in the Supper of our
in the ghospell off S. Ihon. Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hathe life euerlasting Caluin in his institutions and in his coÌ„mentaries vpon that place teacheth thus Who eateth the bread at the communion he receaueth a cundyte pipe by the whiche life is deriued vnto him Marke I beseche you Christen readers howe he hathe altered the wordes of oure Sauiour Where Christ saith Who eateth my flesh Caluin saithe who eateth the bread at the communion and where Christ saithe he hathe life euer lasting Caluin saithe he hathe a cundyte pipe by the whiche life is deriued calling the blessed fleshe of oure Sauiour one person with the godhead a coundyt pype or instrument by the whiche life is deriued from god the Father For that is his meaning as you shall see more plainely hereafter when I come to his heresies attributing life not to the fleshe of Christ as Christ him selfe dothe but to the Father in whom he teacheth life to remaine principally as you shall anon see But nowe to an other proposition Christ saithe I am the resurrection and the life Caluin saythe in his commentaries vpon the sixte off Ihon The Son is as a riuer by the whiche the life abiding in the father is deriued vnto vs. Here again Christ speaking as god and man saith him selfe to be the life For as the general councell of Ephesus charely warneth vs the wordes of the ghospell are all waies to be attributed to Christe as to one person thoughe consisting of two natures â–ª Caluin saithe the life to remaine in the father Where blasphemousely he excludeth Christ making him as a riuer or meanes by the whiche life is deriued vnto vs. But of this we shall haue more occasion to speake hereafter Oure Sauiour after he had sayde in the sixte off Ihon my fleshe is meate in dede and my bloud is drinke in dede expounding those his wordes vnto the carnall Iewes thinking he had meaned his fleshe and bloud after the bare nature of man saithe thus The wordes which I spake vnto you are Spirit and life geuing vs to vnderstande as the lerned Father Cirillus noteth that he spake of his fleshe and blood inseparably annexed to the godhead and one person with the same Nowe Caluin in his institutions affirmeth that by the Spirit of Christe his fleshe is deriued vnto vs and made our foode In the whiche doctrine he separateth the Spirit of Christe from his blessed fleshe geuing vs the one without the other whereas Christ him selfe aboue affirmed that he meaned his fleshe coupled and vnited to the Spirit sayeng the wordes whiche I spake vnto you to witt of my flesh and blood are Spirit and life that is not bare flesh but endued with my Spirit the godhead it selfe nor to be deriued vnto vs by the Spirit as separated from the fleshe or as a cundit pype to conducte the fleshe vnto vs whiche Caluin in his institutions saythe as you haue heard before but to be geuen vnto vs with the Spirit and deite of oure Sauiour iointly and inseparably as they are in him one person and one Christ. Thus you see howe he correcteth and altereth the wordes off oure Sauiour at his pleasure Againe whereas Christe saythe in S. Ihon He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud hathe life euerlasting promising vs by eating to haue life Caluin correcting the sayeng of oure Sauiour in his commentaries vpon S. Ihon where Christe promiseth life and resurrection by the eating of his fleshe and drinking of his bloud he saythe Christ speaketh not here of the Supper but of the perpetuall communion of him which we haue beside the vse of the Supper And yet that ye maye not thinke he meaneth of any other communion naming the perpetuall communion then the very same whiche we haue in the celebration of oure lordes Supper in fewe wordes after he addeth thus muche And yet I confesse that nothinge is here spoken whiche is not also figured and truly exhibited vnto vs in the Supper Thus he maketh him selfe as sure off Christe withoute the receauing of this blessed Sacrament as when he receaueth it whiche by the coÌ„ference of an other place of holy Scripture you shall see yet ones again S. Paule saieth The bread whiche we breake is the participation of the body of our Lorde whereby we lerne in this blessed SacrameÌ„t to receaue the body of Christ. Caluin teacheth vs without the blessed sacrameÌ„t to receaue it For in his resolutioÌ„s vpoÌ„ the sacrameÌ„ts he hathe these wordes Right as the infidell by the vse of the Sacraments receaueth no more profit thereby theÌ„ if he vsed theÌ„ not eueÌ„ so the verite figured in the sacraments is coÌ„municated to the faitheful and beleuers thoughe not receauing the signes or sacrameÌ„ts By this rule we receaue Christ in the supper which before hath bâ—n geueÌ„ vnto vs and dwelleth in vs perpetually And in the .9 article of the same worke he saythe that such as haue before receaued Christ receauing the Sacrament do renewe and continew that which they had before receaued By this his doctrine you see he correcteth the wordes of Christe teaching vs to receaue him by eating his fleshe and drinking his blood And the wordes of S. Paule sayeng the bread to be the participation of our Lordes body by whiche worde he meaneth the blessed Sacrament naming it so of that which it was before as the serpent was called Moyses rodd and the wine water in Cana Galilea S. Paul sayth Who so euer eateth the bread and drinketh the cuppe of the Lord vnworthely he eateth and drinketh his owne daÌ„nation geuing vs to vnderstaÌ„de that at the receauing of the blessed sacrameÌ„t we receaue other life by the worthy receauing other daÌ„nation by the vnworthy Now the doctrine of Caluin directly repugneth For thus he writeth in his resolutioÌ„s vpoÌ„ the sacrameÌ„ts Farder saith he the profit which we receaue at the sacrameÌ„ts ought not to be restrained to the time we receaue theÌ„ as if that the visible signe as soone as it is geueÌ„ vs should bringe vs forthewith the grace of god It may happen that the receite of the sacrament which in the acte profited nothing through our defaulte or slacknes maie afterward bring forth better fruict Thus farre Caluin CoÌ„sider nowe if this doctrine be not cleane coÌ„trary to the meaning of S. Paul For if as S. Paul saith receauing the sacrameÌ„t vnworthely we receaue our own daÌ„nation why also in receauing it worthely receaue we not withal incontinently the grace and vertu thereof Againe if by our defaulte it worketh vs daÌ„nation as the Apostle saith howe caÌ„ it afterwarde auaile vs as Caluin teacheth Thirdly if at the receite of the sacrameÌ„t we receaue nothing what shall the bread that Caluin imagineth alone signifie shall it signifie that by eating it we receaue no profit thereby In good sothe it will signifie vnto vs that Caluin mocketh with God and
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
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