Annotatio secunda Gregorii de Valentia societatis Iesu de controversia ubiquetaria

...err for that reason specifically, or are they named Calvinists (except by Schmidelin the new Nomenclator) because they are not also Ubiquitarians—that is, because they do not also confuse the natures and their properties in Christ according to the condemned opinion of Eutyches, Brentius, Schmidelin, and others. Therefore, it is enough for us already against the prior calumnies of Schmidelin and other Ubiquitarians, what Schmidelin himself admits anew in these words: "The Jesuits," he says, "do not agree with the Calvinists in the article concerning the Holy Supper." That, in truth, is what I had said—that Schmidelin set out to prove, when he refuted the Calvinists, that they wished to snatch us into the society of their Sacramentarian error by using our adulterated Theses, in which we openly professed the presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist. By this effort, I showed in my Annotation that the patronage of our side was taken up by Schmidelin not only against the Calvinists but also against himself and his fellow Ubiquitarian comrades. For with several examples I taught that this same Schmidelin had also objected against us the Sacramentarian error (the Sacramentarian error, I say) of the Calvinists: namely, that the body of Christ is not at one time, and cannot be, except in one place. From this, I concluded, by the judgment of Schmidelin himself, that Schmidelin is guilty of the crime of falsity against the Jesuits; for he himself proved that the crime of falsity was committed by the Calvinists, in that they wished to claim us for themselves in the society of that Sacramentarian error. But now, because he cannot patiently bear that he has been condemned by himself for the crime of falsity, he equivocates, and does not wish to acknowledge that he brought judgment against the Calvinists on the grounds that they were snatching us into the society (as he put it) of the Sacramentarian error. But that these things are exactly so, a comparison of my Annotation with his Admonition will teach.

Page 6.

Thes. 110.

Schmidelin is condemned by himself for the crime of falsity.

That, however, is very trivial, which he uses to confirm his Ubiquity (for I will seek out and pursue whatever that may be in...)