To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Sir ye maie say what ye will. But ne∣uerthelesse, all these woordes of eatyng and drin∣kyng are not ment litterally, but of the eatynge & drynking of the sacrament, in the only respect of it selfe, & not in the respect of christs owne very flesh and blood, which Frith saith is not there in it in deede.
Then sith thou wilt be so folishe as to take it after that sort, tell me what the Sacrament is?
As Frith dooth say, a figure, token, or signe of Christes body and blood, representyng his deth.
And is there no more in it but that?
No.
Then why is it damnable to eate it vnwoorthyly?
Be∣cause it is (as I sayd) a figure, token, or signe of Christs body and blood representynge his death.
Ye but then, why is the sentence of damnacion declared vpon the vnwoorthy eatynge and drynkynge of it, more then vpon the vnwoorthy lookyng or behoulding of it?
Because Paule saith it is so.
Nay Saint Paule dooth not say, that the one is any more damnable then the other. For he speaketh but of the one alone. And yet therin, his saiynge dooth not make it damnable nother. For it dooth but declare it so to bee And therefore I aske of the, why the other shoulde not be so to? For if I be vnworthy to eate it, I am (with∣out question) vnwoorthy to looke vpon it. For bee∣twene the acte of eatynge, and the acte of lookynge or behouldynge, doubtlesse there is no difference, of a∣ny woorthynesse or vnwoorthynesse, more in the one, then in the other. Wherefore, if there be none o∣ther cause, why it is damnable to eate it vnwor∣thyly, but because it is a fygure, token or signe of Christes boddy and blood representynge his death, then it must needes be as damnable to looke v∣pon it, or beholde it vnwoorthyly, because figures, tokens, and sygnes perteyne rather, and more commonlie to the sence of the sight, then to anye eatynge or drynkynge other. And there∣fore
vnwoorthy seyng or beholdyng of it, can be no lesse faute, then is the vnwoorthy eatynge and drynkynge of it, if there be no more in it, then thou speakest of. Wher∣fore, let vs go farther and consider this, that if it be no∣thynge els, but a figure, token, or sygne of Christes bo∣dy and blood representynge his death, why is the sen∣tence of damnacion declared vpon the vnworthy eatyng and drynkynge of that, more then vpon the vnwoorthy lookinge and beholdyng of the Crucifix or the roode? For that is a fygure, token, or signe of Christes bod∣dy and blood representynge his death to. whiche it doth much more aptly, muche more apparantly, much more lyuely, and therefore muche more profitablie, then the sacramente doeth, if there bee no more in the sacrament, then thou saist there is. For that the roode doth, it doth it most sensiblie. But that the sacrament doth, it doth it scāt intelligibly. And therfore if there be no more in the sacrament, then is in the roode then is the roode as good and better then the sacrament is.
No sir not so. For I will not deny, but the sacramente hath in it, that the roode hath not.
What is that?
The sacrament hath in it, the ordy∣nance of Christe. And the roode, but the ordinaunce of man. For Christe did institute and ordeine the one, and man the other.
Then thou muste needes graunte that therein, the ordinaunce of man, is better then the ordinaunce of Christe. For euery figure, token, or signe, is alway ordeyned to signifie. And that signe must needes be best, whiche doth most aptly and moste manifestly represent the thinge that it signifieth. But the roode doth much more manifestly represent the thing
that it signifieth, then the sacrament dooth, wherefore the roode muste needes bee a better signe then the sacramente is. Therefore if the roode bee (as it seemeth by Frith) a better signe then the sacra∣ment is, And the better signe must nedes procede of the better ordinance, (as the better effect, of the better cause) it foloweth plaine, that the ordinance of man in the roode is better then the ordinance of Christe in the sacrament.
Tushe sir, I can not away with that reason.
That is because thou art not able to auoide it, as thou art not in dede, except thou graunt a better thing to be in the sacrament, then any figure, token, or signe other. And a better there is none, but onely the verye thinge, that is thereby signified, which is the very bo∣dy and blood of Christe. For what can be directly bet∣ter then a signe in that kinde of thinges, but onely that, whiche it dooth signifie? because there is no meane betweene them, wherof any comparison is to be made, but onely of the one to the other, that is to saye, betweene them two. Therefore other thou must ne∣des graunt the blessed body and blood of Christe to bee verely and really in the sacrament, (whereby the sa∣crament is made more and better, then is anye other fygure, token, or signe) or els thou must needes graunt the roode to be a better figure token or signe then the sacrament is. And so the ordinaunce of man to be bet∣ter (as I sayd) in the one, then the ordinaunce of Christe in the other. Wherefore by this, (whiche thou darest not graunt) thou maist, if thou haue any grace, well perceiue the very cause why the sacramente dooth in the Iudgement of all trew christen people, so farre passe
the roode as it dooth. For although the roode be a wor∣thy sygne and very expedient for vs to behoulde, yet it is not ordeyned but onely to refreshe our memorie, fayth and deuocion. Where as the vertue of the sa∣crament is, to geue lyfe, helth, and saluacion. Wher∣of the glorious author him selfe doth saie,
Take, eate, this is my body, whiche shall be geuen for you. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my blood hath lyfe euerlastynge, and I wyll reyse him vp a∣gayne in the latter daie, for my fleshe is veryly meate, and my blood is verely drynke.
And why dooth he say, it is verely meate and ve∣rely drynke, but because we shoulde verely eate it, and verely drynke it? For what so euer is verely meate, is without doubt, to be veryly eaten accor∣dingly. And therfore what can bee spoken more lit∣terally, as touchynge the verytee of the thynge?
Wherefore it was a very madde and a weyward phan∣sie of Fryth to saye, or thynke, that there is none other meanynge or vnderstandynge of those plaine woordes of eatynge and drynkynge of that holye fleshe and blood, but onely feyth and beleefe. And that (as I sayde) in so many sondrye places, and by suche, and so many notable, and moste woorthy au∣thors, as thát matter is spoker. of, sette foorth, and by those woordes expressed. But yet euen suche is the blyndnesse of heresie, vnto the whiche, because credible seemeth incredible, and intelligible not in∣telligible, what skilleth it, what Fryth dooth saye? or what is his saiynge to that thou haste herde of Saint Austen? whom although he taketh aboue all men for his defence, yet thou maiest now see, how clere∣ly
he maketh against him. In so much, that if I should recite vnto the, all suche other places of Saint Austen as maketh no lesse, but rather more against him lyke∣wyse, the whole daie were to little to serue the pur∣pose. And therefore now content thy selfe with that I haue hytherto sayde, as thou hast herde alreadye, whiche is so muche, as perchaunce woulde seeme to soome, euen to be more then enough. Wherefore with this content thy selfe, and fare well for this tyme.
Iohn̄. 6.