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
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
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
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
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