A playne demonstration of Iohn Frithes lacke of witte and learnynge in his vnderstandynge of holie scripture and of the olde holy doctours, in the blessed sacrament of the aulter, newly set foorthe by Iohn Gwynneth clerke.

A DEMONSTRACION.

HERETICVS.

O sir, who coulde haue made me be∣leue, that ye wold haue ser∣ued me after this sorte?

CATHOLICVS.

Why what is the matter?

HER.

Is this to morow?

CATH.

No, this is to daie.

HERE.

Tushe, will ye be there? ye wot what I meane well e∣noughe. For did ye not promise me at our last partyng (after ye had declared your minde vpon that parte of Iohn Frithes booke whiche he calleth his foundation) that we shoulde here haue mette together againe, the next morrow after?

CATH.

Was it Monday, Tews∣daie, or Wenesday, whan I made thee that promyse?

HERE.

Tewsdaie.

CATH.

And what daie is this?

HERE.

Mary Wenesdaie.

CATH.

And is not Wenesday the next morowe after Tewsdaie.

HERE.

Ye, but I praie you sir, how many Wenesdaies hath there bene sence that Tewsdaie? And yet could I (from that tyme hytherto) neuer meete with you tyll now.

CATH.

Meruaile not therat. For to be shorte and playne, thou shalt vnderstande, that there chaunced vn∣to me suche busines, immediately after our partynge, that I coulde neuer haue tyme connenient, to discharge my selfe of that promyse tyll now. And therfore euen now am I cum, only for that purpose and nothyng els. Wherfore, if thou take this Wenesday, euen as the next morowe after that Tewsday, it is no great matter, for al shalbe one in the reckenydge, sith I will perfourme

now, no lesse then I promised then.

HERE.

If ye so do, I will be very glad. For in your so doyng, we shall haue (as I gesse) some strainge talke ere we parte.

CATH.

Thou maiest be sure of that, for the matter requireth no lesse.

HERE.

Yet first I pray you, may not a man be so bolde, as to aske you, what your busines hath bene all this while, which hath so long kept you from the per∣fourmance of your promise?

CATH.

Thou maiest not onely aske, but also know it to, if thou wilte.

HE.

Per∣chaunce I know a good parte of it all redie.

CATH.

Thinkest thou so?

HERE.

Ye trewly. For I dare say that your cheefe let, hath ben about the writing of al the talke, that you and I haue had to gether, both the first daie, and also the second.

CATH.

How knowest thou that?

HERE.

By such a meane as deceaueth me not, for wot ye what?

CATH.

What?

HERE.

In verie deede, it is now in print, & abrode in many mēs hands.

CATH.

What is it?

HERE.

Euen as I tell yow.

CATH.

And what of that?

HERE.

Nothyng els, but as I tolde you at the first, that if wold displease a great sorte, if it came to their heringe, as it doth now in deede.

CATH.

And did not I then tel the againe, that it could displease none, but onely suche, as woulde other kepe their grefe therof secretly to them selues, or els in their disclosinge therof vnto other, show them sel∣ues what they be.

HERE.

Ye but yet for all that, it goeth farder then so. For besyde those, whom ye meane, it doth not please some other, whiche are (as ye counte them) euen both wise, and also learned.

CATH.

That maie chaunce to be trew, how be it, althoughe it dothe not please them, yet is it enoughe to me, that

it doothe not displease them.

HERE.

It muste needes displease them, when it doth not please them,

CATHOLICVS.

That foloweth not. For it is two thinges to displease, and to not please al∣thoughe they seme and be some tyme vsed and taken for bothe one. For not please, is properlie but as it were a meane betwene please, and displease. As it maie wel apeere by the diuersitee of thinges, wherof some dothe please, and therin they gender delight. And some doth displease, and therin they gender greefe. And some be indifferent, and they do nother of them bothe, that is to say, nother please nor displease. And therfore, of that sorte I take my labour to bee, to them that be lear∣ned and wyse. For althoughe it be harde for them to be pleased with that, whiche they coulde dooe farre better them selues, yet their wisdome and learnynge, will not suffer them to be displeased with that, whiche holdeth the trewth, and refelleth the contrary, although not so aptly as they coulde frame it. Wherfore mine intenci∣on therin, was not so muche, to please those of learnyng which be wise, and of my helpe hath no neede, as it was to helpe those ignoraunte heades, whiche for lacke of grace and learnyng bothe, are not so wise, and ther∣fore of helpe, hath verie great neede. And this, those learned whiche be wise, doth wey and consider well e∣noughe: Beyng (as alway they are) more willyng to set forward the trewth with their good pacience, then to burt or hinder it, with any dispraise or great mislikinge, of my simple handlyng therof. And therfore tell not me of any displesure taken with al, but only among such, as I tolde thee of before.

HERE.

Well sir, yet I woulde

wishe you, nother to do, nor say, that shoulde displease any man.

CATH.

Why doest thou wishe that to me, more than to an other?

HERE.

I wishe it not onely to you, but also to other like wyse.

CATH.

And I wish vnto thee, a little more wit, than to wishe so to me, or to any man els. For doubtles therin, thou wishest awaie with the best doinge, and also good saiynge, that euer was, or shalbe vsed of any man.

HERE.

Do I so?

CATH.

Thow doest no lesse. For who hath done or said so, y^t he hath therein displeased no man? I dare say, not the holy apostles, nor our Sauiour Christe him selfe nother. Therfore thou makest herein the strangest wish, that I haue herde. wherein thow doest not consyder, this notable saiyng of the holy Apostle Saynt Paule.

* 1.1

Si hominibus placerem, Seruus Christi non essem.

That is to saie,

If I shoulde please men, I shoulde not be the seruaunt of Christe.

Therfore, who can do, speake, or wryte, that shall displease no man?

Cap. 2.

HERE.

Sir I praie you let all that passe. And let me here what ye can say to the dispatch of your promise.

CATH.

What was that?

HERET.

Haue you for gotten?

CATH.

No not so. But yet, althoughe I haue not forgotten it my selfe, I doubt for all that, whether thou doest so well remember it, as the truthe therof doth requyre.

HERE.

Yes sir that I do, for your saiyng was this, that ye coulde, and wold proue, that Iohn Fryth did falsly vnderstande, both the Scrypture, and also the olde holy Doctours to. And

farther more, that his reasons were and are, but decea∣ueable sophisticacions, and nothing els.

CATH.

Trew it is. That was my saiyng in deede. And for the per∣fourmaunce therof (whiche is the cause of our meetinge here now) thou shalt vnderstande, that he dothe not al∣ledge those holy doctours, for any thynge more, then for the proofe and confirmaciō of his owne intellection, and vnderstandyng of those Scriptures, whiche he woulde haue vs beleue, doth make for his purpose. And ther∣fore, when I shal proue his vnderstandynge of those ho∣ly doctours to be vtterly false, and far from their mea∣nyng in deede, shal not that be a sufficient proofe, that o∣ther they make directly against hym, or els at the least, nothyng for him? And therfore if they make nothynge for him, why dooeth he alledge them? If they make a∣gainst him, is not also that, euen proofe enough, of his false vnderstandynge of Scripture, whiche he woulde defende by them? when his saiynge is ye, and their me∣nyng naie? Except thou wilt saie, that he is more credi∣ble then all they, when he neuer thought so him selfe: For if he had, he woulde not haue brought them in, for his wytnesse as he dooeth.

HERE.

Well sir, when ye haue made this proofe ye spake of, you shall then, know farther of my mynde.

CATH.

With that am I well contente. And therfore now to drawe neare vnto it, thou must (for a more compendious breuitee of the mat∣ter) farther consyder, that as he bringeth the olde holie doctours for nothinge so muche, as (if it would bee) to confirme his false vnderstandynge of Scripture, so he bringeth none of them all sauynge one, but to confirme his false vnderstandynge of that same one, whom he ta∣keth

onely to be enough for his purpose. Wherfore if I proue him false in his vnderstandynge of that one, it must needes folow, that he is therin proued false in his vnderstandynge of all the rest.

HERE.

Ye but which one of them is that?

CATHO.

If thou wilte needes knowe, it is euen holy Saint Austen.

HERE.

And how know you, that be bryngeth in, all the rest of the holy doctours, onely to confyrme his vnderstanding of Saint Austen? or that he vnderstandeth Saynt Au∣sten falsely, as ye say he dooth.

Cap. 3.

CATH.

I will recite vnto thee some of his owne saiyng, and by that, thou maiest perceiue how I know it. For in the 30 leafe of his booke, he thin∣kyng, or feinyng, that he hath his purpose proued by S. Austen, doth say these woordes.

This were proofe enough (saith he) to conclude, that all the olde fathers did hold the same opinion. For who wold once surmise (seyng we haue S. Austen so plaine for vs, which is the chiefest amonge them al, who wold once sur∣mise (I say) that he dissented in this great matter, from the other faithfull fathers, or they from him? Neuerthe∣lesse, I dare not let him stande post alone, least ye dispise him. And therfore I will shew you the mynde of certeine other also. And also of his maister Saint Ambrose. &c.

In these woordes of his, it appereth playne, and much worthy to be noted, that he doth not only brynge the olde holy fathers to confyrme his vnderstandynge of Saint Austen, but also that, (to fortifie the same) he would haue no man, so much as once surmise, that S. Austen in this great matter, dissented from other the faithful fa¦thers,

nor they from him, as I graunt al that to be trew in deede. But what a surmise is this of him, that (as he saith) he dare not let Saint Austen stande post alone, lest we wold despise him, if he shoulde not bringe forth the minde of the other faithfull fathers to defende him? where tooke he any occasion thus to surmise, but only of his owne arrogant foolishe head, to make ignorant persons beleue, that this holy man S. Austen maketh clerely for him in his wicked purpose? as in the .29. leafe of his booke, he bosteth in plaine words, which are these,

Blessed be god (saith he) which hath so cleerely discussed this matter by this faithfull father.

Now, lest thou woldest say or thynke, that this same arrogant surmise of his, proceded not, but (as many a man doth some tyme speake) rashly by chaunce, here him in the .24. leafe of his booke, where he hath these woordes.

Now were this enough (saith he) for a christen man that loued no contencion. But because there are so many so∣phisters in the worlde, which care not what they say, so they holde not theyr peace, I muste needes set some bulwarke by this holie doctour, to helpe to defende him. For els they will shortly ouer runne him (as they do me) and make him an heretyke to. Therfore I will allege his maister Saint Ambrose. &c.

How saist thou now? who can declare his malicious and arrogant blindnesse, so fully as he declareth it him selfe? for what a malicious blindnesse, is this of him, thus to surmise any nede to defende Saint Austen a∣gainst vs, as thoughe we would not allowe him? Ther∣fore when it may here, of his owne woordes appere, that he bringeth not in, the rest of all those faithfull fathers, for any neede he hath of them, but to defende Saynt

Austen, whom he sayth, is proufe enough for his purpose because he dissenteth not from them, nor they from hym, it must needes folow, that if Frithe be founde false in his vnderstandynge of Saynt Austen, he shalbe therin founde false in his vnderstanding of them all, and of the scripture to, when they do al agree (as he doth confesse) and herin dissent not one from another. Wherefore what neede I, to trauell aboute the triall of his falshed any farther, but in Saynt Austen only?

Cap. 4.

HERE.

Ye but what bringeth he of Saynt Austen that you can proue he dothe not trewlye vnder∣stande?

CATH.

Thou shalt sone perceiue what, if thou marke where aboute he goeth, and what his prin¦cipall purpose is.

HERE.

Marry syr his principall pur∣pose is thys, to proue, that Christes very body flesh and bloude, is not really, verely, and presently in the sacra∣ment. And to begin his proufe wyth all, hys owne wordes in the .21. leafe of his booke are these.

Except I brynge (he sayeth) euydent Scripture, whiche they all shall expounde as I doe, I desyer not to be be∣leeued.

This I dare say is a resonable request.

CATH.

In very deede, thou sayest euen trewth. For it is so resona∣ble, that I wolde to God, al his folowers wolde assent vnto it, and graunt him no lesse. But I feare that ma∣nie of them, graunted hym suche a request at the fyrste, that they wil now deny him this at the last. And there∣fore as touching his bringing of euident Scripture, and his exposicion of the same, This that I finde in the. 6.

leafe of his booke, is muche to be noted, where his wor∣des be these.

In euery text (he saythe) is but only one verite, for which it was spoken.

And also agayne, in the .18. leafe he hath these wordes.

Some textes of Scripture (he sayth) are only to be vnder∣stande after the letter, and some textes are only to be vn∣derstande spiritually, or in the way of an allegory. And, some must be vnderstande both litterally and spiritually.

Here we may fyrst aske of hym, how he wyll proue, that some text must be vnderstande bothe literally and spiritually, if it haue in it (as he sayth it hath) but on∣ly one veritee? for onlie one veritee in one text, to haue two sundry vnderstandynges, and bothe trew, is verye straynge, and that more strainge, then may well agree wyth reason, or trewth other. Agayne we maye aske of hym also, why should any one text haue any mo vnder∣standinges in it, then any other hathe, if it haue in it but only one verite, as those other hathe, which he sayth are onlie to be vnderstande after the letter, or only spiritu∣allye? very repugnant it is, to say (as he dothe) that in euery texte is but only one veritee, for whiche it was spoken, and to say, some text must be vndestande both litterally and spiritually, wherof the one vnderstanding or the other, can not be trew, if the text haue in it but onlie one veritee (as he saythe) it hath. Neuerthe∣lesse, vpon this phantasy of his, euen there dothe he con∣clude with these wordes.

And I say (sayeth he) that this text of scripture, This is my bodie, is only spiritually to be vnderstand, & not litterally.

How sayest thou to this? doest thou perceyue what he saieth?

HERE.

Ye very well.

Cap. 5.

CATHOLICVS.

Then how wyll he proue that this text, This is my body, is onely spiritually to be vnderstand, and not litterally?

HERE.

Mar∣rie syr euen by Saynt Austen. For euen there immediat∣lie folowing he addeth vnto it these wordes.

And that doth saynt Austen (sayeth he) also confirme, whi¦che writeth vnto Adamantus, and sayeth, These sen∣tenses of Scripture, Christ was the stone, the bloud is the soule, and thys is my bodie, are figuratiuely to be vnder∣stande, (that is to say spiritually, or by the way of an al∣legory) and thus haue I Saynt Austen wholie of my syde whiche thynge shall yet herafter more playnly appere.

How say ye now?

CATH.

I say this, that Frithe doth herin but reporte Saynt Austen thys to saye. And dothe not alledge where, nor yet perchance recite Saint Austens owne wordes, in such order and forme, as he dothe speake them him selfe nother. Wherfore Frith is herein to be rather mistrusted, then beleeued. And besyde that, these words which he hym selfe doth here reporte of Saynt Austen, dothe leaue this text (This is my body) so muche at large, as to be vnderstande litte∣rallie, as well as figuratiuely. And doth not dryue it to this narrow streyght of only figuratiuely, as Frithe wolde wraste and wringe it vnto: for figuratyuely, and only figuratiuely, doth very muche differ. Because, with the one, there may stande an other, but with the other, no more but it selfe alone. It is two thinges to say, that our Sauiour christ is a man, and to say that he is only a man. For the one is sayd trewly, and the other is a dam¦nable heresy. Wherefore as he that sayth Christe is

to be vnderstande a very man, and yet taketh him not therin to be only a man, nor denieth him to be very god. Euen so S. Austen whiche doth say, that this text, This is my body, is to be vnderstande figuratiuely, dothe not therin say or meane it to be vnderstande only figuraty∣uely. Nor denieth it to be vnderstande litterally. For al∣thoughe a thinge be trewly sayde to be so or so. Yet that draweth not with it this consequence to be only so. But Frith dothe reason the matter after this sorte, as if he should heere a man reported, to be learned in Astrono∣mie, he will streyght conclude, that the man can no skyll of Phisike nor Geometry, but only of Astronomy. When for al that report, he may be, as diuerse ar, lerned: some in two, and some in all three. Therfore of this kinde of conclusions, I hope thou seest enoughe. Wherefore, how can Saynt Austen (whome Frithe hym selfe, doth here report, to say none otherwise of this texte (This is my boddy) but that it is to be vnderstande figuratiuely, make any thinge for him, in this that he sayth it is to be vnderstande only figuratiuely and not litterally? when the wordes reported of Saint Austen maketh no farther mention, but of the one, and not of the other. And yet, without putting any difference betwene fyguratyuely, and only figuratiuely, or bringing for hym any dew alle¦gation of Saynt Austens owne words where, or in what order he spake them him selfe, the blinde arrogant foole is not here a shamed to boste and say, that he hath herein Saynt Austen, wholy of his side. Who doth here nothing touche any parte of hys purpose.

Cap. 6.

HERETICVS.

Sir me thinke ye do vse him, with very vngoodly termes.

CATH.

Not so vngood∣ly as he is woorthy. And that shall well apere ere we parte.

HERE.

Yet where ye say, that he doeth not perchaunce herin alledge saynt Austens woordes in such order, as he doth speake them him selfe, in deede although he dothe it not here, where you impute vnto him that faute, yet he dooeth it afterwarde, in an other place, bothe in latyne, and also in englishe.

CATH.

Where is that?

HERE.

In the 30 leafe of his booke his woordes be these.

Saynt Austen sayth (saith he) Non enim dominus dubitauit dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum da∣ret signum corporis sui. Et in eodem capite exponit. Sic est enim sanguis anima quomodo Pe∣tra erat Christus, nec tamen Petra (Ait) significa∣bat Christum sed ait Petra erat Christus.

That is to say, The Lorde doubted not to saie, this is my body, when he gaue a signe of his bodie. And after in the same chapiter he expoundeth it. For trewly so the bloode is soule, as Christe was the stone. And yet the apostle saith not, the stone dyd sygnifie Christe, but he saieth, the stone was Christe.

CATH.

Is this his allegacion of Saint Austens words?

HERE.

Yea sir.

CATH.

Properly done. For betwene these woordes of Saint Austens,

The lorde doubted not to saie, This is my bodie, when he gaue a signe of his bodie.

And these woordes.

So the blood is the soule, as the stone is Christe.

There runneth as many woordes mo of Saint Au∣stens besyde, as I dare saie, occupieth nere hande in some booke, and hundred lynes.

And betweene these woordes.

So the blood is the soule, as the stone was Christe.

And these woordes,

Yet the Apostle saieth not the stone did signifie Christ, but he saieth the stone was Christe.

There runneth also an other number of woordes and sentenses likewyse: so that it is not possible for any man to vnderstande or perceiue, for what purpose Saynt Au∣stene dooth speake any of those sentenses, beyng thus put foorth, as frithe dothe here ch••i••e them feintly toge∣ther, omittynge that (as he doth) whiche goeth immedi∣ately before and after. And besyde this, thou maist also perceiue, that these woordes which he ioyneth withall. Saiyng. And after in the same chapiter he expoundeth it.

Avenone of S. Austens woordes, but Frithes owne woordes, craftely put in, to allure vs to beleue, that S. Austen dothe expounde that, whiche goeth before, with that, that Fryth ioyneth vnto it after, whiche is this.

For treuly so the blood is the soule, as christ was the stone.

Therfore that we maie the better perceiue, howe well this saiyng, doth expound the other before (as he saith it doth) let vs consyder them bothe together, to see how well they dooe agree. The fyrst is this.

The lorde doubted not to saie, This is my bodie, whan he, gaue a signe of his bodie.

This as frithe doth say, Saint Austen dooth expounde in the same chaptre with these woordes.

For trewly so the blood is the soule, as Christe was the, stone.

How saiest thou now? greeth not these two saiynges

well together? do they not well depende one of an o∣ther? yet Frith doth say, that S. Austen expoundeth the one by the other. Moreouer, what is al this is to his pur∣pose of this text, This is my body, to be vnderstand only spiritually, and not literally, as he saieth it is? Farther∣more I wolde fayne know, what he him selfe, doothe farther gather of Saint Austen in this place.

HERE.

It apereth immediatly folowynge in the same leafe.

CATH.

What is that?

HE.

His woordes be these.

Here (saith he) Saint Austen saith plainly, that Christ cal∣led the signe of his bodie, his body. And in this chapter do∣eth compare these thre textes of Scripture, This is my bod¦dy, The blood is the soule. And Christ was the stone. & de∣clareth them to be on phrase, and to be expounded after one fashion.

Now haue you harde, what Frith gathereth of this place of S. Austen, and therfore what say you to it?

CATH.

I say, that S. Austen, saith not here, so plain∣ly, that Christ called the signe of his body, his body, as Frith doth here plainly belie him in so reportyng of him. For S. Austen, hath here no such woords, as can be wre∣sted vnto that sense. For is it all one to say, that the lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gaue a signe of his body. And to say, that he called the signe of his body, his body? As if I ley my hand flat vpō an heape of fyne sande, saiyng, this is my hande, will it followe thereof, that I call the signe of my hande, my hande? which signe I make in the sande, by layinge my hande therupon? how be it this consequence is not so strainge, as it is common with frith: Therfore as he lyeth falsly vpon S. Austen in this, so he dothe likewise in the rest, for Saint Austen maketh no suche comparison there, of

those three texts together, nor declareth them so to be one phrase, nor to be expounded after one fasshion, as Frith doth here speake of, and wolde haue vs take it. And therfore to then•••••• he wold not haue vs come by the triall of his falshed herein, he, fearing least it should be sought out and spied at length, prouoketh vs by the ma∣ner of his allegaciō to serche for it there, where he knew right well, we might so longe loke after it, that we shuld he willinge rather to let it passe, then to labour any fur∣ther for it.

HERE.

Why say you so?

CATH.

Be∣cause it is so. For diddest thou not thy selfe recite vnto me right now, that Frith saieth, Saint Austen doothe wryte to Adamantus this same that he nowe gathereth herein for his defence?

HERE.

That is trew.

CAT.

Then if Saint Austen wrote it (as Fryth sayth he doth) vnto Adamantus, that wrytinge is to be founde, other amonge Saint Austens epistles, (where I dare say it is not) or els in some booke of his, dedicat or intituled to Adamantus by name, where as in deede, there is no such nother. Therfore why may I not say, that herin he pro∣uoketh vs to serche & labour in vayne, to the intente we shoulde not fynde wherby, his falshed might be brought to light?

HERE.

Sir ye take him wrong, for euen there, where S. Austens woordes in latine, before alledged, doth stande in Frithes booke, in the margent of the fame place, is noted these woordes. Augustinus contra A∣damantum. Wherof the english ye know well enough.

CATH.

That is no more to saie, but Austen against A∣damantus.

HERE.

Ye say trewth.

CATH.

Then how frameth these two together, that this is put in the margēt, Austen against Adamātus, and frith saith in the

letter, Saint Austen wrot to Adamantus & for although to Adamantus, and against Adamantus, maie stande together in some respecte, yet so can they not do here. For S. Austen wryteth not to Adamantus, but onely of him, and against him. Therfore if Frith him selfe, did make that note in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, then he greeth not with himselfe in the letter. If the printer did note it in the margent, to mende Frythes lye therof in the letter, why did none of them doth amend this, which Frith doth say, (And in the same chapiter he expoundeth it) and telleth vs not whiche chapiter, nor yet maketh any mention therof before nother? Had it beene any great matter for Frythe (if he had ment well) to haue sayd, Saynte Austen in the .••••. chapter of his booke written against Adamantus, hath these, and these woordes and so forth? thinkest thou that Frith refused this to do, for no cause? it were not harde to fynde more cause then I speake of now, if a man woulde wast so muche tyme aboute it, as nedeth not: For thou hast hard enough al ready, to per∣ceiue herein part of his false wily ••e••hes; wherin he tru¦sted, not so to be sene, as now he is, and more shalbe ere we parte.

Cap. 7.

HERE.

I wysshe that ye wolde here his conclu∣sion hereof, before we go any farther. And then will I tell you more.

CATH.

what conclusion is that?

HERE.

Immediately after those woordes of his, whiche I last recited vnto you before, he addeth vnto them these.

Now is there no man (saieth he) so mad as to say, that Christ was a naturall stone (except he be a natural foole)

whose iudgement we neede not greatly to regarde. Ther∣fore we may well conclude that the sa••rament is not hys naturall body: but is called his body, for a similitude that it hath, wherin it signifieth & representeth his body. And that the Sacrament of so great a thinge, is called euen with the name of the very thinge it selfe.

CATH.

Is this his conclusion?

HERE.

Ye trewly.

CATH.

Thou sayest well: for those he his wordes in deede. And therefore who is he, that wolde denie hym this conclusion, beinge rightly vnderstande? No man I thinke of any learned iudgement. But what is it to hys purpose of improuynge or disprouinge the reall presence of Christes very body in the holy Sacrament? or wher∣of doth this conclusion folow? of this, that he sayth, there is no man so mad, as to say that Christe was a naturall stone, is he so mad, as wolde haue it follow thereof?

HERE.

No not so.

CATH.

Wherof then?

HERE.

He doth meane, that as Christ was called a stone, and was not a naturall stone indeede, so the Sacrament is called his body, and is not his naturall body indeede nother?

CATH.

Well, this graunted, what is it to the purpose of the very presēce of Christes blessed body in the sacra∣ment? for that is it, whiche he goeth about, with all he can to disproue? will it folow that Christes blessed body is not really and verely in the Sacrament, because the Sacrament in respect of it self, is not his natural body? The question lieth vpon in, or not in. And Frith conclu∣deth vpon is, or is not. As if I saye, my booke is in the Churche, he will proue the contrary by thys, that the Church, is not my booke. Therfore because the churche is not my booke, is it not thereby well proued thinkest thou, that my booke is not in the Churche? because we

say, as the trewth is, that the very body of christ is in the sacrament, he wil proue the contrary by this, that the sa¦crament is not his very body. Plucke out of his booke, all those conclusions, that he of this forte, and trust me trewlie, thou shalt therin leaue but few or none be∣hynde. For it is common with him, to make his asser¦tion of one thinge, and his conclusion of an other.

Whiche is good enoughe, to such rashe, light, wilfull, and ignorant heddes, as can no skill of the matter. For when they finde this, (his nedlesse probation) trew, that the sa∣crament is not the very body of Christe (as it is not in∣deede, in the bare respecte of it selfe) they take what so euer he sayeth beside, to be sufficientlie proued in the same. For well knew he, that the moste parte, are farre from the knowledge and consideration of the di∣stinction and difference, that is betwene the Sacrament and the thinge of the Sacrament. Whereof the olde holy Fathers dothe say.

Aliud est Sacramentum, & aliud res Sacramenti.

That is to saye.

The Sacrament is one thynge. And the thynge of the Sa∣crament is an other.

And therfore because the one somtime beareth the na¦mes of bothe, that is to say, the name of it selfe as it is, and also the name of the other, not as it selfe is, but as it is called, for good cause why, he thought, that as the Sacrament is called Christes body, and yet is not hys very bodie indeede, so he thought as thou saydest before, that his body is sayd to be therin, and yet is not verelye therin indeede. Wherfore as he thought the trew proufe of the one, shoulde be enough to colour hys false preten∣ded

proufe of the other, so with the trewth of the same one, he wolde take away, not only the trewth of the other but also our verie profit of them bothe together. But whether he saw this muche him selfe or no, I can not perfitly tell. But of thys am I sure, that his folowers seeth it not, for if they dyd, they wolde not all, (I sup∣pose) do as they do. And therfore when he sayth (as thou hast recited) that there is no man so madde, as to say, that Christe was a naturall stone, except he be a na∣turall foole, I wolde haue them all, for the truste they haue in him, tell me how muche more, then a mad natu∣rall foole was he to saye, that it is not dampnable so to thinke? which is farre worse, then so to say? for parchāce in some case, it may sometym•• so be sayd, when in no case, at any time, it may so be thought, but most dampna¦bly.

HE.

Ye but I pray you syr, where dothe Fryth so say?

CATH.

Dost thou not know, that in the .59. leafe of his booke, he speaking of his belefe in the Sacramente, hath these wordes?

The beleuing of this poinct (he sayeth) is of it self not dam¦nable, as it is not dampnable to thinke, that Christe is a verie stone or a vine.

These wordes thou seest are plaine enough. For what difference is there betwene a very stone and a naturall stone, but vtterly none at all. And therfore what wicked wretche hath there bene harde of, so cursed that euer spake anie suche thinge of our Sauiour Christe? for what foloweth therof but this, that it is not dampnable to thinke Christe to be worse, or not so good, as a dog? for a Dog in the dew order and dignitee of nature, is far better then a stone or a Vyne other. For a stone hath

but a bare being without any life at all, where as a vine hath so muche, and a vegetable life also. But a Dogge hath not only beynge, as well as a stone, and a vegetable life, as well as a Vyne, but also a sensible lyfe, whych is farre passing them bothe. Wherfore, excepte thou be of that wilfull blindnes, whiche will say, as no man els wil that no life is better then life. Or a vegetable life, bet∣ter then a sensible life, thou must needes graunte a Dog farre better then a very stone, or a vyne other. Therfore what soeuer is thought to be a very stone or a vine, must needes be thought to be worse, or not so good as a Dog. But thys wicked kaytise, sayth it is not dampnable, to thynke that Chryste is a verie stone or a vyne. Where∣fore it doeth, and must needes folow thereof, that it is not dampnable to thynke that our Sauiour Chryste is worse, or not so good as a Dogge. O what a thyng is thys of hym, but suche an vnspeakable cursednes, as neuer was, nor yet is, to be harde of, if a man myght chose? But it is wyth hym, as the Gospell dooeth saye.

Exabundantia cordis os loquitur,

That to say.

Of the store of the harte, the mouthe dothe speake.

Therfore how cam this into his harte, but thoroughe the mooste cruell subtill and wily blaste of the father of liars, and consequently the father of all Heretykes?

How was it otherwise possible for hym this to say, but by that meane? And yet that, not withoute the holye permyssion of Goddes inscrutable prouidence, to the great and wonderfull shame of all those, that foloweth this cursed kaytyues opinion. To their shame, I saie, that euer they shoulde be of suche a wilfull blynd∣nes,

and therby so infortunat, as to be the folowers of suche a dampnable lyinge leader. And yet in this, their ineuitable shame, is offred vnto them (if they wyl take it) a wonderfull occasion of obteynyng the great mercie of God agayne. For what greater occasion of their re∣turne vnto trewth againe, can they haue or imagin, then this theyr notable shame of folowing him, whose moste dampnable error is so great, and also manifest, that they them selfes are not able to defende, nor excuse it? It is none excuse that some of them dothe make, sayinge that Frithe might so say in some respect. For in what respect may anie man thynke, but dampnablie, that Christ is a very stone? Who so euer thinketh him a very stone, can therin thinke him no better thinge. For a very stone, of him that so taketh it; can be thought no better then a ve∣rie stone, of what sorte or kinde so euer it be. Therfore, Frithe being found the authour of such a doctrine, what neede we anie farther trial of him, other in the holy scrip¦ture, or in the holy doctours other, when we haue suche a proufe of him, as this, his moste cursed saying is, that it is not dampnable to thinke that Christ is a very stone or a vyne? who wolde trust him in anie thinge els. Sithe we haue founde his falsehed so abominable in this?

Cap. 8.

HERE.

Syr there may be more sayd herein for his defence then you wene. For ye fynde muche faute with the maner of his recitall of saynt Austen. And yet here you recite his wordes after suche a sorte your self, that ye wil be sure to take that, where with, ye may make agaynst him, and leaue out that, whiche foloweth

and maketh for him.

CAT.

If that be trew, I pray thee first tell me this, why may not I do so with him, as well as he doth so with Saynt Austen?

HERE.

Where doth he so with Saynt Austen?

CATH.

If thou doest not perceue it all ready, thou shalt see it playne enough eare we parte. But firste tell me where I do so with hym?

HERE.

Mary syr in your recytall of those woordes of hys, where he sayeth.

It is not dampnable to thynke, that Christ is a very stone or a vine.

For there ye leaue out these wordes folowinge, which he ioyneth vnto them sayinge,

Because the litterall sense so sayth.

For these woordes dothe show the cause, why he spea∣keth those woordes before. And therfore I maruel why, you recite not these, as well as the other.

CATH.

Be∣cause the other without these, was enoughe to declare, what a blinde malicious Heretike he was: but yet ne∣uerthelesse (sithe thou goest so farre) I will saye now more then I sayde before. For this brother of liers, was so set a worke by the father of liers, that where as he lied before, but vpon Saynte Austen, for to colour the falshed of his owne purpose, now here, for a farther cloke of the same, he lyeth also vpon the holy Scripture, whiche he falsely taketh to witnesse. For where fyndeth he any litterall sence, ye or mysticall sence other, in all holy Scripture, that sayth, it is not damnable to thinke that Christ is a very stone.

HE.

Loe here ye missevnder∣stand him agayne, & take it far otherwise, then he dothe meane, for he doth meane, that the litteral sense doth say it is not damnable so to thinke, but he doth meane, that

the litterall sence doth say, that Christ is a very stone, & therfore he him self sayth it is not dampnable to thinke that Christ is so.

CATH.

Yet thou shalt not excuse his lie of the holy Scripture so. For where doth he fynd, that the litteral sense dothe saye, Christe is a very stone?

HERE.

Where Paule saythe.

Petra autem erat Christus.

That is to saye.* 1.2

A stone was Christ.

CATH.

Althoughe there be a difference to say a stone was Christe, and to say (as Frith doth) a very stone was Christe, or Christe a verie stone, yet here, why more a stone was Christe, Then the stone was Christ?

HERE.

That is all one.

CATH.

Ye amonge Heretikes. For I thinke your tergiuersations, be neuer to seeke. For is it all one to say (a stone) and to say, the stone? when the one, is so generall, that it may be vnderstand of any stone. And the other so speciall, that it maketh relation to some certen stone, mentioned before or after? And therefore it is not all one to say. The stone was Christe and to say, A stone was Christ. For in signification (The) and (A) dothe here muche differ. Wherfore Frith dothe falsely Englishe the litterall sense (whiche is) the stone was Christe, with this that he sayth, a stone was Christ.* 1.3 For the one maketh playne relatiō to the spirituall stone expresselie mencioned of the Apostle him self immediatly before, & so doth not the other. Moreouer frithes falshed herin resteth not thus, but goeth farther & addeth vnto it this worde (very) saying christ is a very stone. Putting a∣way by y^t word veri, al ambiguite of sense, that might ri∣se of this word a stone. Therfore he saying a very stone, what litteral sense in the scripture can there be founde,

that so sayth of Christe? Or what is there to be sayd for Frith herin, but that thou must needes confesse him a ve∣rie manifest liar, and that vpon the litteral sence of holy Scripture?

HERE.

Although there be no litteral sense that so sayth of the stone, yet the litterall sence sayth, e∣uen so of the Vine, sayinge,

* 1.4Ego sum vitis vaera. That is to say, I am a very vyne.

CATH.

What maketh that for Frith? For althoughe the litterall sense be so, of the Vyne, yet it is not so, of the stone. Neuerthelesse Frithe speaketh it of the stone, and not of the vyne. For he sayth.

It is not dampnable to thinke, that Christ is a very stone, or a vyne.

And sayth not a very vine.

HERE.

Yet ye may there perceiue by this worde (or) that he ment the same worde (very) of the vine, which he speaketh of the stone.

CATH.

Then, why doeth he, but only meane it, without any expression of it, where it is. And expresseth it, so playnly, where it is not?

HERE.

Because it may be vnderstande of the stone, as it is ex∣pressed of the vine.

CATH.

That is false. For although the litterall sense dothe say in the one place, a very vine, yet it nother dothe, nor can say, in the other place, a ve∣rie stone.

HERE.

Why so?

CATH.

Because the stone there, hath in it conteyned a perticuler respect to that, whiche goeth before. And so hath not the vine, whi∣che is spoken in suche a generalitee, that it hath no re∣specte to any one vyne, more then to another. And there∣fore by this it may well appere, that falsely doth Frithe bring in, these two textes, of the stone, and the vine, to be one phrase of speache, without any difference. How be

it, that dooth he, onely to thentent he myght there with∣all, wringe in, this text, This is my bodie, to be lyke∣wyse of the same forte, and of one maner of speeche.

Which hath from them both, a farre greatter difference, then they haue eache from other, whiche is not small nother, when the one can not be trewly englished with this article (A) seying a stone, nor the other with this woorde (The) seying the vyne. But in those places (A) is proper to the vine, and (the) to the stone. As the very trew and perfite sence of the letter in both places, doeth of necessitee requyre. Wherfore, thus maiest thou see, how well Frith hath quyt him selfe, in his vnderstan∣dinge of the scripture hitherto, and of S. Austen both.

Cap. 9.

HERETICVS.

Ye but sir, he hath not yet done, with the scripture, nor with Saint Austen nother. In so much, that for a farther proofe of his vnder∣standyng of this text, This is my bodie, he doth in the 22. leafe of his booke, alledge Saynt Austen againe, in these woordes.

Si autem flagitium aut facinus iubere videtur,* 1.5 figura∣ta loquutio est. Nisi Manducaueritis (inquit) car∣nem filij hominis & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Facinus vel flagitium vi∣detur iubere. Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni dominicae esse communicandum & suauiter at{que} vti∣liter in Memoria recondendum, quod pro nobis Ca∣ro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit.

That is to say.

When so euer the Scripture or Christe seemeth to com∣maunde any foule or wicked thinge, then must that text

be taken figuratiuelye, that is, it is a phrase, allegory, and maner of speakyng, and muste be vnderstande spi∣ritually, and not after the letter. Except (saith Christe) ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drynke his blood, ye shall not haue lyfe in you. He semeth (saith S. Austen) to command a foule and a wicked thynge. It is therfore a figure commaundyng vs to be partakers of his passion, and sweetely and profitably to prynte in our minde, that his fleshe was crucified and wounded for vs.

Now haue you harde his allegacion of S. Austen, both in latine and also in Englishe.

CATH.

There∣fore thou shalt here myne allegacion also of the same place of S. Austen againe: and then tel me how Frithes allegacion therof and mine, both agre together. For S. Austens woordes be these.

Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere, aut v∣tilitatem, aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata lo∣quutio est. Nisi Manducaueritis (inquit) carnem filij hominis & sanguinem biberitis, non habebi∣tis vitam in Vobis. Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere. Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni domini∣cae esse communicandum & suauiter at{que} vtiliter re∣condendum in Memoria, quod pro nobis Caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit.

That is to say.

If the Scripture seme to commaunde an euill or a wicked thinge, or forbid a profite or a good thinge, it is a figura∣tiue speache. Except ye eate (he saith) the flesshe of the sonne of man and drynke his blood, ye shall not haue lyfe in you. Therfore it is a figure commaundinge vs to be partakers of his passion, and swetely and profitably to prynt in our memorie, that his fleshe was crusified and wounded for vs.

Here thou maiest now perceiue plaine that Fryth hath not so many latine woord{is}, in his allegacion of S.

Austen, as I haue in myne, and yet I haue fewer Englisshe woordes in myne, then he hath in his, by a great sorte.

HERE.

How cummeth that to passe?

CATH.

Not without a falshed of his parte, if thou marke it well. For where these fewe latyne woordes of S. Austens, Figurata loquutio est, are no more to say, but (as I haue sayd) it is a figuratiue speeche, Fryth doth Englyshe them after this sorte, saiyng.

Then must that text he taken figuratiuely, that is, it is a phrase, allegorie, and maner of speakynge, and muste be vnderstande spiritually and not after the letter.

Hast thou harde of any trew man, that wolde, or tru∣ly coulde, so turne those latine woordes into Englishe as he doth? Doest thou not see, how his wily falshed doth here, vnder pretence and colour of Englishinge S. Austens woordes, brynge in nothyng els, but his owne false phantasticall exposicion of them, to make his disci∣ples beleue and thinke, that Saint Austens meanyng, was but accordyng to this, his owne false feynynge? what woordes hath Saynt Austen here, that may be wrested to this, whiche this false lyar doth say, it must be vnderstande spiritually and not after the letter?

where fyndeth he this same, not after the letter? ther∣in lyeth all the matter, And thereof here speaketh S. Austen nothinge at all. For he saith no more, but that this texte.

Excepte ye eate the flishe of the sonne of man, and drinke his blood, ye shall not haue lyfe in yow.

Is a figuratiue speache. And dooeth not saye, onely figuratiue, or not litterall, as this marchaunt doothe beare vs in hande, and woulde make vs beleue

that he dooth.

HERE.

Yet sir, if it bee a figuratius speche, then must it be vnderstand figuratiuely.

CAT.

That is trew.

HE.

Therfore if it must he vnderstand figuratiuely, then it may not be vnderstand litterally.

CATH.

That foloweth not. For Fryth him selfe doth graunt and say, (as I tolde the before) that some texts must be vnderstand both figuratiuely, and also litteral∣ly. And therfore why may not this, which Frith spea∣keth of, be one of them? as it may indeed, for any thing that Saint Austen saith here to the contrary? And yet as though S. Austen had said the contrary, (as he doth not) this false Raynard is not ashamed to knit vp the knot with these woordes.

This trewth (saith he) thankes he to god, doth Saint Au∣sten declare vnto vs. which thinge besyde the openynge of this text, against maister Woores minde, doth plainly show, what he thought in the woords of Christes supper.

Whiche is no more to say, but that those woordes maie not be vnderstande after the letter, because here, Saint Austen telleth vs nothing of that matter, whe∣ther they may or not. Therfore doth not Saint Austen declare this trewth vnto vs very well, when he speaketh nothing of it?

HERE.

Sir, if it might be vnderstande, both figuratiuely and also litterally to, S. Austen wold not haue made mention (as he dooth) of the one sense, and not of the other.

CATH.

How knowest thou that?

HERE.

It is most like so?

CATH.

Ye to Frith. And therfore that is enough to him, to con∣clude so falsely therof as he doth. But thou muste vn∣derstande, that it was not Saint Austens minde there to speake of any of them both, that is to saye, nother of the one sense, nor of the other, but as it chaunsed the one and

& not the other, to serue his purpose for example of that he had in hande, whiche was to geue a rule, whereby a figuratiue speach in the scripture might be knowen.

And not to discusse how or whether that text might bee litterally vnderstande or not. And therefore, graunt this to be trew, which Fryth doeth here say that Saint Austen.

Dothe plainly show, what he thought in those woordes of christes supper.

Yet it foloweth not thereof, that he dooth showe all, that he thought therin. For it is two thinges to show what he thought, and to showe all that he thought.

HERE.

Marry syr that is trew, but Fryth, for the openynge thereof, dooeth alledge him agayne in these woordes.

Cap. 3.

CATH.

Nay softe I praie thee, let vs fyrste here what Frithe fayth more of this place, whiche he hath here alledged all ready, before we go anye farther. For he hath yet showed vs almost nothyng, what he gathereth of it, after his owne mynde, but onely his false exposicion thereof, brought in (as I sayde) vnder the colour of Englishyng of Saint Austens woordes.

Therfore let me here what he saith farther of it him selfe, without any cloke or colour at all.

HERE.

That shall ye do. For immediately after this his saiyng, that S. Austen doth plainly show, what he thought in the woordes of Christes supper, he addeth vnto it these woordes.

For sith he called it (saith Frith) a foule and a wicked thing

to eate his fleshe, then may you soone perceiue, that he thought it as foule and as wicked a thinge, to eate his bo∣dy, seyng his bodie is fleshe. And then consequently it shall folow, that other this woord, eate (where Christe saide, take this and eate it) must be taken spiritually, or els that this saiyng of Christe. This is my body, muste be figu∣ratiuely spoken. But this woorde, eate, is taken after the letter (for they did in deede eate the bread) therfore it must needes folow, that this sentence (This is my body) must be figuratiuely spoken.

Now haue you hearde what he saieth and gathereth of it him selfe.

CATH.

Than saiyst trew. And ther∣fore shall I neede to byd thee marke his false lye, that he maketh here agayne of Saint Austen? For doth Saint Austen call it a fowle and a wicked thynge (as this lyar sayth he doothe, when he sayth no more but that the scripture therin seemeth to commaunde an e∣uyll or a wicked thyng? Saint Austen nother calleth it so him selfe, nor yet doth say, that the scripture calleth it, or commaundeth it so nother. He saith the scripture so mech to commaunde suche a thynge. And doth not say, the scripture doth commaunde it. But in deede to com∣maunde, and seme to commaunde, to call, and seme to cal, or to be, & seeme to be, is all one with Frith. As who say there is nothing otherwyse then it semeth to be, nor any thyng semeth to be, otherwise then it is.

HE.

Sir ye can not auoyde his argument so.

CATH.

His ar∣gument? what is that?

HERE.

Ye haue harde how he dooeth say, that

Either this word eate (which Christ said, take this & rate it) must be taken spiritually, or els that this saiynge of Christ, This is my bodi, must be figuratiuely spoken. But this woorde ••ate (saith he) is taken after the letter, for they

did (he saieth) eate the bread, therfore it must needes fo∣low that this sentence (This is my body) must be fygura∣tiuely spoken.

CATHOLICVS.

I meruayle where Frythe lear∣ned this kynde of argumente, whiche can brynge forth such a woorthy conclusion. For dooth it not properly folow, that this sentence (This is my body) muste be figuratiuely taken, because (as he saith) this woorde eate, is taken after the letter? And this he doothe but say, without any proofe at all.

HERE.

That is not so. For he dooth proue, that this woorde (Eate) is ta∣ken after the letter?

CATH.

That is but a parte of it, and yet (for all thy saiyng) he proueth not that no∣ther.

HERE.

Yes, he proueth it by this, that (as he saith) they did eate the bread.

CATH.

Ye but that I denye. For without question they dyd eate that, which they were byd to eate, whereof, it was to them sayde, Take eate, This is my body, whiche shalbe geuen for you. And that was not breade, except thou wilt say, that bread was geuen for their redempcion. And ther∣fore, where he saith, that this woorde bread, is taken after the letter, And therof would haue it folow, that this sentence, This is my body muste be figuratiue∣ly spoken, I aske him why figuratiuely, more then lytterally, or why fyguratiuelie, and not rather litte∣rally? For if the woorde of eatynge, he taken after the letter, dooth it not thereof muche better folowe that the woordes of that whiche is eaten, shulde be taken after the latter likewise? To take the woord of eatynge, in a lit∣teral sence and therfore the woordes of the thyng eaten, is a figuratiue sence is more strange then I can skil of.

Yet the one (saieth he) must needes folow the other. But by what reason, although no man can tell, yet to such as will needes beleue him, it is good enough, although it be neuer so false and foolishe to any man els.

And therefore sith it appereth in the .47. leafe of his booke that he taketh not the eatynge of Christes body, but onely for the beleuynge in him, I aske him, why may not this woord (Eate) be taken spiritually, as well as this text, This is my body, be spoken figuratiuely? or why may not the same text be taked litterally, as wel as this woorde (Eate) be taken after the letter, sith thes be so ioyned together?

HERE.

Because there is a great difference betwene them.

CATH.

Ye that is, as Frith woulde haue vs take them, but not as our sa∣uiour Christe in the vnitee of sence and sentence toge∣ther doth ioyne them. For there is no doubte, but the meanynge of this woorde Eate, and also the meanynge of this same saiynge of Christe, This is my bodye, are bothe together of him so inseperably kint and contey∣ned in this one sentence.

* 1.6

Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drynke his blood, ye shall not haue life in you.

That they both maketh one perfit sentence and sence, whether thou take it to be litterall or spirituall. And therfore by this one lesson aforesayde, it maye well ap∣pere, that they can not so differ in sence, but that they muste other be bothe spirituall, and not literall, or bothe litterall and not spirituall, or els bothe not onely spirituall, but also lytterall, Where∣fore, Frythe can not saye, that they be bothe spiri∣tuall and not litterall, because he sayeth ••he an•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉

them, that is to saie, this woorde Eate, is taken after the letter. Againe, he can not say, that they are both litterall, and not spirituall, because he dothe both holde and say, that the other which is, This is my body, must be taken figuratiuely, that is to say spiritually. And therfore it must needes folow, that they be bothe, not on¦ly spirituall, but also litterall.

Cap. 11.

HHERE.

Syr that can not be. For as I was about to tell you before, Frithe bringeth Saynt Austen playne agaynst it.

CATH.

How so?

HERE.

Looke you in the .23. leafe of hys booke, and there shall ye finde how he dothe alledge Saynt Austen, bothe in Latin and also in Englishe in these wordes.

Quando loquebatur dominus noster Iesus Christus de corpore suo, Nisi (Inquit) quis manducauerit car∣nem meam et biberit sanguinem meum, non habet in se vitam. Caro enim mea vere est cibus, et Sanguis meus vere est potus. Intellectus spiritualis credentem saluum facit, quia littera occidit, Spiritus est qui vi∣uificat.

That is to say.

When our Lorde Iesus Christe spake of his body, excepte (quod he) a man eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud, he shall haue no life in him false. For my fleshe is very meat and my bloud is very drinke. The spiritual vnderstanding saueth him that beleueth, for the letter killeth, but the spi∣rit quickeneth.

Here you see playne, that Saynt Austen is clearly a∣gaynst the litterall sence.

CATH.

Whether he be or not, it is Frithes minde therein, whiche I require.

HE.

That shall ye haue, for his owne wordes vpon the same

place be these.

Here maye you playnelie perceiue (sayth he) that thys text must only be taken spiritually. For he say th•• to take it af∣ter the letter, it killeth, and profiteth nothing at all.

And therfore I wonder that we haue bene ledde so longe in this grosse errour.

CATH.

And I wonder that Frithe was ledde so long in this grose blyndnesse, that he wolde wade so farre as he did, vpon a figuratiue sense, before he had made it certayne, in what respecte it is figuratiue. That is to say, whether it he figuratyue in respect of the very mer•• essenciall substance of the thinge, or els in some other respect parteyning as it were to the same, or to the vse therof.

HERE.

Syr I suppose this is but an inuen∣ted euasion of you, to shake of the matter and nothinge els, For here Saynt Austen sayth playne, that the letter killeth. And that he wolde not say, if there were any litte∣rall sense in it.

CATH.

Then syth thou takest it so, al∣though we might doubt of Frithes allegacion herin, be∣cause he showeth not where Saynt Austen dothe speake those woordes, but by this note in the margent of his booke (August. in sermo. ad infantes) whiche sermon, I haue not seene, nor no more (as I thinke) did Frithe nother, yet to graunt him no lesse, but that they be the wordes of saynt Austen indeede, Thou shalt here how Saynt Austen doth speake them him self, where I haue red them in an other place. For vpon the title at the .33. Psalme, where he sayeth.

Quando loquebatur dominus noster Iesus Christus de corpore suo, (Ait) Nisi quis manducauerit carnem meam et biberit sanguinem meū, non habebit in se vi∣tam.

Caro mea vere est esca, et Sanguis meus vere potus est.

There, in that place foloweth immediatly these wordes

Et discipuli eius qui eum sequebātur expauerunt. &c

And not these wordes.

Intellectus spiritualis credentemsaluum facit, quia lit∣tera occidit, Spiritus est qui viuificat.

Which Frith addeth vnto them, and placeth them there of his owne hed. How be it, I will not deny, but that Saynt Austen hath those wordes, but where? in verie deede not there, where Frithe doth place them. But .iiii. or .v. lines before, cleane to an other purpose, then Frith wolde here make vs beleue, that Saynt Austen speketh them for. And therfore what a parte he playeth in that, iudge him now thy selfe.

HERE.

Syr, parchance Saint Austen hath in some other place, all those woordes toge¦ther in the same order as Frith doth here alledge them.

CATH.

Graunt that to be trew, and yet it can not proue Frithes purpose for all that.

HERE.

What, not when Saynt Austen doth say, that in those wordes of Chryst, the letter killeth?

CATH.

No trewly. For although it he trew, that the letter killeth, yet there may be therein, (as there is) a litterall sense for at that.

HE.

Then it kil∣leth?

CATH.

No, not so nother.

HERE.

How proue you that?

CATH.

I will leaue all other proufes, and proue it euen by Saynt Austen him selfe.

HE.

Nay then, if you proue that by S. Austen, I will tell you an other maner of tale, then ye looke for.

CATH.

What so euer thou wilt tell, I tell thee, that vpon the title of the sayde .33. Psalme, S. Austen speaking there of the prophet dauid, as the story compelleth him to do, doth say these wordes.

Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Hoc vero fratres quo∣modo possit fieri in homine quis intelligat? Quis e∣nim portatur in manibus suis? Manibus aliorum po∣test portari homo. Manibus suis nemo portatur. Quo modo intelligatur in ipso Dauid secundum literam, non inuenimus. In Christo autem inuenimus. Fereba∣tur enim Christus in manibus suis. Quando commē∣daus ipsum corpus suum ai••. Hoc est corpus meū. Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis.

That is to saye.

He was borne in his own handes. But brethern how this may be done in a man, who can vnderstande? for who is borne in his owne hands? A man may be borne in the han¦des of other. But in his owne handes no man is borne.

How it may be vnderstande in Dauid hym selfe after the letter, we do not finde. But we finde it in Christe. For Christe was borne in his owne handes, when he setting furth the same his owne bodie sayth, this is my bodie. For he bore that bodie in his owne handes.

Here it can not be auoyded, but euen by Saynt Au∣sten, these wordes of Christe. This is my body, must needes haue a litterall sense.

HERE.

That is not so. For althoughe Saynt Austen, dothe here say, that christ was borne in his owne handes, when he sayde, This is my body, yet it foloweth not, but that he mente he bare hym selfe in his own handes figuratiuely, and (as Frith sayeth) not litterally or after the letter.

CATH.

A, wilt thou be there? dothe not Saint Austen here playnly say, that he findeth the same in Christe, whiche he findeth not in Dauid? And this (he sayeth) he findeth not in Da∣uid, how it may be vnderstande that he was borne in his owne handes after the letter. Wherfore it must needes

folow, that he findeth how it may be vnderstand in christ that he was borne in his owne handes after the letter, when he sayd, This is my body. And therevpon dothe Saynt Austen rest. For otherwise, he myght haue founde it in Dauid, but (as he sayeth) not after the let∣ter. And therfore after the letter he fyndeth it in Chiste. Now therefore tell me where is Frithes denyall of this litterall sense becum, sithe he is therin, thus cleane ouer throwne, and that by the playne woordes of Saynt Au∣sten hym selfe, whome he falselye bosteth to make so muche and clerely for hym? when the trewth is, he maketh directlie agaynst him.

Cap. 12.

HHERE.

Syr ye heare not yet, what Frythe dothe farther saie, vnto it.

CATH.

It shall not skill what so euer he say, agaynst so playne a trewth as this is. Specially when agaynst trewth, can nothinge be brought but fasshed.

HERE.

Yet me thinke you should here him, as wel in the rest, as in this that is paste, before ye giue any iudgement thereof.

For he taketh vpon him to proue, that Saynt Austen, doth not here so meane, as ye vnderstande him.

CATH.

Peraduenture he taketh it so vpon him, for it is more easier to take it vpon him twise, then to do it once.

HERE.

Yet perchaunce ye shall see him do it indeede.

CATH.

Whiche way?

HERE.

Euen by Saynt Austen hym selfe.

CATH.

That wolde I heare.

HERE.

In the .84. leafe, of hys booke these be his owne wordes.

The text of Saynt Austen (sayth he) whiche they there al∣ledged against me was this, that in the Sacrament, christ was borne in his owne handes, where vnto I sayde, that Saynt Austen doth full well expounde him selfe. For in an other place he sayth. Ferebatur tanquam in manibus suis. That is, he was borne after a certayne maner in his owne handes. And by that he sayth after a certayne maner, ye may sone parceyue what he meaneth.

Now haue ye harde what Frithe sayeth of Saynt Austen agayne.

CATH.

Thou sayest trewth. And thereby doo I well perceyue him to folow more that, whiche he hath in thys poynte harde of Saynt austen by other, then that, whiche he hath seene of saynt Austen him selfe. And that appereth not only by this, that he maketh here no mention of anie speciall place of Saynt Austen, where those wordes should be, but also by this, that in the place, where I haue redde Saynt Austen concer∣ninge the same. That is to say, vpon the title of the .33 Psalme, hys very wordes be these.

Ferebatur in manibus suis. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis? quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suū & sanguinem suum, accepit in manus suas, quod norunt fideles, et ipse se portabat quodammodo eum diceret. Hoc est corpus meum.

That is to say.

He was borne in his owne handes. Now was he borne in his owne handes? because when he did set furth the same his owne bodie, and his bloud, he tooke that into his han∣des, whiche the faythfull doeth know. And he bore hym selfe after a certayne maner, when he sayde, this is my bodie.

These be the woordes of Saynt Austen in that place whyche I haue red. And althoughe it be no greate matter, yet there is no suche, tanquam in mani∣bus

suis, as Frithe dothe here speake of. Therefore if he him selfe saw and red this place of Saynt Austen, and wolde not (as he dothe not) alledge the woordes of it as they be, iudge thou what a parte he playeth in that.

Of the other side, if he saw them not hym self in S. Au∣sten, but tooke them (as I beleue he did) oute of some heretikes booke, to colour his false purpose with al, how foolish was he to thinke, that it wolde neuer be spied?

HERE.

Syr all this, is but a voyde draught. For in the wordes whiche ye do here recite of Saynt Austen your selfe, appereth enoughe for Frithes purpose, and as muche as he requireth.

CATH.

What is that?

HERE.

This that Saynt Austen sayth.

Chryste bore hym selfe in his owne handes after a certayn maner, when he sayd, thys is my body.

For by thys that he sayth after a certayne manner, ye may sone perceyue (sayeth Frythe) what he mea∣neth.

CATH.

O after a certayne maner? in∣deede it is to vs after a certayne maner, that Frithe doeth alway make his conclusion, vpon an incertayne grounde, althoughe it be to him, aftter his common ma∣ner. For what is the cause that he doth not first make it certaine, what Saynt Austen meaneth by this, that he sayth, after a certayne maner?

HERE.

Frithe sayeth ye may perceaue what he meaneth.

CATH.

Ye, we maye, and do, but yet why dothe not Frithe ex∣presse the meaning of it, least he take it one way, and we an other?

HERE.

He doeth expresse it in the same place immediatlie folowynge, and that in these wordes, sayinge.

How be it, if Saynt Austen had not thus expounded hym selfe, yet he sayth, Ad bonifacium, that the Sacrament of a thynge hath a similitude of the thynge, whiche it signi∣fieth. And for that cause, it hath many tymes, the name of the very thynge whiche it signifieth. And so he sayeth, that he bore him selfe, because he bore the Sacrament of his body and bloud.

CATH.

And wel sayd. Is this the bering of himself in his owne hands after y^e certaine maner, which S. Austen meaneth, to beare the similitude or sacramēt of him self in his owne handes?

HE.

What els?

CAT.

Then, where is the bering of him self in his owne hands after the let∣ter? S. Austen saith (as I sayd before) he bare him self in his owne handes after the letter. But to bere the simili∣tude or sacrament of him self in hys owne handes, is not to bere him self in his owne handes after the letter. For there, the letter maketh no mention of any similitude or sacrament other. Wherfore if S. Austen had mente by this that he sayeth, after a certayne maner, none other but that Christe bore the similitude of hym selfe, in hys owne handes, when he sayd, This is my body, he myght sone haue founde, how that might haue bene as wel vn∣derstanded in Dauid, as in Christ. Therfore it was not that, whiche he ment, when he sayd, he founde not howe it might be vnderstand in Dauid after the letter. For Dauyd might haue borne the similitude of hym selfe in hys owns handes. Wherfore thys that Saynt Austen sayeth, Christe bare hym selfe in hys owne handes, after a certayne maner, can be no exposition (as Frithe wolde haue it to be) of thys that he sayeth, Chryste bore hym selfe in hys owne handes after the letter. Nor no more, can this nother, that he sayeth.

Sacramentes haue a certaine similitude of those things, whereof they are sacramentes, and ofte tymes of that si∣militude take the names of the thynges them selues.

When the letter (as I sayde) maketh there no menci∣on of any similitude or sacrament other.

HERE.

Then if this that Saint Austen saith, Christe bore him selfe in his owne handes after a certaine maner, can be no exposicion of this that he saith, Christe bore him selfe in his owne handes after the letter, doubtles those two saiynges can not be bothe trew nor stand together.

Cap. 13.

CATH.

If thou or Frith other, take S. Austen after that maner, doubtles ye are both deceiued in him, after a wicked maner. For what is after a certaine maner, but not after a commune maner?* 1.7 As when our sauiour Christe appeered vnto certaine of his disciples in the way goyng to Emaus after his re∣surrection, either he appeered vnto them after his com∣mon maner, or els after a certaine maner. If he had apeered vnto them after his common maner, they had then knowne, it had bene he, whiche (as the gospell doth sey) they did not in deede. Wherefore he apeered vnto them, not after his common maner, but after a cer∣tayne maner, whiche was suche, as by reason whereof, they knew him not, as it doth there, right well apeere. Againe of the other syde, his apparence also vnto them then, was other after the letter, or els not after the let∣ter. If thou saie it was not after the letter, then thou denyest both his very beyng with them then, and also the letter to, whiche doth say.

Iesus him selfe drawinge nere, went with them.

Therefore if thou say that he apeered vnto them af∣ter the letter (as the trewth is, he did in deede) then thou must needes grant, that he apered vnto them there, not after a common maner, but bothe after a certayne ma∣ner, and also after the letter to, and that bothe at once. And why therefore saiest thou, that Saynt Au∣stens saiynge of Christes bearyng him selfe, in his owne handes after the letter, and his saiynge that he bore him selfe in his owne handes after a certaine maner, can not stand together, when thou maiest thus perceiue that after the letter, and after a certayne maner, doothe well agree and stande together, in the gospell?

HERETI.

Yet syr me thynke by you, that after the letter, and after a certayne maner, are not bothe one, but haue some difference betweene them.

CATHOLICVS.

Trew it is. How be it no suche, but that they maie and dooe stande together well enoughe. For after the letter, is here sayde, in respect of the very reall and essenciall beyng of his sub∣staunce. And after a certayne maner, is sayde in respect of the straunge forme, wherein he apeered vn∣to them.

HERETICVS.

Ye but when he bore him selfe in his owne handes (as Sainte Austen saith) after a certaine maner, there was no such strange forme appeerynge then.

CATH.

Yes euen so strange, as when he by the way shewed him selfe to the two dis∣ciples. For then he shewed him selfe in the forme of a mā whiche fourme coulde not be straunge, but wel known,

in that respect, what it was. Therfore the straungnes was not in that, but in this, that he shewed him selfe in the fourme of an other maner of man, whiche was no man in deede, but he him selfe so in it, as though he had not beene therein. And therfore the fourme is sayde to be strainge, because it was of him so stranig∣ly vsed. Wherefore lykewyse, when he bore hym selfe in his owne handes after a certayne maner, he bore him selfe in the fourme of bread, whiche fourme, to anie man coulde not bee straunge, but well knowen what it was. Therfore the straing∣nesse was not in that, but it was in this, that he bare him selfe in the fourme of breadde, whiche was no breadde in deede, but he him selfe so in the fourme thereof, as thoughe he had not beene therein. And therefore the fourme, maie also there, be sayde to bee straynge because it was, as dayly it is, of him so straingely vsed. Wherefore as he, to the two disciples, showed him selfe after a certayne ma∣ner, that is to saie, not in his owne proper fourme, but in the fourme of an other maner of manne, whyche made him therein so straynge vnto theim then, so he bore him selfe in his owne handes after a certayne maner, that is to saie, not in his owne proper fourme, but in the fourme of an o∣ther maner of thynge, whiche maketh him ther∣in so straynge now vnto them, that bee vnfaith∣full. For as Saynt Austen saieth of it in manie places, Norunt fideles, The faythfull knowth him therein well enoughe, he is not straynge therein

to them. For he that can vse him selfe vnder one fourme, more then is proper or naturall vnto him, And that without the crafte, arte, or helpe of man, I doubte not, but that he can vse him selfe vnder, an other and mo formes, or vnder as many as he will. As it may well appeere by that he showed him selfe, as is aforesaid to the two disciples in the fourme of a trauailer by the waie.* 1.8 And to Mary magdalen in the fourme of a gar∣diner. Also an other tyme, to three of his disciples, in the fourme of a glorified bodye. Wherefore he dyd none of these, after a common maner, but after a certain maner. Yet this same certaine maner, neither dooth, nor yet can take away, the very reall and substanciall presence of the vsare thereof, or haue any beyng it selfe, where the vsare thereof is not, or force anye good and trew vnderstandynge, that the vsare of it shoulde not euen be there, with it or in it. For it doothe but onelye showe how dyuersly, he can behaue him selfe in his ap∣parence, and denieth not therein his presence. By this therfore it maie well appere (as I saide before) that this saiynge (After a certaine maner) and this saiyng (after the letter) maie well agree, and stande both together.

As good reason, and thexample thereof whiche I haue recited vnto thee of the holy gospell, dooth plainely de∣clare. For the trewth to say, (as the trewth is in deede) those two saiynges of Saynt Austen are not spoken, but in these diuers respectes. The one (as I sayde) in respect of the very substanciall beynge of the thynge it selfe, whereof it is spoken. And the other, in respecte of the Accidentall fact or behauiour of the same. There∣fore when S. Austen saith, Christe bore him selfe in his

owne handes after the letter, the very vnderstandynge therof apperteyneth onely to the reall and substanciall presence of Christes very body in the sacramente, no∣thinge touching any accidentall qualitees or occult be∣hauiour thereof, but the verite of the substaunce onely. And when he saith, Christe bore him selfe in his owne handes after a certayne maner, the trewe meanynge of that apperteineth only to the very secret and insēsible behauiour of it in the sacrament, and not to the substance wherin that inuisible behauiour is. And beside this, how farre from all doubte of this vnderstandyng, doth Saint Austen expresse the matter him selfe, in his woordes be∣fore alledged? where he saith.

Christe was borne in his owne handes, when he settynge foorth the same his owne body. fayth, This is my body. For he bore that body in his owne handes.

HERE.

Ye what body?

CATH.

The same his owne body (saith Saint Austen) or the selfe same body of his, choose the whether. For so these woordes, Ip∣sum corpus suum, maie or must needes be Englished, and no way els more trewly. Wherefore those woordes of Saint Austen can not be applyed, to any signe, simi∣litude, or sacrament other, but directly to the very sub∣stance of the thing that he speaketh of, which is the bles∣sed body of Christ. And that specially when he addeth vnto it, and saith, he bore that body in his owne handes. He saith not a body, as incertaine which, but he speaketh certeinly and saith, that body, wherof he dooth playnely treat. And that appeereth also in the other place, where he saith.

He bore him selfe after a certaine maner.

For what so euer that maner of bearyng was, yet him selfe, can be none other but him selfe. Saint Austen saith, he bore him selfe. And there is nother signe, si∣militude, or sacrament of him, that is, or can be proper∣ly said, to be him selfe. For this worde, him selfe, or it selfe, hath none other respect, but alway and only, to the very reall and substanciall being of him or it, wherof it is directly spoken. Wherfore this that S. Austen saith.

Christe bore him selfe in his own handes after the letter. Serueth onely to conuince them, that denieth the very real presēce of Christs blessed body in the holy sacramēt.

And this that he saith.

He bore him selfe after a certaine maner.

Serueth onely to helpe and amende the blindenesse of them, that considereth none other but onely suche com∣mon maner of bearyng and beyng, as their owne out∣warde deceiuable sences, dayly dremeth vpon, whereby they are drawne to such wonder at the matter, that they thinke it to strainge, to beleue therin, as the holy Catho∣lyke churche dothe teache. And all because this bearyng that S. Austen speaketh of, is not common, but after an other certaine maner, then their blinde phantastical dre∣ming of sensible thinges, can, may, or is able, to reach vn∣to. And therefore therin to holde and kepe them styll, Frith doth labour and trauayle with his wringyng and wresting of this same certaine maner, to such an vnder∣standing, as nother the word{is} of S. Austen, nor yet any reason, authoritee, or learning, can beare or suffer. For he, thorow lacke of puttinge any difference betwene the thing done, and the maner of the doing, doth so confound them together, that with his handlyng of the one, he de∣ceiueth

him selfe and many mo, in the trewth of them bothe. But such was his lacke, not onely of learninge, but muche more of grace. For it is two thinges to teach what was done, whereof S. Austen saith,

Christ bore him selfe in his owne handes after the letter.

And to teach how or after what maner it was doone, wherof S. Austen saith no farther, but that it was done after a certaine maner, of which certaine maner, here he declareth no farther, because (as he doth trewly say) the veritee of the thyng, the faythfull doth know. And ther∣fore because he declareth here no farther thereof, Frith of his owne head, taketh vpon him to do it him selfe, after his hereticall maner. Whom if we coulde be∣leue, we might thynk our sauiour Christe no better then a very stone, without (as he sayth) any parell of damnacion at all. Wherefore if thou haste mar∣ked well, what I haue hitherto sayd, thou maist ease∣ly perceiue how foolishe and false his vnderstandyng of Saynt Austen is.

Cap. 14.

HERE.

That is to be weyed as we fynde him in the ende. For he hath mo places of S. Austen for his purpose then these. And specially one, whiche passeth all that ye haue herde of him yet, and directly a∣gainst the place of the. 33. psalme, whiche you haue al∣ledged.

CATH.

Which one is that?

HERE.

In the 27. leafe of his booke, he dothe alledge Saint Austen both in latine and in Englishe also, after this sorte, saiyng that Saint Austen saith.

Non hoc corpus quod videtis, estis manducaturi, nec

bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me crucifigent.

Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui, spiritua∣liter intellectum viuificat vos, caro autem non prod∣est quicquam.

That is to say,

You shall not eate this body that you see, nor drinke that blood which they that crucifi me, shall shed out. I haue geuen a certaine sacrament vnto you, if it be spirituallye vnderstand, it quickneth you, But the flesh profiteth no∣thinge.

Now sir, of this, Frith doth aske this question.

What thinges can be more plainely spoken?

CATH.

And I aske of him agayne, what thinges can be more falsely vnderstande, then he doth vnderstande them? for if he had vnderstand them trewly, or bene wil∣lyng so to do, he might and wolde, as well alledged S. Aust. in these word{is}, which he hath no farther from that place, then in the very selfe same leafe, where he saith of our sauiour Christe.

* 1.9

Suscepit enim de terra, terram. Quia caro de terra est. Et de carne Mariae carnem accepit. Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulauit, & ipsam carnem nobis mandu∣candam ad salutem dedit, Nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraueri, inuentum est quem∣admodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum domini.

That is to saie,

He toke earth of earth, because fleshe is of earth. And of the fleshe of Mary he toke flesh. And because he walked here in the same fleshe, and for our helth hath geuen vnto vs the same fleshe to eate, but no man doth eate that flesh, except he honour it before, it is found how suche a foote stoole of our Lorde, should be honoured.

Now, although it doth not here (for lacke of that, which goeth before) euen euidently apere, why S. Austen doth chiefly speake these words, yet may I say of this place,

the same, and as well as Frithe dothe saye of the other, what thinges can be, more playnely spoken? More playn¦ly spoken I say, as touching the veritee of Christes own blessed flesh and bloud in the holy Sacrament? For is it not here, most playnly expressed of Saynt Austen, that Christe for our healthe hath geuen vnto vs the same flesh to eate, wherin he walked here in earth? And where did he so giue vs that to eate, but in the holy sacrament? Therefore what coulde Saynt Austen saye more to the very playnesse of the matter, if a man had asked him pur¦posely, how he did beleue therein, or what his faith was in that behalfe?

HERE.

Nay then, if Saynt Austen can handle the matter after suche a sorte, as of the other side, in the parson of Christ to say.

You shall not eate thys body, that you se, nor drynke that bloud whiche they that crucifie me, shall shed out. And far∣ther say, I haue geuen a certayne sacrament vnto you, yf it be spiritually vnderstande, it quickeneth you. But the fleshe profiteth nothinge.

If Saynt Austen (I say) can handle the matter so, that he will speake so playnly of bothe sides, and make for eache parte, beinge so contrary as Frithes opinion and yours is, trust him who will, for so wyll I neuer from hence furth.

CATH.

Perchaunce no more thou hast done hetherto.

HERE.

Yes that I haue alway till now.

CATH.

So wolde Frithe say for his parte, if he were to answere therin. And yet I dare say, he tru∣sted him, no farther then he thought be should make for his purpose. And (as it appereth) no more doest thou, nor any of you all.

HERE.

Why say you so? for as touching Frithe, I am well assured that he trusted saynt Austen aboue all men, as it dothe by his owne wordes euident∣lie

appere.

CATH.

If he had so done in deede, as he did falsely so pretende, he wolde not alledged the one of these foresayd places, and lefte the other behinde as he doeth, being so nere together in one leafe, as of some volume they are in deede, but wolde alledge them both and made some conference betwene them of their agre∣ment, if he had trusted Saynt austen as wel in the one, as he did in the other. How be it because he saw the one place, make so playnely with our belefe, that he coulde cast there vpon no colour to the contrary, he left out that, and brought foorthe the other, whiche as he thought might seeme, to make only for his purpose alto¦gether. Wherefore this cam not of any trust that he had in Saynt Austen in deede, but of the trust he had in his owne false and wylie handlinge of some certayne pla∣ces of Saynt Austen, to deceaue hys disciples withal, wherof he chose this place, whiche thou hast alledged to be one. For if he had trusted Saynt Austen as he pretended to doo, he wolde haue trusted him as well in the one of these places, as in the other, where as now it is playne, he trusted him in none of them bothe or at the least, mistrusted him in the one, and onwares, or wilfully, wolde mistake him in the other.

HERE.

Why syr, wolde he haue hym trust Saynt Austen in bothe places, when they be so repugnant, and so con∣trary one agaynst an other, that they can, by no reason, ioyne nor agree together?

CATH.

What be they?

HERE.

Euen as I tell you.

CATH.

Thynkest thou Saynt Austen beinge a man of suche witte, of such learning, of suche holinesse, and therfore of suche moste excellent fame thorow all christendome so many hun∣dred

yeares, to be one of that sorte, that in so weygh∣tie a matter, forgetteth to day, what he sayde yester∣day? or wyll say one thinge now, and to morrowe the contrary? or in his writynge ouershotte hym selfe in one sentence, before an other be drie? For doubtlesse, these two sayinges are placed so nere together, that I beleue the one was not drie, before the other was writ∣ten. Therefore how madde a phansy were it, so to thinke of Saynt Austen, that these two places are con¦trarie, and one agaynst an other?

HERE.

Why, who can take them otherwise, the wordes beinge so playne? for doth he not say in the one place,

Christ hath geuen vs the same fleshe to eate, wherein he walked here in earthe.

And in the other place.

You shall not eate this body that you see?

And what is this, but eate and not eate one thinge both at once, whiche is not possible? for other that body which they saw, was the body of that fleshe, whiche (as Saynt Austen sayeth) was geuen vs to eate, and that fleshe was the fleshe of that body whiche they saw, and should not eate it, or els that body was of an other fleshe and that fleshe of an other body, and then the one or the other, not Christes body or Christes fleshe, which were (I suppose) euen cursednes to thinke. For wher¦of is his owne body, but of his owne fleshe? And where∣of is his owne fleshe, but of his owne body? And therfore where he sayth the same fleshe, he might haue sayd the same body. And where he sayth this body that you see, he might haue said, this flesh y^t you se, & al one. And therfore when he putteth eating in the one place, and not eatinge

in the other, and bothe of one thynge, what can be more contrary?

Cap. 15.

CATHOLICVS.

I wonder that thou canst not, make as great shifte, to ridde thy selfe out of er∣rour, as thou doest, to keepe thee in it? for indeede to keepe thee in it, thou hast sayd enoughe, and a greate deale to muche. But of the other side, nothing at all.

And therefore to helpe thee out of it (yf thou be so hap∣pie) heare now, what I haue to say.

HERE.

What?

CATH.

To whome shall we take these wordes to be spoken, that Saynt Austen sayeth in the parson of christ,

you shall not eate this bodie, that you see?

HERE.

I take them to be spoken to vs, whiche do eate the Sa∣crament.

CATH.

That can not be. For that body, whi∣che he speaketh of, after that sorte, as they did see it, we neuer saw.

HERE.

Then it is spoken as it were to thapostles, and suche other as did see it.

CATH.

That is trew. And therfore how did they see it?

HERE.

How should they see it, but with their eyes?

CATH.

And what maner of body was it, that they did see with their eyes?

HERE.

A body sensible, passible, and mortall.

CATH.

Thou canst make no better, nor more direct answere, then that is. For the wordes of Saynt Austen, are of none other, but of that boddy, which they saw, and that was sensible, for els, they coulde not haue seene it. And therfore where Saynt Austen sayth.

Ye shall not eate this body that you see,

He might as well haue sayd, ye shal not eate this body that ye feele or may feele. Whereof it is written, Pal∣pate

& videte, That is to say.

Feele and see.* 1.10

Or ye shall not eate this body that is passible, whereof it is written.

Oportet eum multa pati,

That is to say.* 1.11

It behoueth him to suffer many thynges.

Or, ye shall not eate this body that is mortall (where∣of it is written.)

Oportet eum occidi.

That is to say,* 1.12

it behoueth hym to beslayne.

And what were any of these sayinges against this, that in the other place he sayth.

Christ hath geuen vs the same fleshe to eate, wherein he walked here in earth?

HERE.

Mary syr, if that be trew, then he hath ge∣uen vs, visible, palpable, passible, and mortall fleshe to eate. For therein he walked here in yearth, and that he neuer gaue vs, to anie suche purpose. Wherfore this lat∣ter sayinge of Saynt Austen can not be trew.

CATH.

No can?

HERE.

No trewly.

CATH.

Then how sayest thou to this? doth not Christe now in heauen, sit on the right hande of God the Father, in the same fleshe, wherein he walked here in earthe.

HERE.

That can not I tell.

CATH.

Why canst not thou tell? for yf he sit not there in the same fleshe, wherein he walked here in earth, then he sitteth not there in the same fleshe, that he tooke of the holy virgin mary.

If he sit not there in the same fleshe, that he tooke of the virgin Mary, then he sitteth not there, but in an o∣ther fleshe, or els in none at all. If he sitteth not there, but in an other fleshe, or in none at all. Then is it not trew to say, that he is her sonne, nor she is his mo∣ther.

For she can not be the very mother of an other fleshe, then she brought foorth her selfe, or the mother of no fleshe at all. Wherfore, other thou must graunte this to be trew, (as I thinke thou wilt not) that she is not now his mother, nor he her sonne, or els thou muste needes graunte, that on the right hande of God the fa∣ther in heauen, he sitteth now in the same fleshe wherin he walked here in earthe. For that is the fleshe whiche he tooke of her.

HERE.

Well syr, I will not sticke to graunt that now, because I see more in it then I did be∣fore.

CATH.

Then if he (now sittinge on the right hande of God the Father in heauen) haue the same fleshe, wherein he walked here in earthe, and the same fleshe, was here in earthe passible and mortall, how can∣nest thou auoyde this, but that it is passible and mortall now in heauen?

HERE.

No syr not so. For I can a∣uoyde that well enoughe, and it were but by this, that ye declared yesterday, how Iohn Frithe was deceiued in his foundation, by mistakinge of this same worde, the same. For althoughe Christe haue now the same body and fleshe in heauen, wherein he walked here in earthe, yet he hath not there now the same, in the same and e∣uerie condition.

CATH.

Then it is the same, and not the same.

HERE.

What els? For it is the same bo∣die and the same fleshe in respecte of the substance, but not the same in respecte of the state, condition, and acci∣dentall qualites thereof, whiche it had when he wal∣ked here in earthe. For it was then passible and mortall, but now impassible, and immortall, whiche are cleane contrarye. And therefore not the same now, that it was then, nor the same then, that it is now in

one respecte. And yet the very same then, that it is now, and the very same now that it was then, in an other re∣specte. For suche is the difference betwene the substance and the state, condition and accidentall qualites of any thinge, that it may alway and trewly be sayde, to be the same and not the same in those dyuerse respectes.

Cap. 16.

CATHOLICVS.

Thou makest me greatly mar∣uell to here the speake.

HERE.

Why so?

CATH.

Because thou haste (as thy wordes doeth declare) so good vnderstanding of the difference, that is betwene the substance of a thinge, and the state, condition, or ac∣cidentall qualites of the same. And yet neuerthelesse, wilt take Saynt Austen so ouerthwartly as thou doest. For where he sayeth.

Christ hath giuen vs, the same fleshe to eate, wherein he walked here in earthe.

Thou takest hym to meane that fleshe in euery con∣dicion, wyth all suche accidentall qualites as it had then. And not in the only respecte of the substance of it. And agayne, where he sayeth,

Ye shall not eate this body that ye see,

Thou takest him to speake that, in respecte of the substance, and not in the onelie respecte of the state, condition, and qualites of it. So that, thou vnderstandest Saint Austen wronge in bothe places. That is to saye, thou takest his meanynge of the fyrste place, to be in the seconde, and of the seconde, to be in the first, as the places them selues, are well able to declare. For where he sayth.

Christ hath giuen vs, the same fleshe to eate, wherein he walked here in earthe.

Cleare it is, that in this same worde (vs) Saint Austen amonge other, ment hym selfe to be one. And in that he ment him selfe to be one amonge other, to whome he sayeth, Christe hath geuen his fleshe to eate, playne it is he neuer mente, that Christe gaue it him or them to eate, but as it was in his tyme, when he should eate it. And in his time when he shoulde and did eate it, it was nother passible, nor mortall, nor yet subiecte to any such other accidentall and naturall qualites, as it was before the resurrection therof. Wherfore thou mayest by thys, with halfe an eye perceue, that Saynt Austen, neuer spake those wordes of Christes geuing his owne fleshe to eate, in respecte of anie suche qualites, but onlie in respecte of the veritee of the substance.

HERE.

Then, why doeth he adde vnto them, these wordes, sayinge.

Wherein he walked here in earth.

CATH.

That he doeth, to declare his mynde and meaninge in the veritee of the thinge, whiche was in Saynt Austens time, (euen as it is now) the very same wherein he walked here in earth, and is now in the holy Sacrament. The verie same I say, in the only respecte of the substance, but (as euerie man doeth or ought to know) not the same, in respect of those qualites, which in his resurrection were chaunged into such perfections as are to vs inscrutable and incomprehensible. And ther¦fore of the other side, where Saynt Austen sayeth,

Ye shall not eate this body that ye see,

Why wilt not thou see, that to be spoken, not in respect of the substance but of the qualites, when the facultee of

seyng or sight, doothe no farther extende or pertayne but vnto the vnderstanding of the qualitees, and not of the substaunce? For if he had sayd.

Ye shall not eate this body, and gone no farther.

Or had added vnto it these woordes.

Which shalbe geuen for you.

As it was sayde at his institucion of the holy sacra¦ment, it had bene then an other matter. But when he saieth.

Ye shall not eate this body that ye see.

What is it els to say, but that ye shall not eate this bo∣dy visible, or this body sensible, or this body in such con∣dicion and state, as ye now see it in. When the seeyng it selfe, dooth import no farther of the body, but as a∣perteyneth vnto the sight, or sensibilitee thereof?

HERE.

Then, why doth he adde vnto it these wordes, saiyng.

I haue set foorth vnto you, a certayne sacrament. If it be spiritually vnderstande, it geueth you lyfe. But the fleshe profiteth nothyng.

CATH.

First, these woordes.

But the fleshe profiteth nothyng.

Are in this place, of Frithes owne adding and putting vnto the other before. And not of Saynt Austens put∣tyng there. How be it because they be the woordes of the gospell, and of Saint Austen recited, not far from the same place, where Frith doth take the rest, I wyll not cleane omit them, but I will spare them for a while, And first go to this that he saith.

I haue set foorth vnto you a certayne sacrament, and be∣yng spiritually vnderstand, it geueth you lyfe.

Therefore what other thinge is that to say but this, that

when he saith,

Ye shall not eate this body that ye see.

Ye shal not eate it in such sorte, as ye see it, but as it shal be in a sacrament, wherin ye shall not see it. For els, if he had not so ment, he woulde not haue sayde.

Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drynke his blood ye shall not haue life in you.

For he ment not that fleshe to be eaten in that proper visible fourme whiche they saw, and yet to be eaten, in deede for all that, or els he woulde not haue denied lyfe (as he dothe) for the not eating of it. And therfore eaten it must needes be of very necessitee. Althoughe not that, as it was of them seene, but yet that, as it shuld be of them and vs both, trewly and verily beleued, in the holy sacrament. And for that cause he saieth, I haue sette forth vnto you a certayne sacrament, and beyng spiritually vnderstande (that is to say, farther and farre otherwyse then your sences can reache) it geueth you lyfe. Wherefore because here appeereth both eatyng and not eatyng of one thynge both at once, whiche are bothe trew, And that can not be in one re∣spect, it must therfore nedes folow to be vnderstand and taken, as the trewth is, in two respectes. Wherof the one, that is to say, the eatyng, is in respect of the verye thinge, with the inuisible state, occult and secrete beha∣uiour thereof, as it is in the holy sacrament. And the o∣ther, that is to say the not eatyng, is not but in respect of the visible fourme, and sencible apparence thereof to their eyes. And therfore this eating and not eatinge be not here so direct contraries, as thou takest them for.

Cap. 17.

HHERE.

Then, where is this become that he saith,

If it be spiritually vnderstand, it geueth you lyfe?

As who say, or els it doth not?

CATH.

I haue tolde the that already.

HERE.

Ye but yet euen therin consisteth Frithes purpose altogether, as it maie partly apeere by that he saith in the .21. leafe of his booke, where he re∣cityng the saynge of Christe to the Iewes that beleued him not, And also the minde of Saint Austen therupon (as he saith) he hath these woordes.

Christe said, doth this offend you? what will ye say then, when ye shall see the sonne of man ascendynge thither, where he was before? Then addeth S. Austen (saithe he) you shall know that he ment not, to geue his fleshe to eate with your teeth: for he shall ascende hole. And Christe addeth, it is the spiryte that quickneth, The flesshe profyteth nothynge. The woordes that I spake, are sprite and lyfe. That is to say, (saith Sainte Austen) are spiritually to bee vnderstande. And where Christe saith, that the fleshe profyteth no∣thyng, meanynge of his owne fleshe, (as saynt Austen saith), he meaneth that it profiteth not, as they vn∣derstode him. That is to say, it profiteth not, if it were eaten.

Now here ye may see, how Frith hath plainely proued both by the woordes of Christe, and also by Saynt Au∣sten vpon the same, that all this matter lyeth in a spiri∣tuall sense, and must bee vnderstande spiritually.

CATHOLI.

Frith hath not proued that so plainely, as he hath herein, proued him selfe a false lyar once againe. For vnder the colour of his allegacion of Christe, and Saynt Austen together, he hath herein wrapped no small pece of his owne hereticall falshed, to

deface the trewth of them both. For of those woords of Christe, the flesshe profiteth nothynge, when Saint Austen saith it profiteth not, as they vnderstode him, where did this antichrist fynde this exposicion, which he addeth vnto it, saiyng.

It profiteth not, if it weare eaten.

S. Austen hath no suche thynge nor Christe nother. And yet as though they had, this crafty and false Ray∣narde doth annex it vnto their saiynges, to make it seme to be their meanynges.

HERE.

And will you call him an antechriste therefore?

CATH.

What should I call him els? For who can be more contrary to Christ herein, then he is? for Christ saith.

Except ye eate it, ye shall not haue life in you.

And he sayth.

If ye eate it, it shall not profite you.

HERE.

Tushe, those be not Frithes woordes. For he saith.

It profiteth not if it were eaten.

CATH.

And what is that, but if ye eate if, it shall not profite you? is it not all one? Therefore is there any thynge more agaynst Christes saiynge then that? when Christe saieth,

Except ye eate it, ye shall not haue life in you.

Doth lyfe not profyte? and specially euerlastynge lyfe, whiche Christe doth meane, and promise that we shall not haue it, except we eate his fleshe? And yet this antechrist saith, it shall not profyte vs, if we eate it.

Therefore, whiche of these two, are we best to beleue? Christe, or this his wicked aduersary? for both we can not allow, they be so contrary.

HERE.

They be not so contrary as ye take them. For all Christes meaninge

(as it apereth by his owne woords) is of spirituall ea∣tyng by feyth, and not of carnall eating with the teth. And that doth Frith defend and nothynge els, as it ape∣reth in the .44. lefe of his boke where his word{is} be these.

If Christe had (sayth he) so ment, that his owne bodie na∣turall should haue continued in the sacrament, whiche is the meate of the soule thorow feyth, and not of the body by eatynge of it, and maie as well be eaten thorow feyth, although it remayne in heauen, as if it were here pre∣sent to our mouthes, if he had (I saie) so ment, then wold he neuer haue geuen vs suche scriptures as he did. for I say that this grosse imaginacion may not stande with the processe of the scripture, whiche is receiued, as it shall ap∣pere by certeine textes. First where our sauiour saith, The flesshe profiteth nothyng. The waight of those words doth compell vs to vnderstande our matter spiritually.

For by this shorte sentence, we are no lesse plucked backe from the carnall eatyng, then was Nichodemus, that he should not once dreame of the carnall regeneracion, when Christe saide vnto him. That what so euer was of the fleshe, was fleshe.

And also againe, in the .47. leafe, Frith hath accor∣dyng to the same euen these woordes.

It is impossible (saith he) the scriptures standyng as they dooe) that the naturall body of Christe, shoulde be pre∣sente to our teeth in the sacramente. And as for our faith it neadeth not to haue hym present in the bread. For I maie as well eate him and drynke him thorow faith. That is to say, beleue in him, as though he were as pre∣sent in the sacrament, as he was hangynge on the Crosse.

In this ye see, Fryth dothe expresse his mynde so playnly that no man can doubt of his meanynge there∣in. Whiche in effect resteth but in two pointes, wher∣of the one is. That christes very bodie fleshe and blood hath no verie beeynge nor reall presence in the

sacrament. And the other is, that what so euer Christe spake as towchynge the eatynge therof, must nedes be vnderstande, onely spirituall. And these two hath he proued by the woordes of Christe, and also by S. Austen to.

CATH.

What, wilt thou be at that poynt yet, for all that thou hast hytherto herde already? thou plaiest the very Frithiā now in dede, to say that he hath proued both, when he hath proued in dede none of the both by a∣ny thynge that we haue harde of him yet. But thou hast herde profe enough to the contrary, if that wolde serue. And therfore what so euer he hath brought for his profe hytherto, hath other made directly agaynst him, or els vtterly nothynge for him. Therefore speake of no profe that he maketh, for he maketh none in dede.

HERE.

Yes syr, for he hath proued, that it must be vnder∣stande spiritually. And therof it must nedes folowe, that it maie not be vnderstande carnally, for they be two contraries. And therefore, where there maie be no carnall vnderstandynge, there can be no flesshe re∣maynynge. Wherefore thus hath Fryth his purpose thorowly, that is to say, that the fleshe profiteth not to be eaten, and that, by reason of the spirituall vnderstan∣dinge, wherof he is most assured, both by christs woordes (as I sayde) and Saynt Austens also.

CATHOLI.

Then if he were so assured, he coulde not be therein de∣ceiued.

HERE.

No more he was.

CATH.

Trowest thou so?

HERE.

I thinke so.

HE.

Why, thou maist perceiue by thine owne reason, and also by this which I told the before, that although, it must be vnderstand spi∣ritually yet it foloweth not that it must be vnderstād on∣ly spiritually. For spiritually (as I said) and onely spiri∣tually,

is two thinges. Therfore if Frith take it to be vn∣derstande onely spiritually without any other, or farther respect, then he taketh it otherwyse, then he hath, or is able to proue it, by the woordes of Christe, or Saint Au∣stens other. Againe of the other syde, if he take it to be vnderstande spiritually and not onely so, Then hath he proued therin, so muche for his purpose, as is in deede, euen nothyng at all.

HERE.

Why syr it is profe e∣noughe for him, that he is by Saint Austen moste cer∣tayne and sure (as he hath declared) that it must be vn∣derstande spiritually.

CATH.

What although it be so, and not onely so?

HERE.

Ye why not?

Cap. 18.

CATHOLI.

Then if thou rest vpon that, what if Frith knew not, what the spirituall vnderstan∣dynge of it is?

HERE.

Yes that I dare saie he did.

CATH.

Then he wolde haue geuen it a difini∣cion, and made it certaine, before he had wrought anie conclusion thervpon, as euery threw and wyse persua∣der dothe, in what so euer he taketh vpon him to proue. But this we see he did not. And why? but other because he was therin ignoraunt, and therfore coulde not do it, or els because he was of such a malicious falshed, that though he could, ye he wolde not doe it Which is of the twayn, most lyke to be trew. For he saw perchance that if he had made a good difinicion, or playne distinction, betwene the spirituall and the carnall vnderstandyng therof, it should not only not haue serued, but also clene haue destroied his purpose altogether. And therfore he chose rather to roue at a vēture, thē to shote at any mark certein. wherfore let vs, seke out the certeinte of this spi∣rituall

vnderstandyng. And that once had, wee shall soone see, whether he went about to bring it to light, or els to hyde it all together, or no. For he will not de∣ny but that Saynt Austen and other olde auncient, fa∣thers and doctors of the holy church, did certeinly know it, when he pretendeth to proue all his purpose, moste chiefely by them.

HERE.

I graunt that, for them he wil not deny.

CATH.

Then remember thou well, what I haue hytherto sayd. And let vs returne to thexamina∣cion of that, which thou hast recited all ready, out of the 21. leafe of his booke.

HERE.

Marry sir that is how Christe, to those that beleued him not, did say.

Doth this offende you? what if ye shall see the sonne of man ascendynge thyther, where he was before? Then addeth S. Austen (saith he) you shal know, that he ment not, to geue his fleshe to eate with your teeth. For he shall ascende hole. &c.

CATHOLICVS.

Is this Saint Austens saiynge vpon those woordes of Christ?

HERE.

So saith Frith.

CATH.

Therefore here, thou shalt see once agayne, what Frith was. For if it were not for auoyding of te∣diousnesse, I woulde recite vnto the, the very woordes of S. Austen, vpon those words of Christe, both in latine and also in english. but his woords in latine turned into englishe shall be sufficient, which are euen very these. Christe answerynge sayd,

Dothe this offende you, that I sayde, I geue you my flesshe to eate, and my bloodde to drynke? This offendeth you in deede. Therefore what if ye see the sonne of man ascendynge thyther where he was before? What is this? By this he eased some, whom he knew. By this he opened wherwith they were offended. Wherwith vtterly, if they woulde haue vnderstande it. For they thought him to deuyde and

distribute his body. But he sayde, he wolde ascende into heauen euen whole. When ye shall see the sonne of man ascendinge where he was before, ye shall certaynlie see e∣uen then, that he distributeth not his body, in that maner that you thinke. Ye shall euen then certenly vnderstande, that his grace is not with bytinges consumed.

Now where is this, that Frithe sayeth of Saynt Austen.

You shall know that he ment not, to geue his fleshe to eate with your teethe?

Where is this (I saye) where is it? in deede it can not be founde. And therefore in the steede of that, thys we finde, that Frithe was nothinge ashamed of his lies. For if he had, he wolde neuer haue put so many of them in his writinges as he did. And besides this, what faute is there here founde, with those vnbeleuers of Christe, whiche vnderstode him not in this matter?

HERE.

This faute, That their vnderstandinge ranne vpon the fleshe of Christ.

CATH.

That is false. For their faute was not therin, but it was in their misvnderstanding of the maner of it, as here Saynt Austen in playne wor∣des doeth well declare, they thought him to deuyde, and distribute his body peece mele. And that misvnderstan∣dinge, doeth Christes question touche directly, sayinge.

What yf ye see the sonne of man, ascendynge where he was before?

What were this question of his hoole body to the pur∣pose, if it were not to confound, and ouerthrow their mis∣vnderstandinge of the diuision therof in partes? for by this, he opened, (as Saynt Austen sayeth) wherewith they were offended. Whiche was with the distribution and erogation of his body in partes as they thought.

So that their faute (for whiche they are here reprehen∣ded)

was for that they gaue no farther credence to Christ, in the maner of geuyng his fleshe to eate, then theyr owne imagination, and blinde vnderstandinge did leade them vnto. And not for that, they thought hys meanynge to be of hys owne very fleshe in deede. For whiche thinking of his owne very fleshe, they bare here, no smake of any blame at all, as they should haue done, if it had bene a faute so to thinke. Wherefore, this thou mayst see, how very nothinge, this place maketh for Frithe, notwithstandinge all the great trust that he had therin.

Cap. 19.

HERE.

Ye but syr, ye must consider, that (as you haue herde) Frithe goeth farther then this. Say∣ing euen there.

Christ addeth. It is the spirite that quickeneth, the fleshe profiteth nothinge.

This text excludeth all vnderstanding of flesh, and dri∣ueth vs to the spirit altogether.

CATH.

There, Frithe wolde haue it indeede. But why doeth he not bringe in Saynt Austen there, as well vpon this text.

The fleshe profiteth nothinge.

As he wolde make vs beleue, he doeth, vpon this other before.

It is the spirit that quickeneth?

Sythe they ioyne so nere together, as immediatly one text after an other can do?

HERE.

He thought it was no neede, because this. The fleshe profiteth nothinge, is so playne of it selfe.

CATH.

It is harde to finde thee without an excuse. But neuerthelesse thou shalt here

what Saynt Austen sayeth of it, for all that. And then iudge, why Frith did passe it ouer. For Saynt Austens wordes turned into englishe are euen these.

What is this (sayth Saynt Austen) that he putteth to it, it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing? let vs say vnto hym (because he suffreth vs, not speakinge contrary, but coueting to know) O good lorde and may∣ster, how doth fleshe profit nothing, when thou hast sayd, except a man eate my fleshe, and drinke my bloud, he shall not haue lyfe in hym? doth lyfe profit nothing? And for what pupose are we that we are, but that we might haue euerlasting life, whiche thou hast promysed with thy flesh Therfore what is, it profiteth nothing, the fleshe profiteth nothinge, but as they vnderstode it? for they vnderstode fleshe so, as it is rent, or torne in a dead carkas, or as it is soulde in the shambles, and not as it is quickened with the spirite. Therfore so it is sayde, the fleshe profiteth no∣thinge, as it is sayde science puffeth vp. Now therfore ought we to hate science? God forbyd. And what is, science puffeth vp: alone without charitee. Therfore he ioyneth to it. But yet charitee doeth edifie. Adde therefore charitee to science, and science is profitable, not by it selfe, but by charytee. Also now lykewyse, the fleshe profiteth nothinge, beinge fleshe a lone. Let the spirite come to the fleshe, as charitee commeth to science and it profiteth very muche.

And a littell after, he speakynge in the parson of Chryste knitteth vp hys exposicion of thys texte wyth these wordes.

So, I geue not my fleshe to eate, as they did vnderstand fleshe.

Wherof it foloweth (say I) that otherwise he did geue it to eate, although he did it not so. For the wordes im∣port no lesse. Therfore, here thou mayste parceyue, why Frith brought not forth this place or exposition of Saint

Austen, as he doeth the texte, wherevpon he goeth. Whiche was in deede, because he lyked not Saynt Au∣sten so well in other places, but he liked hym as euyll in this, for all his false bostinge, that he maketh so muche for his purpose. Where as in deede, he maketh for him in no place, but directlie agaynst hym in many places, as it hath, and hereafter shall right well appere. Where¦fore in all this, thou seest, Saynt Austen taketh not the spirituall sence so, that he excludeth the whole vnder∣standynge of all fleshe therein.

HERE.

Syr, Saynt Austen commeth not to that yet. For vnto this text, that is to say,

It is the spirite that quickeneth, the fleshe profiteth no∣thinge.

Frithe doeth adde the wordes of Christ folowing, with Saynt Austens mynde vpon the same, whiche wordes are these.

The wordes that I spake vnto you, are spirite and life, That is to say (sayeth Saynt Austen) are spiritually to be vnderstande.

Here is the hoole matter come now, euen clerely to light, bothe by Christe and Saynt Austen to. And what wolde you haue more?

CATH.

This exposition of S. Austens, whiche thou speakest of now, is very shorte.

And more shorte then he is wonte to make vpon so great a matter. And therefore coulde Frith finde no more of it but this?

HERE.

Yes syr sumwhat more, which will lyke you lesse, if ye heare it.

CATH.

It were strainge that I should mislike any of Saynt Austens doinges in suche matters. And therefore what so euer it be, I pray thee let me heare it.

HERE.

That shall ye do. For Frithe in the .45 leafe of his booke hath these wordes.

This is a playne conclusion (sayeth he) that when Christe sayde, the fleshe profiteth nothinge, he ment it euen of his owne fleshe, that it coulde not profit, as they vnderstode hym, to be eaten with the teethe. Albe it, it dothe muche profit to be slayne for our redemption, and eaten thorough fayth. Whiche thinge we may do, althoughe his naturall fleshe be not in the Sacrament. For I may as wel beleue in hym, thoughe he be in heauen, as if he were in earthe, and in the Sacrament, and before myne eyes. And that Christe spake these wordes of his owne body, it is playne, by Saynt Austens wordes, writing vpon the same place. And therefore he sayeth, that they must be vnderstande spyrytually, and addeth, if thou vnderstande them spyri∣tually they are spirite and life. And thoughe thou vn∣derstand them carnally, yet neuerthelesse they are spirit & life. But vnto thee, they are not spirit & life, which vnder∣standest not spiritually, those thinges that I haue spoken.

Here you may see now, that Frithe hath more of Saint Austens exposition, then I tolde you of before.

CATH.

Ye but vpon what wordes of Christ, doeth Saynt Austen make this exposition, which Frithe doeth here alledge?

HERE.

Vpon these, that Christe sayeth, my wordes are spirit and life.

CATH.

Thou sayest e∣uen very trew. And therfore where thou tellest me, that I may here see now, that Frithe hathe more of Saynt Austens exposition, then thou diddest tell me of before, I say vnto thee agayne, that thou mayest here see (yf thou marke it well) that vpon these wordes of christe,

The fleshe profiteth nothinge.

Frith doth bring in that exposition of S. Austens, which Saint Austen maketh vpon this sayinge of Christe.

The word{is} which I haue spoken vnto you, ar spirit & life.

And the proper exposition that Saynt Austen maketh vpon these wordes.

The fleshe profiteth nothynge.

Which exposition, I recited vnto thee right now my self, he doth cleane omit and dissemble, as though there were no suche matter at all. Therfore wilt thou not see, what a parte he playeth herein? Thus to applie a mans expo∣sition of one text, to an other, and his proper exposition of that other, cleane omit, dissemble, and will not be knowne of it? Hast thou seen a more manifest falshed at any mans hande?

Cap. 20.

HERE.

Syr the macter is not so great as ye make it. For when Christ saith, my wordes are spirit and life, he meaneth those wordes whiche he spake at that tyme, amonge whiche were euen these.

The fleshe profyteth nothynge.

Therefore they be of the wordes, which he meaneth to be spirit and life. That is to say, spiritually (as S. Austen sayth) to be vnderstand. Wherfore these wordes of saynt Austen, spiritually to be vnderstande, do as well serue and expounde this texte.

The fleshe profiteth nothynge.

As they do this text.

My wordes are spirit and life.

Whervpon they were (as you say) directly and pur∣posely spoken.

CATH.

Ye but why doth not Frithe, as Saynt Austen doth, put eache of those textes, with their owne proper and whole expositions by them selfes? And then with conference made betwene them, see what he coulde gather of them bothe together, for his purpose?

HERE.

I can tell what your answere wolde be, yf you were asked that question?

CATH.

What?

HERE.

Ye

wolde say, that he wolde not so do, because, that the one exposition, wolde haue made as muche agaynst hym, as the other semeth to make with him.

CATH.

What mo∣neth thee to thinke, that I wolde so say, but euen the ve∣rie trewth therof? for most trew it is, that the one exposi∣tion soundeth no more of the spirit, then the other doeth of the fleshe. Whithe Frithe coulde in no wise away with all. And therfore that made hym so redy to bringe forth that one, which might seme to make for his purpose, and not to be knowne of the other, whiche maketh so muche agaynst him. For all his purpose was in nothinge so muche, as to exclude all the reall beyng of Christes very fleshe, in the holy Sacrament. For there, he wolde haue nothing but very bread in a bare signification. And ther¦fore coulde he abide nothing, that myght seme or sounde to the contrary. But what so euer he coulde finde a∣monge the olde holy fathers, to sounde or smacke of any spirituall vnderstandinge in the matter, that did he catche and holde, thinkinge vtterly thereby, to proue his intente thorowly. Neuer serchinge what they mente by it, but alway tooke it and applied it to that he wente aboute, whiche was, as it dothe well appere, nothinge els but falshed indeede. And there∣fore it proued there after. For had he bene at the fyrste, as redy to trie what the olde holy fathers ment, by that spirituall vnderstandynge, as he was rashe and rea∣die to runne headlinge vpon hys owne dreamynge thereof, without any good aduysement or dew con∣syderation, or wolde haue referred the iudgement of his owne phansyes, to the Holy Catholike churche, as euery trew and good christen mā ought to do, and as I

For my part, dayly pray God of his grace, that I neuer do otherwise, if he had (I say) this done, it had neuer pro¦ued with him & some other as it hath done, whiche was but according, to this old saying, the hasty man, lacketh neuer woo.

HERE.

Sir why do you account him rash and hasty herin, when he taketh not the olde holy doc∣tours, but according to their owne sayinges?

CATH.

I do account him so, because all sayinges, are not alway so simple, but that many of them oftentimes, contayne and haue in eache of them, diuerse vnderstandinges. Or els there should not be as there is, suche contention aboute there meaninges, after that men hath vttered and putte forthe their bare sayinges. Wherfore, the faut of rashnes that I finde with Frithe, is because he looked so muche vpon their saying{is}, that he passed nothing vpon their ve∣rie meaninges, but to their sayinges, he ioyned his own meaninges, and thereby deceiued him self and many o∣ther moo.

HERE.

Why, what other meaninge should he gather of this their saying, a spiritual vnderstādyng, but a spiritual vnderstanding in deede? And that he not only doeth, but also defēdeth, as much as he can. And therfore as I tolde you before, where there is a spiritual vnder∣standinge, there can be no carnall vnderstandinge. And where there can be no carnall vnderstanding, there can be no very flesh remayning.

CATH.

Thou sayst so. But how wil he, or thou other, proue y^t there is in this matter no carnal vnderstanding, or no flesh remayning?

HERE

Because there is a spiritual vnderstanding.

CAT

That foloweth not. for I tolde thee diuerse times before, that spirituall, and only spirituall are two thinges, for if it be not only spiritual, then it may be both so, and otherwise

that is to say, so in one respect, and otherwyse in another respect. Wherefore if it maie be, both so and otherwyse, where is Frithes purpose become then, which resteth all together vpon only so and none otherwyse? Therfore he must proue, that it is onely mere spirituall, and not one∣ly that, but also, what a spirituall vnderstandynge is. For without that all his hole talke, is but vayne bab∣lynge and nothyng els.

Cap. 21.

HERE.

Well syr, it is to late for him, to dooe that nowe. And therefore sith ye holde it so necessary to be done, I pray you for the fruictful furderance of our talke herein, declare you whether the vnderstan∣ding of it be onely mere spirituall or not, and what the spirituall vnderstandyng of it is.

CATH.

Then thou must first consider this, that although some, yet all and euery spirituall vnderstandynge, doth not exclude, and forbyd the vnderstandynge of all maner of flesshe, as it doth, when it is but onely and mere spirituall, as some tyme it is, and some tyme not. For if thou take spiritu∣all vnderstandynge so, that is to saie, to be alway of one∣ly and mere spirituall thinges, thou shalt not take anie body or fleshe, within the compas of any spirituall vn∣derstandynge at all. Wherefore if thou take it so, that there may be no spirituall vnderstandyng of any fleshe, thou takest it then, euen directly against the holy Apo∣stle Saint Paule, wrytynge to the Corinthians of the generall resurrection, and describinge the difference of the state of the body before and after. where he saythe,

It is sowne a naturall body,* 1.13 and it shall ryse a spirituall

body. There is a naturall body. And there is a spiritu∣all body.

And a little after he saith also.

That is not first, whiche is spirituall, but that, whiche is naturall. And then that whiche is spirituall.

Here thou maiest see by the holy apostle (if thou trust him) that some bodye is, and mo shalbe, spirituall at length. And a spirituall body can not be, trewly vn∣derstande, but at the least in some respect spyrytu∣ally. Except thou wilt say, it maie be otherwyse vn∣derstande then it is, which is no perfyte good, and trew, vnderstandyng in dede. Therefore, this doth not fo∣low, as Frith wolde haue it, that where is a spirituall vnderstandynge, there is no fleshe. But this doothe well folowe, that where there is spirituall fleshe, there the vnderstandynge must needes be spirituall, not therin deniyng the veritee of the fleshe, but declaring the state and condicion therof. Yet this spirituall vnderstanding, is not al onely and mere spirituall, because it is not dy∣rectly and only of a spirite, but of a certaine perfite and very fleshe, whiche is spirituall, and not a spirite, but spirituall, for that it is aduaunced so nere the perfecti∣on of the spirite, whereunto it is knit, and therby made spirituall, as of the contrarie parte, the minde of some man is made carnall and fleshly, not because it is fleshe-but because it is so addict vnto the fleshe, that it is be∣come subiect vnto the vitious desires or inclinaciō ther∣of. And therfore called (as it is in dede) fleshely. For of such a man, we saie, he is a man of a fleshly mynde, yet his minde is not fleshe for all that. Wherfore as the spi∣rite of that man is fleshly and no fleshe, so is the fleshe of

the other, spirituall and no spirite. And for that it is spirituall, it must be spiritually vnderstande. And that can it not trewly be without the spirite, by whiche it is made spirituall. And therfore the woordes whiche are spoken of that fleshe, are called spyrite and lyfe, that is to say, spiritually to be vnderstande. For without that spyryte the fleshe profyteth nothyng. Wherwith, they were trewly answered, whiche toke it otherwyse, that is to say, without the spyryte. As it apereth by the words of Saint Austen recited before.

Cap. 22.

HERE.

Yet it wyll not synke in to my head, but that, if this spirituall vnderstandyng of fleshe, be of fleshe, that is verye flesshe in deede, it must nedes haue also then, a fleshly vnderstanding with all.

Because it semeth more agreable to the thinge, then the spirituall vnderstandynge of it dothe. For what ma∣keth vnderstandinge carnall or fleshelie but fleshe? or howe can fleshe bee not fleshely vnderstande, when vnderstanding must needes be after, and accor∣dinge to the thing that is vnderstande?

CA.

Herein thou art as frith was, wonderfully deceiued. For he did, as thou dost put no difference, Inter carnem & carna∣lem. That is to say, betwene fleshe, and fleshly or fleshy, when the one hath respecte to the substaunce of fleshe, and the other, to the naturall qualitees, dis∣posicions, propertees and vsage thereof, or thereunto belonginge. And therefore when the flesshe is vnderstande, after anye of them, then the vnder∣standynge of it, is carnall and fleshely, For those

naturall qualitees, propertees, and disposicions of fleshe, is it, that maketh the vnderstandinge of it car∣nall and fleshelye, and not the substaunce it selfe: as it maie well appere, not onely By Saint Paule, but al∣so by Saint Austen vpon the same sixt chapiter of Saint Iohn, where his woordes be these.

Qui aderant plures, non intelligendo scandalizati sunt. Non enim cogitabant haec audiendo nisi car∣nem quod ipsi erant. Apostolus autem dicit. Et vae rum dicit, sapere secundum carnem, Mors est. Car∣nem dat nobis suam dominus manducare, & sapere secundum carnem, mors est, cum de carne sua dicat, quia ibi est vita aeterna. Ergo nec carnem debemus sapere secundum carnem.

Whiche maie thus be englished.

Many of them that were present, not vnderstandyng the matter were offended. For in hearynge these thinges, they did not imagine, but the fleshe that they were them¦selues. But the apostle saith, and saith trew, to vnder∣stande after the fleshe, is death. Our lorde gaue vnto vs, his fleshe in eate, and to vnderstande after the fleshe is death, when he saide of his owne flesshe, that there is euerlastynge lyfe. Therefore we ought not to vnder∣stande fleshe after the fleshe.

Here thou mayest see a manifest difference of vnder∣standynge, betwene fleshe and after the fleshe, and ther∣fore how saist thou to it now?

HERE.

I say that S. Austen saith here very well. For what meaneth he by this, that we ought not to vnderstande the fleshe af∣ter the fleshe, but that we ought to vnderstande it af∣ter some other thing, whiche is here ment by the fleshe∣and not the fleshe it selfe?

CATH.

I woulde not

haue thought the so foolishe, as to take it so. for this as is though it were all one to saie, we ought not to vn∣derstande the fleshe after the fleshe, and to saie, we ought not therein to vnderstande any fleshe at all, when the saiyng forbyddeth vs not, the vnderstanding of the fleshe it selfe, but the vnderstandynge of it, after the common course, and naturall disposicion thereof. It forbyddeth vs to vnderstande it, as nature here daiely doth vse it, and at length shall lese it, but not as the spirite shall at length againe obteine it. The spirite of man it selfe, is nowe in this lyfe muche after the fleshe here, but the fleshe in the next lyfe, shalbe after the spirite there. After the fleshe here, hath no place, nor being there. And that ought we to consider here. For the fleshe is one thinge, and after the fleshe is an other. Wherfore although in the course of na∣ture, they go here both together, yet in this matter, our vnderstandinge must plucke them a sonder, or els, thou shalte vnderstande fleshe, after the fleshe, whiche is death, as thou hast harde before, and more playnely doth appere, by the manifest woordes of thapostle againe, in an other place, where he saith.

Et si cognouimus secundum carnem Christum,* 1.14 sed nunc iam non nouimus.

That is to say

Although we haue knowne Christe after the fleshe, yet we dooe not so now.

What do we then? know we now, no fleshe in Christ? God forbyd. for we know it in dede: but not after the fleshe. What is after the fleshe? Necessitee, passibilitee, corruptibilitee, mortalitee, and such other. These were once knowen in Christe. And his fleshe then, knowen

after them. But so it nother is, nor ought to be known now. And therfore not after the fleshe, and yet fleshe in dede for all that, although not fleshly fleshe, which one∣ly maketh fleshely vnderstandyng, But spiritual fleshe which maketh the vnderstandynge spirituall. For as thapostle saith.

* 1.15There is a naturall body, and there is a spirituall bodie.

And what is that to saie, but there is a naturall fleshe, and there is a spirituall fleshe?

That (he saith) is not first, which is spirituall. But that whiche is naturall. And then that whiche is spy∣rituall.

These two states of fleshe, thou maiest know by rea∣son, can not haue lyke vnderstandynge. Wherefore by this, it maie well appere, that the spirituall vnderstan∣dinge of this matter, wherupon Frith doth ground him selfe, and yet vnderstode it not, is not euen onely and mere spirituall, as he doth take it, excludynge all ma∣ner of fleshe. But spirituall of spirituall fleshe, whiche Frithes vnderstandynge did neuer touche, nor once dreame vpon.

HERE.

That is your pleasure so to say.

CATH.

No, it shall not be onely my saiynge, but as in the .17. leafe of his booke, it maie be partly percei∣ued by his owne saiyng, which is this.

As touchinge the other woordes (saith he) that Christe spake vnto his disciples at the last supper, I deny not but that he sayde so, but that he so fleshlie ment, as ye falsly feygne, I vtterly deny.

Now marke, what doth he meane, by this, whiche he laieth here so sore to our charges, that we haue (as he saith) so falsely feygned of Chrystes meanynge?

HE.

He meaneth your feygnynge to be this, that Christ

ment, that his woordes, concernynge his bodie, spoken at his last supper, shoulde be taken and vnderstande fleshlie, whiche can not be.

CATH.

And meaneth he so?

HERE.

His woordes declare no lesse.

CATH.

Therfore by this it is cleere, that his meanynge of our feynynge, is euen like his vnderstandynge, which is in deede both false and fleshly to. For do we feyne, that Christe spake those woordes of his blessed body, with a fleshely meaning? Where findeth he, that we feyne that, as here he lusteth so to lie? For we do not only, not feine it, but vtterly deny it, constantly affirmynge, and faith∣fully teachinge, that therin Christe ment, in deede very fleshe, but yet not (as this fleshe monger lieth) fleshly fleshe, for all that. How be it euen fleshely fleshe it is, which Frith dreameth vppon, and none other. And that deceaueth him altogether. For commonly where so euer he maketh mencion of Christes bodie, his fleshe, and ea∣tynge therof, he doth not call it but a naturall bodie, naturall fleshe, and the eatynge thereof, carnall ea∣tynge, eatyng with the mouth teeth and belly, and suche other talke concernynge the same, as smelleth not, but euen altogether fleshely and nothynge els: as it appe∣reth in the .44. and .45. leafe of his booke, and ma∣ny other places therein besyde: when, as I tolde thee before, betwene fleshe and fleshely, there is as great dif∣ference, whiche Fryth did nothynge consider. And ther∣fore it is no wonder although he came neuer at the spy∣rituall vnderstandyng of the matter, beyng so fleshelie phantasied, as his owne talke therein doth plainely de∣clare that he was. Wherfore in him are well verified these woordes of thapostle saiyng.

* 1.16

Animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus dei, stultitia enim est illi, & non potest intelligere, quia spiritualiter examinatur. Spiritualis autem iu∣dicat omnia.

Whiche maie thus be Englished,

The fleshly man vndestandeth not those thinges, whiche are of the spirite of god. For they are foolishnes to him, be∣cause he can not vnderstande that they are spiritually to be examined.

But the spirituall man iudgeth all. That is to say.

The spirituall man iudgeth all, bothe spirituall and carnall. But so can not the fleshly man, whose reache passeth not the common course of naturall and fleshlie fleshe, Wherfore it is no meruayle, though this fleshly Fryth, dothe falsly feygne, our vnderstandyng to be but fleshely, as his vnderstandynge was, which could no farther then suche fleshe, as he was of him selfe.

For in all his booke, thou shalt not fynde one sparke of vnderstandynge that he had, of any spirituall fleshe at all. And therefore, his thinkynge that our vnder∣standinge of fleshe is none other, then his was, caused him in the .23. leafe of his boke, to haue these woordes.

I wonder (saith he) that we haue bene led so longe in this grosse errour.

HERE.

So doeth many mo, as well as he, I maie saie to you.

Cap. 23.

CATHOLI.

Ye but what grosse errour is it, whiche he noteth vs here to be led in so long?

HE.

That ye beleue christs very natural body and his

naturall fleshe, to be presentely in the Sacrament.

And therein to haue suche carnall eatinge of it, with toeth and belly, as he maketh mention of, in diuerse places of his booke.

CATH.

What if we wolde graunte him, that it were a very grose erroure, (as he calleth it) so to beleue?

HERE.

Then ye must other confesse your selues in a great faute for so beleuyng, or els deny, and say ye beleue it not.

CATH.

Let it so be, that we be∣leue it not. And what of that?

HERE.

Then is Frithe and you, euen bothe at a poynte, and of one opinion ther in.

CATH.

Nay not so. For we beleue, that therin is ve∣rie fleshe for all that. But he beleueth that therin, is vt∣terly none at all. Therefore his opinion and ours are not bothe one.

HERE.

Then, how can you beleue, that therin is Christes very fleshe, if ye beleue not, that hys naturall bodie, and naturall fleshe is in it?

CATH.

Well enough. For if thy weake hedde coulde beare it, I wolde deny, that Christ hath any naturall body, or natu¦rall fleshe other.

HERE.

No not in the sacrament.

CATH.

No nor in heauen or any where els.

HERE.

What neuer speake it. For then it must folowe, that he hath no very body, nor very flesh at al.

CATH.

That is after Frithes learning. For his wit was so yoked with the commen course of nature, that his vnderstandinge coulde reache no farther. And yet in his tyme I dare say he herde of this difference of thinges, that some were na∣turall, and some supernaturall. Wherfore, I deny not, but that the blessed body and very fleshe of our Sauyour Christe, was once naturall, but not synce the tyme of hys resurrection. For what is naturall, but what so euer is vnder the yoke and lawes of nature, as our bodies

are, and our flesh is? And what thinges may we call su∣pernaturall if that be not one of them, whiche hath bene once naturall, and now hath ouercome the power and strength of nature, and hath gotten cleane out of the la∣wes and bondage therof? wherefore, yf thou say, that there is no suche thinge, then thou must needs graunte, that the body, and flesh of our Sauiour Christ hath euen now, neede of eyer and brethe, meate, drinke, slepe and suche other, as without whiche, no naturall body of man doeth,* 1.17 or can be able, to lyue and indure. Except it be by myracle for a season, as in parte, it was wyth Moyses and Helyas by the space of .40. dayes. Therefore if the body of Christ haue now, neede of those thinges, then it is passible, and may suffer. If it be passible and may suf∣fer, then it is mortall, and may dye. And that I am suer thou wilt not graunt. Wherfore if it can not dye, it is not mortall, if it be not mortall, it can not suffer. If it can∣not suffer, it hath no neede of those thinges, or any other like. If it hathe no neede of any of those thinges, what hathe nature to do with it, when those be thynges, which of necessite nature requereth? Therfore if nature haue nothing to do with it, how can it be natural? That, is not naturall, whiche the course of nature hath nothinge to do with all. Therfore why doth Frithe so often call it na∣tural, but because his vnderstanding of it, was so carnal that he coulde see no sparke of the state of it, whiche is spiritual? He did not know, that natural and carnal, are no meete, nor conuenient termes, to be put to the expres∣sion of the holy fleshe of Chryste, as they are not indede If a man should go to the very proper signification of the wordes. Because therein they make no difference

betwene the state of that fleshe and ours. For ours is naturall and carnall. And therefore to the declaring of hys flesh, there should be put in the place of naturall, su∣pernatural. And in the place of carnal, spiritual, as now the verites of the thinge, doth most worthyly and dewly require. For if it were alway vsed to be spoken of so, it wolde perchance ease some weake myndes, of many car¦nall and fleshly phantasies, that runneth yet in their hed des aboute this matter, as there did none other in Fri¦thes hedde, so longe as he lyued. For as it ap∣pereth in dyuerse places of hys booke, he tooke na∣ture, to be one of hys pryncipall groundes, to proue his purpose by, in thys case. And therfore he that wyll go aboute to improue and disalowe that by na∣ture, whiche is supernaturall, shall proue hym selfe (I may saye to thee) euen as Frythe did, farre worse then a naturall foole. Wherefore herein leaue thy dreamynge of what so euer is naturall and car∣nall, and tourne it to that, whyche is spirituall and supernaturall an other whyle. Or els thou shall neuer haue, trew, perfit, and constante faythe in this matter, whyle thou lyuest. For so longe as thy cogytation herein, runneth or resteth vpon the com∣mon course of naturall fleshe, thou shalt neuer be sa∣tisfied, wyth any trewth, that thou shalt gette and come by that waye. Therefore remember and fo∣low the holy Apostle in that he sayeth (as I tolde thee before.)

Although we haue knowne Christe after the flesh,* 1.18 yet we do not so now, for if therbe (he sayth) a naturall body, there is also a spirituall body. Now he it that is not fyrst,

whiche is spirituall, but that whiche is naturall, and af∣terwarde that, whiche is spirituall.

Wherefore in this matter, thou must forget naturall and fleshly fleshe, and vnderstande, or at the least haue in beleefe, supernaturall and spirituall flesh. And then thou shalt, as Frithe did not, trewly vnderstand the meaning of Christe, where he sayeth.

* 1.19

The wordes whiche I haue spoken vnto you are spirite and lyfe.

For spirituall vnderstanding is not here, as Frith did take it, only and mere spiritual, without all respect, and being of any maner of fleshe at all. Nor the carnall vn∣derstanding, whiche he speaketh of, and layeth here to our charges, is none suche nother, as he taketh it for.

He was farre deceyued in bothe. For as he tooke the one, to be onely and mere spirituall, So he tooke the o∣ther to be only and whole carnal. Which are bothe false, as it may well appere, and it were but by the very sub∣stance of the thinge it selfe, whiche indede is fleshe. But yet some way, so spiced with spiritualitee, that it is no∣ther carnall, nor yet only, or mere spirituall, but spiri∣tually to be vnderstande, for the spirituall state, whiche it hath obteyned.

Cap. 24.

HERE.

Syr, then let me here somewhat more, whereby I may better perceyue, what spirituall vnderstandinge is. For yet I know it not.

CATH.

It is euen that, whiche is not carnall.

HERE.

By that am I neuer the nere.

CATH.

Therefore mende thy question, and then thou mayest chaunce of a better an∣swer.

HER.

Then, what is carnall vnderstandinge?

CATH.

That is well asked. For with that, thou shoul∣dest begyn. Because that once knowne, thou shalt know the other so muche the better. For that order in the same matter, vpon this text, the fleshe profiteth nothing, doth holy Chrisostome folow in these wordes.

Quid autem est carnaliter intelligere? simpliciter ve¦res dicuntur. Ne{que} aliud quippiam excogitare. Non enim ita iudicanda sunt quae videntur. Sed misteria omnia interrioribus oculis consideranda, hoc est, spi∣ritualiter. Qui non manducat carnem meam, et bibit meum sanguinem, non habet vitam in semet ipso.

Quomodo nihil prodest caro, sine qua nemo potest viuere? vide quod ea perticula, caro non prodest quic quam, non de ipsa carne, sed de carnali auditione dic∣tum est.

That is to say.

But what is it to vnderstande carnally? simply as the thynges are spoken, and to imagyn therof nothing els.

For those thinges which are seene, are not to be iudged so. But all mysteris are to be considered with the inwarde eyes. This is spiritually. He that eateth not my flesh, and drinke my bloud, hath not lyfe in him. Now doeth the flesh profit nothing, without the whiche, no man may lyue?

Marke, that this parte, the fleshe profiteth nothing, is not sayd of the fleshe it selfe, but of the carnall hearyng of it.

Here, by this, thou mayst well perceyue, that carnall vnderstandinge extendeth no farther herein then sensi∣ble experience doth leade. But spirituall vnderstanding extendeth to that, which no sensible experience is able to reache or come vnto, although it be in sensible thinges. As the grace of baptim, although it be in the sensible sa∣crament and ministration thereof, yet it is insensible it selfe. Farther more thou mayst here also perceyue, that

holy Chrisostome doeth not reprehende the vnderstan∣dinge of the fleshe it selfe, but the carnall hearyng of it.

That is to say, the fleshly or fleshy vnderstanding of it.

Whiche is, when it is taken and vnderstande after the fleshe, as it is in the commen course of nature. For that, he doeth here reprehende and nothing els.

Cap. 25.

HERE.

Well syr, let it so be. And wolde you haue me therefore vnderstande very fleshe to be in the Sacrament?

CATH.

Indede I wolde haue thee beleue it.

HERE.

I take vnderstanding, and beleuynge to be without any great difference in this case. And ther∣fore because this poynt runneth vpon spirituall vnder∣standinge, how can I vnderstande very fleshe, but that myne vnderstanding thereof, must be carnall and after the fleshe, whiche I do vnderstande?

CATH.

Ye what fleshe doest thou meane?

HERE.

Mary Christes flesh.

CATH.

I pray thee hartely vnderstande that flesh, e∣uen after that fleshe, and spare not. For so, thyne vnder∣standing of it shall nother be carnall, nor yet natural no∣ther as carnall and naturall be communly taken. For if thou vnderstande that fleshe, after that fleshe indeede, thou doest then vnderstande it euen as it is, and not as it was, that is to say, as it is now, and hath bene euer since his resurrection. But not as it was, betwene that, & the first time of his incarnacion. How be it, this same carnal & after the flesh, that I meane here, is not in him, proper∣lie called, carnall & after the flesh now, but spirituall and after the spirit. Because in him, what so euer was cōtey∣ned vnder or in the signification of this worde carnal is

now turned so farre into the contrary, that it is compre∣hended vnder the signification of this worde spirituall.

And therfore if thou vnderstande that fleshe, after as it is now, thine vnderstanding of it is then spirituall, and not carnall.

HERE.

Ye but although that fleshe be (as ye say) spirituall, yet it is fleshe. And therefore sithe it is flesh, how shall I know when I vnderstand it spiritually and not carnally?

CATH.

When thou doest vnderstand it as it is.

HERE.

Ye how is that?

CATH.

Immortall. For if thou vnderstande it otherwise then so, thou vnder¦standest it carnally, and after the flesh, and not spiritual∣lie. For althoughe immortalite commeth to the flesh, yet it commeth not of the fleshe, but of the spirit. And there∣fore if thou vnderstand it immortal, thine vnderstanding therof is spirituall.

HERE.

Of immortalitee we haue none experience. And therefore, how or by what meane, shoulde I vnderstande it immortall? For I take immor∣talitee to be suche a thynge as doeth farre passe my vn∣derstandynge and as I tkynke yours to.

CATH.

Al∣thoughe it passeth my vnderstanding neuer so farre, yet so longe as it passeth not my beleueynge I do not care. but I am afrayde that it passeth not only thy vnderstan∣dinge but also thy beleuynge to.

HERE.

Nay that it doeth not, for I beleue it verely.

CATH.

Then if thou do so. For the proufe of the thinge, this onely testymonie of of the holy Apostle is enoughe, where he sayeth.

Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur. Mors illi vltra non dominabitur.

That is to say.

Christ rysing from death, dieth no more. Death hath no more dominion ouer him.

Therfore that liuinge fleshe, whiche is aboue, and be yonde al the power of death, must needes be immortall. For althoughe death & it, made once a fray, wherin death gat the victory and the fleshe gaue way for a litle whyle, yet soone after, that same fleshe gat the victory of death agayne, and that for euer. Wherefore if there were no more, nor anie thinge els, wherby to vnderstande it im∣mortal, but this one testimoni of thapostle, it were (as it is) sufficient & euen enoughe to any good christen man.

HERE.

Syr because ye speake of enough. Is it enough to vnderstand or beleue it immortall?

CA.

It is enough, so thou vnderstande or beleue therin, nothing to the con∣trary.

HR.

As how?

CAT.

No corruptiblitee, no passibi∣litee, no necessitee, nor any thing els to be therin, y^e ap∣perteyneth by any occasion to the contrary. For as these do naturally appertayne and belonge vnto the state of mortalitee, so doeth their contraries, supernaturally ap∣pertayne and belonge vnto the state of immortalitee.

Cap. 26.

HERE.

Then, me thinke by your sayinge, that impassibilite doth appertayne to immortalitee so, that they must needes go alway together.

CATH.

What els?

HE.

Therfore if they must nedes go alway together, then the bodies that shalbe dāpned in hell for e∣uer more, shalbe impassible. For they shalbe immortall, and neuer die. And so suffer no payne at all, if immorta∣litee and impassibilitee go alway together?

CATH.

I pray thee where foundest thou that?

HERE.

Where shoulde I fynde it, but euen in reason?

CATH.

Ye in suche reason as Frithe folowed, but not in very

reason in deede. For I denye that those in hell, shalbe immortall.

HERE.

Then they shall, and must ne∣des there dye agayne, and haue and ende at length.

CATH.

I say not so nother.

HERE.

They must nedes other dye agayne, and come to an ende, or els lyue for euer, and then they be immortall. For the one or the other, can not be auoyded,

CATH.

As farre as thou seest, thou maiest saie. How be it, I denie bothe.

HERE.

What, that they shall die agayne, or be immortall?

CATH.

That same I meane.

HERE.

Ye maie denie what you list, but yet I am sure, the one or the other muste needes be trew.

CAT.

If thou be so sure of that, then tell me what doest thou meane, or vnderstande, by this woorde immortall?

HERE.

Marry that, whiche is past death for euer.

CATH.

Naie, that is no good aunswere. For a dead dogge or a dead horse, is past death for euer, and yet is not immortall.

HERE.

I meane that, whiche is once past death, and yet lyueth agayne for euer.

CAT.

There thou saiest well. And therefore what maketh a body to lyue for euer?

HERE.

The obteynynge of lyfe without ende.

CATH.

What is lyfe without ende?

HERE.

Lyfe euerlastynge.

CATH?

Ye what is lyfe euerlastynge?

HERE.

I can not tell what I shoulde call it, but euen so, or euerlastynge lyfe, which is all one.

CATH.

Then there is nothynge that ma∣keth bodies to lyue for euer, but euerlastynge lyfe.

HERE.

That is cleere.

CATH.

Therfore if no bodies can be immortall, but suche as lyueth for euer: And none can lyue for euer, but by euerlastynge lyfe.

It foloweth playne, that it is euerlastynge lyfe, whiche

maketh bodies immortall.

HERE.

That I graunte must nedes be trew.

CATH.

And to whom is euer∣lastynge lyfe promised? to them that shalbe damned in hell?* 1.20 or els to them that shalbe saued in heauen?

HER.

What question is that? for euerlastinge lyfe is promi∣sed to none, but onely to those, that shalbe saued.

CAT.

Then, when euerlastynge lyfe is promised to none but onely to those that shall be saued, and none can be made immortall but by euerlastynge lyfe, it muste needes followe, that none but onely those that shalbe saued, can be made and trewly called immortall. And therefore why saiest thou, that those bodies shalbe immortall, whiche shall not haue e∣uerlastynge lyfe, but shall be damned in hell for e∣uer more? and so thereby conclude that because of their passibilitee and penall sufferynge, immortalitee and impassibilitee goeth not alway together, whiche is farre agaynste both reason and trewth. For al∣though those damned bodies shall haue a perpe∣tuall passibilitee and sufferynge without ende, yet they therein shall not be immortall for all that.

HERE.

How can those two stande together?

CAT.

Well enough. For once agayne, what is ment by this woord immortall, but that, whiche is not mortall? And what is not mortall properly, but that, whiche lyueth beyond and out of the daunger of death, and all the stin∣ges therof? for there is nothing immortal but only that. And maie we saie, that the damned bodies in hell, shalbe in that cace? when they shall alway remayne in death? ye & in that deth,* 1.21 which the holy scripture calleth Mors secunda, that is to saie, the seconde death, which maie

also be called the death of all deathes, when it shall ne∣uer ceasse, but be euerlastynge.

HERE.

Then yet ye graunte, that they shalbe, euerlastynge.

CATH.

Ye in death, but not in lyfe.

HERE.

If they be not in lyfe, they can feele no payne.

CATH.

That is not so. For the feelynge of payne, doth not euen properly belonge and apperteyne vnto lyfe, but vnto death. E∣uen as the selynge of pleasure, doth not belonge vn∣to death, but vnto lyfe. It is proper to death, to come by paine. And proper to life, to acquere pleasure. for the fe∣lynge, which perfect and very lyfe hath, is of none other but of pleasure. And the feling that very death hath, is of none other, but of paine. But this is sumwhat strainge, because in this world, there is none of them both. That is to saie, nother perfect life, nor yet (if I may so call it) perfect death nother. For the lyfe that we haue here now is but as it were a course vnto deth, or a mixture of both together. wherein death in conclusion preuaileth and ma∣keth an ende of both. that is to saie, of life and it selfe to. For they both be here transitorie and temporall, but af∣terwarde, permanent and eternall, not mixed and con∣founded together, or the one folowynge the other, as they do here. But there, clerely and distinctly separate a sonder, eache from other, for euer more.

HERE.

Yet is it meruaile to me, how those in damnacion should fele paine, if they be dead, as ye say they be. For there is no dead thynge can feele.

CATH.

Thou that takest one thynge for an other. For did I saie that they shall remaine deade? when I sayd none otherwyse but that they shall remaine in death. Ded and in death, are two thinges. For he that is dead, is past death & without all

maner of felyng. But so is not he, that is in death. For he is but at the poynt of dyinge, which abydynge so, is farre worse, then dead in deede. For he feleth sumwhat but what is that? In dede no pleasure, but onely paine and that extreme. Wherfore that, or so much as we see of this matter, by dayly experience here, geueth to vs good occasion of some consideracion, how it shalbe there. For although it be finished here in a short time, yet it shalbe there continuall for euer. Wherefore, say not, that those whiche shall remaine in perpetuall dam∣nacion and miserie, shalbe therefore immortall. For that woorde properly, belongeth onely to them, that shall remaine in pleasure eternall. And therfore as those maie, and be trewly called immortall, so the other might, if the woorde were in vse, be called inuitall.

For those two woordes geueth this muche to be vnder∣stande, that, as the one sort, nother doth nor can die.

So the other, nother doth nor properly can lyue. For they be contraries.

HERE.

If they in hell nother do, nor can lyue, it must nedes folowe, that they haue no lyfe.

CATH.

How can they haue lyfe, when they are in euerlastyng death?

HERE.

Then that death can not greue them, if they haue no lyfe. For (as I sayd) without lyfe they can not fele.

CATH.

That is not so. For what is feelynge, but the sensibilitee of well or wo? That is to saie, of pleasure or payne, And therfore whereto tendeth, or belongeth the sensibi∣litee of payne, but vnto death, as I tolde the before? And whereto, tendeth or belongeth the sensibilitee of pleasure, but vnto lyfe? And therefore, shall, or maie we saie, that they haue in hell the sensibilttee of plea∣sure?

God forbyd. If they haue not the sensibilitee of pleasure, they haue not that, whiche apperteyneth and belongeth properly vnto lyfe. If they haue not that whiche apperteyneth and belongeth vnto lyfe, how can we trewly saie, that they dooe lyue or haue lyfe?

HERE.

why syr, lyfe is one thynge, and pleasure is an other, and payne is a thyrde. Wherefore I take not lyfe of it selfe, to be other pleasure, or payne other, but onely as it were an indifferent receptacle of the o∣ther two by course, as they chaunce vnto it.

CATH.

Ye, that is here in this worlde, where death hath domi∣nion ouer it. And where those contraries of pleasure and payne are confounded together for the tyme. But not so afterward in the worlde to come, where they shall be deuided, with all that properly belongeth vnto them.

And so to remaine a sonder for euer more. And therfore it foloweth not, that they haue lyfe, because they haue the sensibilitee and feelynge of extreme paynes, whiche (as I sayd) belongeth vnto death, and not vnto lyfe.

For how should we trewly iudge lyfe in those, which we know, it were better for them, that they had neuer bene borne: as of one of them in especiall, the Gos∣pell doth say.

Bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille.

That is to say.

It had beene good for that man, if he had not beene borne.

If he had not bene borne, he had had no lyfe. Ther∣fore if he haue life, and had bene better to haue had none, then it must folow, that no lyfe, is better then lyfe, which cannot be.

HERE.

Yes syr in some respecte. For

although lyfe must needes be better then no lyfe in re∣specte of it selfe, and in the order of nature, yet no lyfe is better then lyfe, in respect of him, which hath purcha∣sed such a state, that no good thinge, can do him good. Wherfore because this can not be auoided, but other he hath life, or no life, and clere it is, that he hath not no life, which no life were better for him then lyfe. Ther∣fore if must nedes folowe, that he hath lyfe, although it be worse for him thē no life.

CAT.

Then I perceiue that thou wilt nedes haue lyfe in them, that shall be damned in hell for euer.

HERE.

What els?

CATH.

Therefore sith there is lyfe in heauen, life in earth, and lyfe in hell to, what difference wilt thou put betweene those three lyues?

HERE.

Very great difference. For in heauen, lyfe is indued with onelie pleasure and no payne. In earth, with both pleasure and also payne. And in hell, with onely payne and no pleasure.

CATH.

What lyfe callest thou that whiche is alwaie indued with onely payne and no pleasure?

HERE.

Such as I graunt to be worse to them, then no lyfe at all: but yet it is lyfe for all that.

CATH.

If it be so, how commeth this to passe, that the holie Scripture dooth call it death? ye and geueth it to be vnderstande euerlastynge, whiche is farre worse.

HERE.

I shall tell you therein, as I thynke. because death consisteth in extreme paynes, and paynes be there, extreme and perpetuall, therfore it maie well be called death, specially when it hath in it no commoditee lefte, that apperteyneth vnto lyfe, except it be feelynge.

CATH.

Nay excepte not that. For feelynge is no commoditee but condicionall, that is to

say, if it be of pleasure, wherof they in hell haue none at all.

HERE.

Therfore the lyfe that they haue, maie be called death.

CATH.

Ye but the scripture doth not so call it, because it maie, but because it is so. And ther∣fore how canst thou trewly call them immortall, when they are in a death eternall? they might rather be cal∣led mortall, then immortall. How be it properly none of them both. For mortall is that. whiche shall haue a fynall death. And immortall is that, whiche shall haue none at all, but a perpetuall and a pleasant life. for neuer die, is onely in heuen. And euer die, is only in hel, Wherfore sith euer die, and neuer die, be two direct con∣traries, this woorde immortall can neuer be trewly nor properly sayd of them bothe: for it doth exclude and vt∣terly forbyd the vnderstandyng of all death, which hath in hell, no lesse then a perpetuall continuance for euer.

Therfore sith it maie thus appere, that although those damned bodies shall haue their beyng eternall, and yet are not in deede immortall, because they shall remaine in the second death which is perpetuall, it must nedes folow, that there is no suche impediment as thou dost obiect against the going together of impassibilitee and immortalitee, but that they maie, as they are, and must nedes be, alway inseperable. Wherefore although by this occasion, thou haste caused me somewhat to dygresse from my purpose, yet to returne therevn∣to agayne, I say as I sayde, that as passibilitee and corruptibilitee doth apperteyne and belonge to the state of mortalitee, so doth ther contraries, that is to say, impassibilitee and incorruptibilitee appertayne and belonge to the state of immortalitee. And for

a generall rule, there is nothynge that is or maie be so vnderstande of Christes fleshe, and his bodie nowe im∣mortall, as it is and maie be now of other mennes fleshe and their bodies, or might haue bene of his, when it was mortall.

Cap. 27.

HERE.

And ye say so, we shall haue a goodly conclusion of that, eare we parte. For if there be nothynge to be vnderstande of Christes fleshe and his bodie now beynge immortall, that is or maie be vnderstande of other mennes fleshe and bodies, or might haue bene of his, when it was mortall, then we maie not vnderstande any forme, fygure, or fasshion of his bodie, nor any membres thereof, as handes, feete, eares, eies, mouthe, nose, and suche other, whiche we do well vnderstande and see, that other men haue. Whereof this must needes folow, that other he hath suche a monstrous body, as neuer was sene or harde of, or els no body at all.

CATH.

Thou handlest me now, euen as Frith handleth Saint Austen, and the other holy fathers of the church. And the trewth to say, as al ye do (for the most part) handle vs al in what so euer we say or wryte. For commonly, ye do not only mistake our meaninges, but also peruersly al∣ter, and chainge our saiynges, as thou dost myne here e∣uen now. For did I say, there is nothing that is or maie be vnderstand of christs fleshe & his body now immortal, that is & maie be vnderstand of other mennes fleshe and their bodies, or of his, when it was mortal? what a per∣uersion of a mans tale is this? for my saiynge was none

other, but that there is nothing, that is or may be so vn∣derstande of Christes fleshe and his body now immortal as it is and may be of other mens fleshe and of theyr bo∣dies, or might haue bene of his, when it was mortall. Be these two tales lyke? How be it to Frithe and to thee, it is all one to say, there is nothing to be vnderstande, and to say, there is nothing to be so vnderstand. In deede by this we may vnderstand, of what generation or of what sorte of people ye are. But neuerthelesse, wilte thou vn∣derstande the figure or forme of Christes immortall bo∣dye euen so, as thou doest, or oughtest to do euen now, of mine or thine? when the figure and forme of thine and mine, are corruptible? as they must needes be, whilse al the whole bodie is no lesse then so? Therfore how canst y^t vnderstande a bodie to be immortall, and vnderstande any parte of it corruptible? when the corruption of par∣tes tendeth to the whole. And the corruption of the whole, is death or destruction to any thinge?

HER.

How should I vnderstande it incorruptible, when (as I sayde of immortalite) we haue no experience of any suche in∣corruption?

CATH.

Euen as thou doest vnderstande it immortall, so vnderstand it incorruptible. For as nere to thy vnderstandinge, is the one, as the other, and all one.

HERE.

We haue Saynt Paule for our guyde in the one.

CATH.

So thou hast hym lykewyse in the o∣ther. For the body sayth he.

Is sowed in corruption, and it shall rise in incorruption.* 1.22

That is to say.

It is sowed in the state of corruptibilite, but it shall ryse agayne in the state of incorruptibilite.

Wherefore the figure and forme of Christes immor∣tall

body, may in no wise be so vnderstande, as it is now of our bodies.

HERE.

That I now parceiue must nee∣des be graunted, as touchinge corruptibilite.

CATH.

Ye and as touchinge any thynge els in our bodies, what so euer it be.

HERE.

That were straynge. For we may vnderstande his immortall body to be sensible, that is to say, visible, palpable, and of a certayne stature and quan¦tite as other mens are.

CATH.

Beware what thou doest. For wilt thou vnderstand the sensibilite of his bo∣die, to be subiect to the sensis of men, and to the actions of other naturall thinges, as the sensibilite is of our bo∣dies?

HERE.

How els?

CATH.

What, when so many displeasures chaunceth to men therof, as we may dayly see? doest thou not know, that by our sensibilite we be made subiect to passibilite? for what corporall passion or payne coulde be put vnto vs, by any man, or other body, if we could not be hard, seen, touched, or felt? or what pe∣nal suffering could touche vs, but by our senses of hea∣ring, seyng, or felyng? Therfore by our senses or sensibi¦lite, we come to passibilite & suffring, and by passibilite & suffring we come to death and corruption. There is no man I suppose, that hath the stature and quantite of his body so, but that he wolde, some time, for one cause or other, haue it other more, or lesse, or otherwise then he hath, yf he myght. If not, yet who doeth not know it to be subiect to diuision, which tendeth to corruption, and so to destruction? therfore wilt thou vnderstand the forme, fi∣gure, stature, quātite, senses, & sensibilite of christes body after this sorte, & as thou doest & must needes vnderstād them in, & of other mens bodies? if thou so do, w^tout que∣stion, thine vnderstandinge of it then, is but carnall & af∣ter

the flesh, And not spiritual and after the spirit, & ther∣fore not according to y^e scriptures before alledged. For so thyne vnderstanding walketh not, but w^tin the compasse of sensible experience, whiche can not reache, to the state of immortalite, nor to any thinge nere it. For so long, as thou vnderstandest any poynt in that body so, as y^u doest and must vnderstand it in ours, without faile thou doest not vnderstand it immortall, but as it were mortall stil, although, or what so euer thou doest thinke, or phansy to the contrary. For what is in our bodies, y^t is not subiecte to dissolution, corruption, and mortalite? And what is so contrarie to immortalite as those thinges are? therfore thou shalt neuer trewly vnderstand Christes body to be immortal, so longe as y^u dremist vpon any thing to be in it, as it is naturall. Because it is not in parte, but euen whole supernaturall altogether.

Cap. 28.

HER.

I wene ye wold make vs vnderstand him to haue no body at al.

CA.

why sayst thou so.

HE.

How should I vnderstand him to haue a body, & vnder∣stand not the forme, figure, stature, colour, quantite, and suche other accidentall qualites therof, as I do of other mens bodies?

CA.

Because he hath those thinges now, far otherwise & after an other sorte in hys body, then o∣ther men hath them in theirs.

HER.

How is that?

CAT.

Ye that how, is it, that leadeth you al. But yet so much of that how, as my poore vnderstandinge can reache, and thine can beare, I will tell thee. Other men hath their accidentall qualities, not subiecte to their willes, but to the order of nature. And he hath them, not sub∣iecte to the order of nature, but to hys wyl, whyche

is in a farther liberte, and the fardest that may be.

HERE.

I do not well vnderstande your meanynge therin.

CATH.

That is this. Thou standinge here now presently before me, I do see in thee, all these thyn∣ges that we speake of. That is to say, thy forme, fauour, colour, stature, quantite, and so forth, by reason wherof it is trew, after the common vnderstandinge, that I see thee.

HERE.

I graunt no lesse.

CATH.

Therefore what if thou woldest not, that I shoulde see thee now, be∣ing thus present before me? couldest thou with draw the visible apparence of these thinges from my sight, yf I lust to beholde them in thee?

HERE.

I coulde not do so thoughe I wolde, so longe as I stande before you.

CATH.

Therfore thou hast them not, subiect to thy wil when thou canst not vse them accordinge to thy wyll.

Wherfore by this it appereth playne, that when thou art seen, and parchaunce woldest not be seen, these thinges in thee then are therin but resysters of thy wyll, and not folowers therof. And therefore, god forbyd that we should vnderstande them to be so, and after that sorte, in the blessed bodie of our Sauyour Christe. Wherfore, other he hath them not at all, or els he hath them subiect to his holy will. And parell it were to thinke, that he hath them not at all, because it is so harde to vnderstande, how a very body may haue any beynge without them. And more parill it is to thinke, that he hath them in his body, as we haue them in ours, whiche are tending to corrup∣tion. But no paril at al, to thinke y^t he hath them subiect, and at the becke of his holy wil, to vse or not vse them af∣ter this or that sorte, alway at hys pleasure. That is to say, to show them or not show them, or him self by them,

when, where, and as it shall please hym. For yf it were his glorious pleasure to stande here now betwene vs bothe, thynkest thou that we shoulde see these thinges in hym, as in like case, we shoulde see them in other, and aske them no leaue? or that his very beyng betwene vs, should let thy seyng of me, or my seynge of thee, as an o∣ther mans direct being betwene vs should do, whether we or he wolde or not, except it were his holy pleasure so to do? And therfore, because the altitude of this matter, extendeth so farre beyonde the common reache of our reason, and vnderstandinge, how to auoyde euery how, that hath, is, or may chaunce to be hurled agaynst it, but with other like howes of the same sorte, it pleased hym of his infinit goodnesse, for the coroboration of the verite of our fayth herin, to leue vnto vs, in his holy scripture, some, ye and sufficient examples therof. For how dyd the ponder ofite of his holy boddy behaue it selfe,* 1.23 when he walked vpon the water? did it not there, forsake the common order of nature, and submit it selfe wholy and only to his will? How did the visible forme, of his whole body, (wherein al these thinges were contayned) behaue it self,* 1.24 when the Iewes wolde haue horled stones at him in the temple, if they had not suddenly lost their sight of it? did not also that, euen there then, leaue the order of nature, and folow his only wyll likewyse? mo plates di∣uerse there be, for the purpose, whiche shal not neede to be recited now: Therefore if he had these accidentall qualites of hys body, so obedient vnto his wyll, that he myght as he dyd, vse them at hys pleasure, contra∣rie and agaynst all the rules of nature, (he beinge then, in a mortall state, and they of them selues in a na∣turall

course) how muche more now and euer since are they subiecte to his will, he hauinge his body glorified, and in a state immortall? wherin, they are also chayn∣ged, from what so euer the state of mortalite in them requered. Wherfore, if he hath them (not as we haue of necessite) but as the trewth is, at hys liberte, to vse, or not vse them (as I sayde before) when, where, and how so euer therein hys holy wyll and pleasure is and shalbe, where are all your knappyshe and scorneful ca∣uillations become, that ye, by the natural course of these thynges, make agaynst hys reall and very presence in the holy Sacrament? saying, what? so longe and large a body, with hādes, feete, armes legges, hed, heere, backe and belly, in so litle a roume and space, as the Sacra∣ment is of? and yet more ouer, nother see him nor feele him nother? who wolde beleue thys? In deede none of you, whiche frame your beleuynge, after your sensi∣ble seing and feelynge. But neuerthelesse, what are all these cauillations of yours to the purpose? all these I say, wyth other, of some of you, more shamefully in∣uented, then of vs, conueniently may be recyted? Ther∣fore what if thou thy selfe, haddest the sensible forme of thy bodie, at the liberte of thyne owne wyll, to show or not show it, how, when, and where thou liste? wol∣dest thou not some tyme be so amonge men, that no∣ther by their seynge, nor yet by theyr feelynge, they should beware of thee? And when thou were so a∣monge them after that sorte, wolde it folow that thou were not there, because they coulde not se thee, nor feele thee? Therefore by these your owne obiecti∣ons, it appereth playne, that your cogitations and

vnderstandynges herein, runneth not, but directly and only after the fleshe, and not after the spirite. Ye and that after the fleshly fleshe, without any sparke or re∣specte, of any spirituall fleshe at all. Wherein lieth so muche of the matter, as caused the Holy Apostle to saye.

Althoughe we haue knowne Christ after the flesh,* 1.25 yet we do not so now.

That is to say.

Not now after as it was, when he walked in it here in yerthe accordyng to the course of nature, and so therein suffered at lengthe. But now after the spirite, and as the spirite had obteyned it, when and before he sitting in Emmaus with the two of hys dysciples, showed him selfe vnto them, fyrste in one forme, whereby they knew him not, and immediatly after in an other, wher∣by they knew hym in deede, And yet there vpon so sud∣denlye vanished away from theyr syght, that bothe they and also we, myght and may thereby vnderstande and perceyue, how very subiecte and obedient his sensible forme, was and is, vnto his holy will, to vse, thys way or that way, at hys only pleasure. Therefore it foloweth not, that he is not presently and verely in the holy Sa∣crament, because he suffreth vs not, therein sensibly to se him, nor feele him. But this foloweth well, that be∣cause he suffreth vs not, to haue any suche sensible expe∣rience of him therein, we be so muche the more bounde, therefore to thanke hym, as all the merit and pro∣fit of our faythe commeth to, in that holy mistery. Wherein, amonge all other artycles, faythe is in none (as I thynke) more excellent and necessarie.

Wherefore, thys thou haste nowe harde euen more

then enoughe, to perceyue how farre Frithe was (for all his babling pretence of the contrary) from the very spi∣rituall vnderstandynge of this great mystery. And tho∣row his lacke of that, and of good will together, what blinde and dampnable falshed he fell into, bothe in hys vnderstanding of the Scripture, and also of Saynt Au∣sten likewyse, I thynke I haue declared vnto thee so muche therof, that thou canst not with reason, require a∣nie more, wherby thou mightest any better know what he was, then by thys that I haue showed thee all redy.

Cap. 29.

HERE.

Why say you so? for be you well assured he hath yet one other place of Saint Austen for his purpose, whyche passeth all that we haue spoken of hytherto.

CATH.

I pray thee what is that?

HERE.

In the 23. and the .24. leafe of hys booke, he doeth vpon this sayinge of Christe.

He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, bydeth in me and I in hym.

Alledge Saynt Austen in these wordes.

Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit meum sangui∣nem, in me manet & ego in illo. Hoc est ergo mandu care illam escam & illum bibere potum, in christo ma nere et illum manentem in se habere, ac per hoc, qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus procul dubio non manducat eius carnem nec bibit sā∣guinem, etiamsi tantae rei Sacramentum, ad iuditium sibi manducat & bibit.

That is to say.

He that eateth my fleshe and drynketh my bloud, abideth in me, and I in him. This is therfore the eatinge of that

meate, and drinikng of that blood, to abyde in christe, and to haue him abydynge in vs. And therfore he that abideth not in Christe, and in whom Christe abideth not, without doubt he eateth not his fleshe nor drynketh his blood, al∣though he eate and drinke the sacramente of so great a thynge vnto his damnacion.

And vpon this, Fryth him selfe hath these woordes.

This one place (saith he) is sufficient to proue my purpose though he saide not one woord more. For here he dooth plainely determyne, that he which abideth not in Christe, That is to saie, he that is wicked or vnfaithfull, doth not eate his fleashe nor drynke his blood, although he eate and drynke the sacrament of so great a thynge. And so must it needes folow, that the sacrament is not the very natu∣rall body of Christe, for then the vnfaithfull shoulde eate his fleshe, seynge he eateth the sacrament of his body.

How saie you now?

CATH.

Is this all?

HERE.

No not so, For although this be enough, yet he hath more.

CATH.

Let vs then haue it altoge∣ther.

HERE.

In the same leafe, Fryth goeth farther with these woordes.

This saiyng (saith he) hath sainte Austen in an other place also, where he writeth in this maner.

Qui non in me manet, & in quo nō ego maneo, nō se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meū, aut bibere sanguinem meum. Non ita{que} manent in Christo qui non sunt eius membra. Non sunt autem membra Christi qui se faciunt membra Meretricis.

That is to say.

He that bideth not in me, And in whom I abide not, let him not saie, or thynke, that he eateth my bodye or drin∣keth my blood. They abide not in Christe, which are not his membres. And they are not his membres, which make them selues the membres of an harlot.

And these (saith Frith) are also the very words of Bede.

Wherunto he addeth of his owne woordes these.

Here is it plaine (saith he) proued againe by the auctorite of S. Aust. and Bede, that the wicked and vnfaithfull (which are not the membres of Christe) do not eate his bodie nor drynke his blood. And yet they do eate the sacrament as well as the other. Wherefore you must needes graunte (saith he) that the sacrament is not the naturall bodie of Christe, but a fygure, token, or memoriall thereof.

Now sir, do you marke well these places of S. Austen, and what Frith doth here gather of them?

CATH.

Ye, very well.

HERE.

Then I pray you say now euen as you thinke: do they not euen cleane ouerthrow, the prin∣cipall purpose of what so euer ye haue said before?

CA.

In dede I wold graunt no lesse, if they had in them, none other meaning, but this that frith picketh out of his own heretical dreaming.

HER.

His hereticall dreaming? What meane you by that?

CATH.

I will tell the so thou wilt first consider his old foolishe accustomed con∣clusion, which he doth here inferre and renew againe, and that in both these places.

HERE.

What conclusion is that?

CATH.

Be not these his woordes?

It must needes folow, and ye must needes graunt, that the sacrament is not the naturall body of christe.

What is this to his purpose, of the not beyng of Christes very body in the sacrament? to be, and to be in, is all one with him. Whereof I haue tolde the enough before. And therefore, what fyndest thou els in anie of these two places of Saint Austen, that can make any thynge for his purpose?

HERE.

I wonder that ye wyll aske me that question, sith they make so muche and so cleere∣ly for him as they do. For whether you take the sa∣crament it selfe, to be the very body of Christ, of Chri∣stes

very body to be verely in it, these places maketh directly against you in them both.

CATH.

How so?

HERE.

Doth not the first place say (as Frith hath de∣clared) that, to eate Christes fleshe, and drynke his blood, is to abide in him, and he in vs? and by that, he that a∣bydeth not in Christe, nor Christe in him, eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his blood, although he eate and drinke the sacrament thereof. Now this beinge plaine enough, yet to confirme the same, doth not the seconde place say also, let not him say or thynke, that he eateth my body or drynke my blood, which abideth not in me, and in whom I abyde not? Therfore they abyde not in Christe, which are none of his membres. And they are none of his membres, which maketh them selues the membres of an harlot. And yet cleere it is, that such wicked persons, doth often times eate and drynke the sacrament. Wherfore, if other the sacrament it selfe, were Chrystes verie body and blood, or his very body and blood were verely in it, it shulde and wolde nedes folow, that suche wicked lyuers and vnfaythfull persons, as neuer abyde in Christe, nor he in them, whiche dooe daiely eate the sacrament, shoulde therin eate his very bodye, and drynke his blood. And that doth Saint Austen in bothe places vtterly deny.

Cap. 30.

CATH.

What doth he deny?

HERE.

Marry that such wicked persons do eate the very body of Christ, when they eate the sacrament.

CAT.

And therof wilt thou infer, that the very body of christ is not in the sacrament?

HE.

What els? for that muste needes

folow.

CATH.

Saint Austen saith not so.

HER.

No, not in those woordes, but yet he saith as much as that commeth to. For if the very body of Christe were verely in the sacrament, then should those wicked per∣sons, that abydeth not in Christe, nor Christe in them, eate his very body, when they eate the sacrament.

CATH.

And euen so they do in deede.

HERE.

Will you say so, when Saint Austen saith plainly nay?

CATH.

And so say I to.

HERE.

What ye and nay? eate and not eate one thynge both at once?

CAT.

Ye why not?

HERE.

Nay, then it is tyme, to make an ende, and euen to byd you farwell, if ye talke after that sorte.

CATH.

If thou so do, thou doest therein but as it is common with suche as thou art. For ye will be sure to shake of a matter (if ye maie) when ye haue most nede to herken well to it.

HERE.

Who woulde not shake of suche a talke as ye make? for how can the eatynge and not eatynge of one thynge, both at once, stande together?

CATH.

Although I haue tolde the before, yet once againe I will tell the how, if Fryth (or thou for him) will tell me one thynge that I will aske the.

HERE.

What is that?

CATH.

I would know what maner of eatynge this is, that Saint Austen doth meane, and here speake of?

HER.

Tushe sir, I praie you go not about the bushe with any such questi∣ons, but go directly to the matter, and there an ende.

CATH.

Callest thou that a goyng about the bushe, to trie certeinly what a man dooth meane, by that he saith?

HERE.

Ye sir when the woordes be so plaine as nedeth it not. For Saint Austen saith, that those per∣sons doth not eate the body nor fleshe of Christe, when

they eate the sacrament. And what wolde ye haue more plainly spoken then that is?

CATH.

I graunt it to be both plainely spoken, and also trewly. But yet no∣ther plainely nor trewly nother, as Frith doth take it.

For he taketh it not to be spoken, but of the very reall eatynge of it, whiche in deede is vtterly false, and di∣rectly against that, whiche I tolde the, of Saint Austens own saiynge before. where he saith,

Christe for our health, hath geuen vs the same fleshe to eate, wherin he walked here in earth, and the same fleshe, that he tooke of the virgin Mary.

And where did he (as I said before) geue vs that fleshe to eate, but in the holy sacrament? And therefore who so euer dooth eate the sacrament, must nedes also ther∣in, eate that fleshe, or els that saiynge of Saint Austen can not be trew. Wherefore this is directlye againste Frithes vnderstandyng of these two later places: which thou haste recited. Whereby we maie well perceiue, that Saint Austen ment not in them, as Frith doth take him. For if he did, he shoulde be in this one place, direct∣ly agaynst him selfe in the other two places. Whiche in so weighty a matter, god forbyd to be thought of S. Austen: whose moste excellent witte, learning and holy∣nesse, hath reigned and florished so longe in suche an ho∣norable estimacion, as it hath most worthely done. For herein, if he had so ment as Frith doth take him, then in him there should haue bene verified this notable sai∣ynge of the Apostle.

Modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit.

That is to say.

A little leauen corrupteth the hole lumpe of dow.

Therefore, Saint Austen was to wise, to well lerned, and to happie, to ouer shoote him selfe in this great mat∣ter, with any crum of the leuen of this contradicion.

Which were enough to deface all his doyng herein, and him selfe to. Wherfore it can not be auoyded, but this is enough, whereby thou maiest be sure, that frith dooth falsely vnderstande these two places of Saint Austens, as he doth all the rest before.

HERE.

I wyll here more eare I graunt so much. For how so euer ye auoyde this contradiction in Saint Austen yet I am sure ye can not auoyde the contradiction that is herein betweene hym and you. For here he saith plainely that the wicked, whiche abyde not in Christe, nor Christe in them, doth not eate Christes body nor his fleshe, although they eate the sacrament therof. And you say here as plainely, that they do eate it. And what is this but eatyng and not eatynge one thynge both at once. And what is that, but plaine contradiction, which in no wise can stande together?

CAT.

Why so?

HER.

Who knoweth not why?

CATHO.

That is euen I. For doost not thou know, that in dayly common meates, eating is ordeined onely, to mans commoditee and profite, And not to his hurt or hinderance, although they be daiely, very muche abused?

HERE.

All that I graunt to be trew.

CAT.

And doth it not sometyme chaunce, that the hole man and the sicke man, eating of one meate, the one eateth it to his profyte, and the other to his hurt?

HERE.

What of that?

CAT.

If the sicke mans eatyng, who taketh nothinge but hurt and hinderaunce therof, should come in question, or be asked whether he doth eate any thing

or not, will it not, nor maie it not, be rightlie answered and sayde, that he eateth nothynge? When he ta∣keth not that therein, whiche eatynge is chieflie or onely ordeyned for? In so muche that if one will saye, he dooth eate, wyll not an other say, what eatynge call ye that, whiche dooth more hurte then good? ye rather no good at all, but muche hurt, when the eater is neuer the better for it, but the worse: For is that eatynge worthy, or meete to be called eatynge, which is not onely without all the commoditee and profite of eating, but also doth purchase far more hurte and hinderaunce, then not eatynge. Therefore althoughe in respecte of the thynge eaten the sycke man dooth eate the verie same meate, whiche the hole manne dooth eate, yet because he dooth not eate it, with that inwarde effecte and pro∣fyte of it, that the hole man dooth eate it with all, it maie well be sayde and stande with reason, that he eateth not, because that whiche he dooth, is but in vayne. For althoughe eatynge bee commonly ta∣ken and vnderstande of the meate and outwarde maner of receyuynge thereof, yet it maie as well and better be vnderstande of the verie inwarde com∣modytee and profyte thereof, for whiche profyte on∣ly, the outwarde eatynge is prepared and ordeyned, as it is plaine, when without, y^t the other doth nothing (as I sayd) but greatly hurt and hinder, although the faute and cause therof, be not in the meat taken, but onely in the state of the taker. Wherfore, if a man wolde saie, (as ryght well he might) that the sicke man eateth

not, meaninge in respect of the commoditee and profite, that eatynge is ordeyned for, yet of that faiynge it fo∣loweth not, but that he dooth eate of the verie same meate, that the hole man dooth eate, for all that.

For the name of eatynge dooth include the vnderstan∣dyng, not only of the outwarde maner of eatynge, but also and most cheefly, of the inward cōmoditee and fruict¦full profite therof, which is the very dew ende, wherunto the other is not ordeined but only to serue. And therfore of eating, that same dew ende, doth most worthely beare the name, as it doth somtime, and euen specially now in this case, where it is, of no more mente, but euen of that alone. So that betwene these two respectes, that is to saie, of the outwarde eatynge, without profite, and of the inwarde eating, wherin consisteth all the profite therof, there is both eating and not eating of one thing, and that both at once. The one by it selfe alone, euyll and hurtfull: and the other, good and effectuall. Ther∣fore likewise in our case, of this effectuall eatynge it is, that Saint Austen dooth here speake of. For doth he not in these two foresayde places, speake onely of these eaters. which abyde not in Christe, nor Christe in them?

HERE.

That I graunt.

CATH.

And may we not thinke, that Christe is our helth?

HERE.

May we not? Nay what ought we more, to thinke and say, then that?

CATH.

Therfore if Christe be our helth, those that abide not in him, abide not in helth.

HERE.

That is trew.

CATH.

And those that abyde not in helth, who can say but they be sicke?

HERE.

It foloweth plaine.

CA.

And those that are sicke, although they eate the same meate, that other doth, euen really,

yet for all that, they eate not the same meate that other doeth, effectually and profitably. And that eatynge only it is, whiche Saint Austen doeth here denie, and none other. and yet not with standing, that he denieth not here but only that eatinge of Christes very body, whiche fay∣leth not in deede, but only in those, that abyde not in Christe, nor Christe in them, because they abuse them selues so wickedly, Frith wolde needes for all that, vn∣derstande hym, as thoughe he had denied that eatinge therof, whiche houldeth and is in all of lawfull age, bothe good and bad euen generally. And therfore herein, how false his vnderstanding is, it may well appere by thys that Saint Austen maketh here no mention of the whole multitude of eaters therof in generall, but onlye of one parte of them, whiche are but a certayne sorte in spe∣ciall.

Cap. 31.

HERE.

Nay then it is tyme to geue ouer, yf ye make so many eatinges of Christes body.

CATH

Why how many?

HERE.

Mary syr ye make twayne.

CATH.

I make none, but yet because thou speakest of twayne, in deede there be three.

HER.

Three? whiche three be they?

CATH.

One is only, spi∣rituall. An other is only reall. And the thirde is, bothe reall and spirituall together.

HERE.

How so?

CATH

The only spirituall eatinge, is in them, that hauynge a well purged conscience with a penitente harte and a perfit faythe, wolde fayne receyue the holy Sacrament and can not. But letted, as perchaunce in sickenes, with the lacke of time, or with the feble weakenes of stomake,

whiche some time is not able to keepe that it taketh, or letted wyth anie other impediment, whereby they can not, or conueniently may not haue it. And the only reall eatinge, is in those, that receueth the holy Sacramente not abiding in Christ, nor christ in them, because of their paruerse behauour and wicked state. Of whome onlye (as I sayd) and of their not eating, Saynt Austen doeth here speake, and of none other. Thirdly, the eating both reall and spirituall together, is in them that doeth re∣ceyue the holy Sacrament, not only actually, and there∣fore therin the body of christ really, as the naughty sorte doeth, but also in a right fayth, with a pure conscience, & a contrite harte, spiritually, as the other for lacke therof doth not. Wherefore, of Christes blessed body, this many maner of eatinges there be.

HERE.

Then I perceyue, that ye take, to be at the least, one eatinge of it spiritual and an other corporall, some time a sonder, & sometime bothe together.

CATH.

That worde corporall, to be put there, not borowed, but euen properly spoken and vnder¦stand as it is cōmonly taken in euery condition, I dare not graunt.

HER.

Why so?

CAT.

Although it be harde to tell the why, for thynsuffitiēcie of our englishe tongue yet for the best declaration therof, that I can make, thou shalt vnderstande, that for this latyn worde Corpus, we haue this englyshe worde, bodye. And for this latyn worde Corporale (which commeth of Corpus) because we haue no proper Englishe worde for that, we borrow therof this worde corporall, whiche geueth any thynge to be vnderstande, partayninge to a body, according to the order of nature, as accidentall qualites doeth. And far∣ther more lykewyse, for this latyn worde Caro, we

haue thys Englishe worde, flesh. But for this latin worde carnale (whiche commeth of caro) because we haue no Englishe worde for that nother, so proper as is able e∣uen aptly and fully to counteruayle the signification therof, we therfore borrow of it, this worde carnall, as we do of corporale, corporall. Which wordes, both cor∣porall and carnall, althoughe they be no Englishe wor∣des properlie, yet by vse, they are growne into suche ac∣quayntaunce wyth many, (although not learned in the latin tongue) that they know, or haue a great gesse, what they meane and signifie. And that in thys case, is what so euer (as I sayd) partayneth to a body or fleshe naturally. Whiche some doeth Englishe wyth these wordes, bodylie and fleshlie, althoughe those be the pro∣per Englishe wordes, not of corporale and carnale, but of corporaliter and carnaliter. whyche doeth some what differ from corporale and carnale. Therefore when we eate the blessed body of christ in the holy sacra¦ment, we may no more say, that we eate it corporally or bodyly (and yet eate it verily). Then, when we eate therein (as we do in deede) hys verie fleshe, we maye say therof, that we eate it carnallie or fleshly. For so we eate it, as we ought to vnderstand it. And we ought not to vnderstād it carnally, nor fleshly. For if we do, then we vnderstand it after the flesh, which the doctrine of the ho¦lie apostle dothe vtterly forbid, as I haue declared vnto thee al redy. And therefore as the fleshe, and after the fleshe, is two thinges. So the body, and after the bodie is to thinges likewise. And as the vnderstandinge of the fleshe after the fleshe, is none other but to vnderstande it carnallye or fleshelie, So the vnderstanding of the

body after the body, is none other, but to vnderstande it corporally or bodyly. Wherfore, as it is proued bothe by Saynt Austen and also by Saynt Paule before, that we may not vnderstande Christes holy fleshe after the flesh, that is to say, not carnally nor fleshly, so we may not vn∣derstande his blessed body, after the body nother, that is to say, not corporally nor bodyly. For after one rule, they must be vnderstande bothe of them, whiche rule the ho∣lie apostle doeth geue vs, where he saythe (as before is alledged.)

* 1.26

Although we haue knowne chryste after the fleshe, yet we do not so now.

Therfore if we may not know Christe now, after the fleshe, we may not now, vnderstand him after the flesh. For we can not knowe him one way, and vnderstande him an other way. Therefore if we may not vnderstand him after the fleshe, then we may not vnderstande hym after the body. For that is fleshe. Wherfore as it is none other to vnderstande him after the fleshe, but to vnder∣stande him carnally or fleshly, so it is none other (as I sayde before) to vnderstande him after the body, but to vnderstand him corporally or bodely. And for that cause, as we are by the apostle, forbyd the vnderstandinge of him after the one, so we are likewise in the same, forbyd the vnderstanding of him after the other. And therefore, how woldest thou haue me graunte a corporall eatinge of Christes body, or to be eaten corporally, whē we may not vnderstande it corporally? for we may not eate it af∣ter one sorte, and vnderstande it after an other, least we make a discrepance or a variete in the thinge, whiche in the verite of it selfe, is none other in our eatinge, then

in our vnderstandinge, nor in our vnderstandinge, then in our eatinge of it, but all one. For although a body can not be by nature corporally or bodyly, except it be very∣lie, yet, by possibilite, it may be verely, althoughe it be not corporally or bodely, but as Christes body in the Sa¦crament is. For verely, riseth of the substaunce. And corporally or bodely riseth of the naturall qualites ther∣vnto annexed. Whiche in hys blessed body are super∣naturally chaynged. And therefore it is sufficient for vs to beleue, that (as the trewth is) we eate his body in the Sacrament verely, althoughe we eate it not corporally or bodylie. That is to say, not after a corporall or a bodylie maner, because to be eaten of vs, it nether doeth nor yet needeth, to behaue it selfe after that sorte.

Cap. 32.

HERE.

Why syr, how is it possible to be trew, but that, when it is eaten verely, it must needes be eaten corporally and bodylie? for a very body, must be very bodylie eaten, or els it can not be eaten in deede.

CATH.

That I graunte, when it is eaten after the common course of naturall eating, but els not.

HERE.

If it be verely eaten in deede, it can none otherwyse be eaten but euen so?

CATH.

That is not trew.

HERE.

Why, what call you, eaten after the common course of naturall eatinge?

CATH.

When that whiche is eaten, is or may be seen, felt, tasted, and eaten sensi∣bly, for then therin, the order of nature hath his course, and bareth rule.

HERE.

And do not I see feele and taste what I eate, when I eate the Sacramente?

CATH.

That is an other matter, for I speake not this that I say now, of the Sacrament, but of a very body.

HERE.

why is not the Sacrament a very body?

CATH.

No trewly.

HERE.

That herde I neuer before.

CATH.

I wolde thou hadest had no neede to here it now.

HERE.

What neede so euer I haue had, I haue alwaye taken the Sacrament to be a very corporall thynge.

CATH.

And euen so it is.

HERE.

Why, ye say it is not a body.

CATH.

So I say stil.

HERE.

How can a thinge be cor∣porall and be not a bodie? for a body can not be but cor∣porall, nother anie thing be corporall, but a body.

CAT.

Thy dreame runneth not, but alway vpon the common course of nature. And yet euen therin thou art deceyued to: for quantite is a corporall thinge, but yet not corpus that is to say, not a bodie for all that, but in, or of a body as a certayne thinge appertayning vnto it. Also colour is a corporall thinge to, but yet not corpus, or a body no∣ther. And so likewise of forme, figure, and all other sensi∣ble obiectes and qualites what so euer they be. for euery one of them is corporall, and yet none of them corpus or a bodie, but only pertayning or naturally belonginge to a body. And therefore they are called corporall qualites.

HERE.

Then belike, ye cal that corpus or a body, wher in all those thinges be.

CATH.

No not so nother. For we cal that, substance, and not a body.

HER.

Then what call you a body?

CATH.

Not substance by it selfe, nor those accidentall quantites and qualites by them selues nother, but substance and they ioyned naturally toge∣ther. For then it is corpus, that is to say, a body, or els in the order of nature, no very body indede. And therfore this worde corporall, serueth so indifferently to them

that it may be sayd some tyme of the one, and some time of the other. That is to say, some tyme of the substance, and some time of thaccidentall quantite and qualites.

HERE.

And why not of them bothe or all together?

CATH.

Because it is then, corpus, or a body, whych worde commonly, in the course of nature, extendeth in sygnification properly, to no lesse then all the whole together, and not to any of the partes particulerly by them selues.

HERE.

Yet then I may say, that the Sacrament it selfe is at the least a corporall sub∣stance, althoughe it be (as you say) not a body.

CATH.

How canst thou say so, when it lacketh nothinge els of a bodye but onlie that? For there is none other cause why, that it is not a bodie, but because it hath not a proper substance, as other quantites and qua∣lites hath, wherein they be.

HERE.

If it be not a corpo∣rall substance, how coulde I see and feele it as I do?

CA.

As thou seest and feelest all other corporal thinges. Wherof, any corporal substance, thou neuer sawest in al thy life. For it is but only the quantites & qualites that thou or any man els, doeth or can se of any thinge, & not the substance it selfe, which is alway of it selfe and by it self insensible.

HERE.

Yet by those quantites and qua∣lites, I do suerly know, that there is a substance, wherin they be, when I see them.

Cap. 33.

CATH.

In that thou must except the holy Sacra∣ment. Which is alone, and without the like, among all sensible thinges that are in our knowledge: Of the whiche Sacrament, what if I wolde say this, that the same whiche we see, is a corporall thynge, and

not a body. And yet hath in it a body, that is not corpo∣rall?

HERE.

If ye wolde so say, it were strayngely spo∣ken. How be it, if you wolde so say in deede, your mea∣ning therof, I wolde take to be this. That there, is cor∣poralite without a body. And a body without corporalite.

CATH.

Take it euen so?

HERE.

Then ye meane the corporallite without a body, to be of the Sacrament in the only respecte of it selfe. And the body without cor∣poralite, to be the thynge of the Sacrament, whiche you say, is the very body of Christe really and presently con∣teyned therin. Is it not this that ye meane?

CATH.

Forth with thy purpose, and then I will tel thee more.

HER.

My purpose is this. If Christes very body in the Sacrament, be without corporalite, beinge the same bo∣die (as you say it is) whiche is in heauen, it must needes folow that Christes bodie in heauen, is of no corporall substance. For without corporalite, there can be no sub∣stance corporall. And therefore consequently, yf it be of no corporall substance, then it is no body at all. For with out, a corporall substance, no bodie can be.

CATH.

First whether thou put the case of his blessed body, in heauen, or els in the holy Sacrament, all that is one to me. For I put no difference betwene them in the verite thereof, but that it is the very same in the one place, that it is in the other. And therfore if thou put thys worde corporall to that substance, for to show a distinction or a difference betwene the substance thereof, and the incorporall sub¦stance of an Angell or a spirite, I holde well wyth all.

HERE.

And wyth no cause els but only that?

CATH.

Yes trewly, and that is thys. If thou put it also to that substance, and call it corporall, meanynge it to be

corporall, by reason of a supernartual connection of that substance, and suche supernaturall quantitee and qua∣litees together, as are beyonde al therperience and reche of any mortall mans wit, reason, or vnderstandyng, I holde so well with that to, that I will here none of you all, what so euer ye wolde feyne or say to the contrarie. But if thou meane it corporall, by reason of any suche mortall, and corruptible quantitee and qualitee, as there is none other in thy body and myne, or in any o∣ther mortall creature liuynge, I deny it vtterly to be corporall so, or to haue so muche as any beynge, other in the sacrament or in heauen other, after that sorte. For your dreamyng of suche maner of corporalitee in him, is also an other cause why, then I tolde the of before, that these madde, and hereticall phansies hath rysen among you, saiyng and askyng, what, Christes very body pre∣sently in the sacrament? what, so great a quantitee in so little a space? what, before my face and see it not? what, haue it in my handes and fele it not? what, re∣ceiue it, eate it, and taste it not? what, here and there one body in so many places at once? who wolde beleue this? And so ye conclude with your capteyne Fryth, where he saith in the .76. leafe of his booke,

It is no article of our crede (saith he) and therfore let them7 beleue it that will.

A goodly conclusion and euen lyke not onely him selfe, but also all the rest of his folowers. How be it, by this it maie well appere, what maner of fruictes they bee, whiche ye haue gathered out of suche corporalitee in Christe, as ye dreame alway vpon in your selues.

And no meruaile why, when ye will nedes make your deceiua∣ble

senses (whiche beguildeth you dayly) to be the iud∣ges and guydes of your faith, in suche diuine misteries.

Cap. 34.

HERE.

Why sir, be there not of your sorte, and euen in the same beleue that you be of, that doth both say and wryt, that Christe hath euen now, a naturall body, and that it is of a corporall substaunce?

CATH.

I graunt no lesse. But what of that? thin∣kest thou therfore, that when they cal his body a natural body, they meane it suche a naturall body as ours are, within the compasse and common order of nature? or when they call it a corporall substance, that they meane it corporal, by reason of any such corporall quantitees & qualites as our bodies hath, which bodies are yet, by thē & with them, subiect vnto death and corruption?

HER.

If they do not so mean, why do they put those wordes naturall and corporall to it, whiche dooth none other∣wise sygnifie: and not rather forbyd them to be v∣sed, when the significaciō of them, is to their meaning so contrary?

CATH.

I shall tell the why. Fyrste, because there be no proper woordes for the thinges that they meane by them, except they should call naturall superna∣tural, and corporall supercorporall. Wherof allthough supernaturall, hath some vse monge them that be lear∣ned, yet is it farre, both from the vse and also the vnder∣standynge of them, that be vnlearned. But as for this woorde supercorporall, playne it is, that that was neuer in vse among the vnlearned, nor yet among the learned nother, because there is not founde any suche

woord of that composicion.

HERE.

Then were they best, to bringe both those woordes into an vse, whereby they might expresse directly what they meane, and not there, to vse those other woordes, whiche dooth signify the contrary or insufficientlie.

CATH.

No not so. for where they put this woord naturall, if they shoulde put supernaturall, and where they put corporall, if they shoulde put supercorporall, althoughe moste of such as be learned, coulde well awaie with all, yet the greate multitude of the vnlearned, should by that, be rather prouoked to the mistrust and doubt of the verytee of the thynge, then to the fyrme credence and fast beleefe therof, if suche straynge woordes, were ioyned vnto it, as they for lacke of knowledge were not able to vnderstande, nor coulde awaie with∣all. For those words supernaturall and supercorporall, coulde not be brought amonge them into such a familiar vse, as might leade them any nere the vnderstandynge or beleeuynge of the veritee of the thyng, then the other words doth, nor so nere nother, they beyng vnlearned as they are. Wherfore it were without wisdome, all reason, and discreacion, to ioygne suche woordes vnto that (whiche of necessitee they ought to beleue) as might rather brynge them in dout, and the thynge out of credence, then to confyrme them in their faith as the trewth thereof doth require. And therfore these woordes naturall and corporall, doth much better serue the purpose in that respect, then the other could dooe a∣monge them, if they be well vnderstande, and trewly considered, wherfore learned men doth put them there.

HERE.

Why, wherfore is that?

CAT.

Not to show or

signifie the state or maner of the thinge, but most cer∣teinly to confirme and ratifie the veritee therof. For the verytee of Christes blessed body in the holie sacrament is the thynge, that we are bounde to beleue, And not after what maner or sorte it is there, whiche passeth the reache of all mens wittes, but not of his power, whiche firste said the woorde, and tolde vs so muche of the mat∣ter, as is cleane out of doubte, except it be with them whiche doth therein mistrust, and not beleue him.

Wherefore beside all this, if these woordes naturall and corporall, were in this case put cleane away, and not vsed of good and catholyke men, to be ioyned vnto it, as they are are, how lyke is it, that some of you, wolde sone reyse vp againe, this olde very pestilent heresye of the Manicheis, whiche said that Christe had but a phan∣tasticall bodie, and no very body in deede. For that most wicked errour, is not conuinced and put away, by any wordes, more clerely then by the words natural and corporal. For when by them, the body is called a natural body, & of a corporal substance, that doth declare it plain∣ly, not to be phantastical, but euen very essencial. And therfore one of the chiefe causes why catholike mē do vse to put those words vnto it, is to preuent, & suppresse that cursed heresie, from risynge any more agayne. And an other cause is (as I saide before) to confyrme and sta∣blishe the faith of the multitude, in the veritee of the thinge, And not to declare therby the maner of beynge and qualitees therof (whiche farre passeth our know∣ledge) nor to show any suche naturalitee or corporalite, to be in it, as we haue in our bodies, subiect to the order and course of nature, by reason wherof, we are now

and then, compelled euen to sustayne, diuers displea∣sures.

Cap. 35.

HERE.

Yet syr, how so euer other qualitees be∣haueth them selues in christes body, we must ne∣des thinke, that he hath in it, the very same proper quantitee therof, which he had when he walked here in earth.

CA.

what euen so, as we haue ours, or he had his then?

HE.

Ye how els?

CAT.

Then tell me this. hast thou not hard of some honest man, that without iust cause hath ben put in the stockes, yrons, or in close prisō, when he wolde haue bene away, if he might?

HER.

Yes that I haue.

CAT.

And what helde him there then againste his will?

HE.

Marry the stockes, yrons, or the pryson, wherin he was.

CAT.

It semeth so. But yet if thou consider it well, thou shalt finde it his quantitee, and no∣thing els. For if his quantitee had bene so subiect to his power, as his power was to his quantite, he might haue vsed his quantitee then, according to his will. For any man may vse what so euer is in his power, as he will & list him selfe. And therfore if he might haue vsed his quā∣titee according to his will, it was not the stockes, yrons, nor the pryson nother, that could haue holden him ther∣in, when he wolde haue bene away. wherfore it was his quantitee (not being subiect to his power) that kept him there against his will. And therfore wilt thou thinke that christ hath the quantite of his holy body after that sorte?

HER.

Why syr, this must needes be trew, that of the length, bredth, and depth of it, an ynch can be none other, no more, nor lesse, then an ynche. And a foote, none other

no more nor lesse, then a foote. And the hole, none o∣ther, no more, nor lesse then the hole. Nor the least part of it, none other no lesse nor no more then the least part. And this order of quantitee holdeth (as it must nedes do) in euery mans body likewyse.

CATH.

Thou doest yet dreame still (I perceiue) vpon the common order of nature, and nothing els. Accordyng to the which, quan∣titee hath also this propertee, that alway the more, must needes conteyne the lesse. And the hole all the partes thereof. But what if the quantitee of Christes bles∣sed body be now of this sorte, that the lesse maie con∣teine the more. And euery part the hole?

HER.

That is impossible.

CATH.

Not so impossible, as it is for the to beleue it, so longe as thou dost thinke it impossible.

But neuerthelesse, thou and I maie chaunce, although not now, yet hereafter, to assaie what maie be sayde to the possibilitee thereof. Where as for this tyme, this may be sufficient, that Christes blessed body is now without doubt supernaturall. And therfore other it is all hole su∣pernatural, or els but in parte. If it be supernatural but in parte, then is the rest of it, vnder the yeoke and bon∣dage of nature still, which (I suppose) were wickednes to thinke. Wherfore of the other syde, if it be all hole su∣pernaturall, as it is in deed, then there is no part of it, but must nedes be supernaturall likewyse. And there∣fore if there be no part of it, but supernatural, then must the quantitee thereof nedes be supernatural to. for that is a certaine parte of it, except thou wilt say (as I thinke thou wilt not) that it is without any quantitee at all.

Wherfore if the quantitee therof be supernaturall, as it must nedes be, this maie well folow, that as the bon∣dage

of naturalitee in naturall bodies, compelleth the more quantitee, to conteine the lesse, and the hole, all the partes, so the liberte of supernaturalite in Christes su∣pernaturall body, doth permit and able the lesse quanti∣tee, to conteyne the more, and euery parte the hole. For a dyfference to be betwene quantitee, naturall, and su∣pernaturall, thou must nedes graunt. And as for anie other difference betweene them then this, I suppose thou shalt not be able to fynde anye.

HERE.

Yes syr that I can. for quantitee naturall, is of necessitee vysyble, and so is not quantitee supernaturall.

CATH.

Although it were euen so as thou saiest, yet that coulde make no proper difference betwene them.

For althoughe some quantitee naturall, be of necessi∣tee vysyble, yet all is not so. For the naturall quantitee of the ayer, nother is nor can be visible, when the hole body of the ayer it selfe, is inuisible. And therefore how should visibilitee, and inuisibilitee make a difference betwene quantitee naturall and quantitee supernaturall, when bothe maie be founde in one of them? That is to say, in quantitee naturall.

HER.

Then this maie be the dyfference betweene them. That quantitee supernaturall is perpetuall, and hath a beynge for euer. But so hath not quantytee na∣turall.

CATHOLICVS.

Why saiest thou so? For as the earth is perpetuall and shall haue a be∣ynge for euer, so the naturall quantitee thereof must nedes haue and be lykewyse. Wherefore perpetuitee can bee no proper difference betweene them nother, when it is and maie be founde in eache of them, And therefore seeke as longe as thow wylt, harde

it shalbe for the (as I sayd) to fynde any other dyffe∣rence betwene them, then I haue showed the. Or if there be any other, yet they let not, but this maie be one for all that. Wherfore if this be one, that the lesse quantitee maie conteyne the more, and euery parte, the hole, where is your hereticall obiection become, that ye saie so great a quantitee as Christes bodie is of, can not be in so little a space, as the sacrament dooth occu∣pie? as who say, he can therin none otherwyse be, or do, then ye can vnderstand.

Cap. 36.

HERE.

Syr, how so euer he can be or do, or we can vnderstande, well I wot, that so great a quan∣titee to be in so little space, is far against reason.

CATH.

Then if thou wilt not be satisfied, with that I haue saide alredy, tel me this. how are all thinges new in him, if his quantitee be olde, that is to say, of the olde sorte, as it was before his resurrection? For dooth not the holy apostle, after he had sayd,

* 1.27

Although we haue knowne Christe after the fleshe, yet we do not so now.

Adde vnto it and say this.

If there be any new creature in Christe, the olde thinges are past and gone.

And that he confirmeth with these woordes.

Beholde (he saith) all are made new.

HERE.

Ye syr, all that he speaketh, for as muche as perteyneth to the spirite of them, that trewly folo∣weth Christe. But not for any thynge that pertey∣neth to the fleshe.

CATHOLI.

Wilt thou saie so,

when he doeth euen there make mencion of Christes fleshe? wherefore therin, thou sayest not well, For he speaketh it bothe of Christe, for so muche as partayneth to the newnes of him in fleshe, and also of them, that trewlie folow him, for so muche as pertayneth to the newnesse of them in spirit. That is to say, in spirite now, and in fleshe then, when they shal rise agayne and be made all new, not only in spirit, but also in fleshe, Where as now they are all new, not in fleshe but onelie in spirit. And therfore the minde of the apostle is there, to declare, that as Christe is now all new in fleshe, for so muche as partaineth to the mortal and corruptible state of the quantite and qualites thereof, so must those that trewly folow him, be now all new in spirite, that they might here after at the latter day, be likewise all new in fleshe, as he is now.

Who shall then as the apostle sayeth,* 1.28 transforme the low state of theyr bodies into the likenesse of the glorious state of his bodye, accordinge to the operation of his power, wherby he is able to make all thynges obedient vnto hys will, as it appereth to the Philippians. Cap. 3.

Wherfore if thou say that Christes holy flesh, hath in it now, suche quantite, as it had before his resurrectiō, Thou sayest none other therin, but that it is olde. And therefore if thou say that it is olde, then thou deniest it playne to be new. And if thou denie it to be new, then thou arte therin directly agaynst the holy Apostle, whiche doeth partelie therof say, as before is alledged.

The olde thinges are gone and past, beholde all are made new.

Therefore what thinges are made new in Christes fleshe, but the corruptible quantite and qualites therof?

for when he sayeth.

Althoughe we haue knowne christ after the fleshe, yet we do not so now.

He doeth not therein denie him to haue fleshe, but to be knowen after the fleshe. Therefore what other thinge is it, not to know him after the fleshe, but not to knowe him after the former course and olde state of the fleshe, as it was before his resurrection, whyche is now alte∣red, chaynged, and made new, farre after an other sorte. And therefore when the quantite and qualites of hys blessed fleshe, in the time of the passibilite, and morta∣lite thereof, were for all that, euen then obedient and subiecte vnto hys holy will, farre beyonde and contrarie to the common course of nature, as I de∣clared vnto thee before, And when they are (farther∣more) euen now in the tyme of hys glorification, made new, and chaynged so farre into suche an other state, as passeth the vnderstandinge of any mortall mannes witte, why dremyst thou (not wythstandynge all thys) vpon anie suche naturalite and corporalite to be in it, as is in ours, or was in hys, before his resurrection, when (the verye trewth to say) that same naturalite, is now turned into superna∣turalite, and that corporalite, into supercorpora∣lite, yf I might so call it? Leaue therefore thy mu∣singe and beholdinge of any course of nature in thys case, whiche course of nature hath herein nothing to do. For so longe as thou doest wey the matter after that and seekest none other rule to folow then so, it is not possible for thee to come by the trewth and to beleue therin, as thou oughtest to doo.

HERE.

Then syr

I pray you this, who is able by anie reason to vnder∣stande, how any of them bothe, that is to say, other the body or the fleshe, should or may haue anie beyng at all after thys sorte, that ye speake of? for how is it possible to vnderstande a mannes body or fleshe to be, wythout what so euer is corporall or carnall? That is to saye, wythout suche quantitee and quali∣tes as perteyneth vnto them, by the course of nature? speciallie, when we haue no knowledge of them at all, but that it is fyrste gotten, by suche maner of thynges, as belongeth vnto them naturallie?

CATHOLICVS.

I doubte not but this question troubleth thy hedde verie muche.

HERE.

It doeth in deede.

CATH.

And why?

HERE.

I can not tell why, but so it doeth.

CATHOLI.

In very deede for nothynge els, but only because thou woldest fayne vnderstande, before thou doest, or wylt beleue. But how can that be? when the Scrip∣ture sayeth.

Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis.

That is to say,

excepte ye beleue, ye shall not vnderstande.

Therefore beleue well fyrst, that thou mayst be the better able, to vnderstande at the laste. Or yf thou wylt nedes haue vnderstanding go before, let not thyne vnder standing leaue this behinde, but take it for a suer trewth that this matter, is not committed vnto vs, to be vnder∣stande, but most constantly, and firmely, to be beleued.

It is a matter of Faythe, and not of knowledge or vnderstandinge. And therefore it is enoughe herein, that vnderstandinge is able, to refell and ouerthrow, what so euer any malitious aduersarie, is able to

imagin or say to the contrary. And so to commit the rest vnto parfit fayth, which worketh by charite. For she is able to bringe her seruant vnderstandinge, to the very contemplation of the thinge, when the conuenient tyme thereof shalbe.

HERE.

And call you vnderstandinge a seruant to saythe?

CATH.

Ye why not?

HERE.

Vn∣derstandinge me thinke is the worthiest of the twayne.

CATH.

Thereof is no doubt, where it hath the higher place, but that (thou must consider) is not yet euen now in this case, nor in many other mo, nor herafter shalbe, except it folow fayth for the time, and serue her trewly, that is (with her helpe) to defende her boldely, from her great enemies, whiche seeketh her destruction dayly.

Cap. 37.

HERE.

Syr with this talke I perceyue, ye wolde lede me away from my purpose cleane.

CATH.

Why what, is that?

HERE.

Thynke you, that I haue yet forgotten and cleane done, with those two lat∣ter places, whiche (as I haue showed you) Iohn Frithe dothe alledge of Saynt Austen?

CATH.

If thou hast not done with them in deede, I do not a litle maruell.

For I suppose, thou hast harde of them so muche, that thou haste no neede of anie more.

HERE.

You thynke so, but so do not I. For Saynt Austen sayeth euen playn¦lie, that they whiche abide not in Christe, nor Christ in them, eate not his body nor his fleshe, although they eate the Sacrament of so great a thinge. Wherof (as I sayd before, and as Frithe doeth declare) this must folowe, that Christes very body and his very fleshe, is not in the Sacrament really and presentely. For if it were, they

shoulde eate that, when they eate the Sacrament.

CAT.

And haue I not tolde thee playne enoughe, that euen so they do in deede?

HER.

Ye but Saynt Austens wordes be as playne to the contrarie, that they do not.

CATH.

No, not fruitfullie, profitablie, and effectually, that is to say, not spiritually.

HERE.

Tushe will ye be there? Saynt Austen doeth make no mention of fruitfully, pro∣fitablie, effectually, nor spiritually nother, but sayeth ab∣solutly and directly that they eate it not.

CATH.

Al∣thoughe he doeth so say, and expresseth no farther, yet he meaneth it, of the only spirituall eatinge, and of none o∣ther.

HER.

Al that is but your saying and your opinion, as mine is to the contrarie. And therfore if you can none otherwyse proue his meaninge then so, I will vtterlie stycke vnto his playne sayinge, whiche maketh with frith clerely.

CATH.

What for all this, that we haue sayde and done hytherto?

HERE.

Ye for all that.

CAT.

Then if thou wilt needes haue me trie out herein, Saynt Au∣stens very meaninge, how can I better do it, then with his owne sayinge?

HERE.

I must needes graunt, there is none to that.

CATH.

Fyrste therefore to begyn with all, when the one of those places, is in Saynt Au∣stens worke De Ciuitate dei Libro. 21. Cap. 25. and the other noted, in Frithes booke wyth thys tytle.

Augusti. sermo. circasacra feria pasche, and also when Frithes purpose in bothe places, lieth vpon the vnder∣standing of this texte of the Gospell.

He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, bideth in me, and I in him.

Tell me why doeth Frithe here brynge in Saynt Au∣sten vpon the sayd text, in those foresayde places, where

it was nother Saynt Austens only, nor yet his princy∣pall purpose to speake of it, but as it were by the way, tooke parte of the sence thereof, to fortyfie thereby, an other matter whyche he had in hande? why doeth Frithe (I say) bringe in Saynt Austens sayinge vpon the sayde text in those places, & not in that place, where Saynt Austen goeth vpon it purposlie, and onelie to showe the vnderstandinge thereof? is there any other why, but hys accustomed falshed, yf a man wold marke it well? For who wolde passe ouer a mans saying in a matter, where he speketh purposly & only of it, and take him in an other place, where he by chaunce toucheth it but partelie, & as the case and occasion, which he hath in hande, doeth there requere? who (I say) wolde so do, and meane trewlie?

HERE.

Syr peraduenture those wordes whiche Frithe. doeth here alledge of Saynt Au∣sten in those foresayde places, be the very same wordes whiche Saynt Austen hath in that place, that ye speake of. And then, yf it be so, it is well enoughe.

CATH.

That shall appere strayght way. For that place whiche I speake of, is vpon the sixte chapiter of Saynt Iohn. Where saynt austen recitinge that same text purposly to declare the meaninge therof, hath these wordes.

Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sangui∣nem, in me manet, & ego in illo, hoc est ergo mandu∣care illam escam, & illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, & illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc, qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet CHRISTVS, procul dubio, nec manducat spiritua∣liter carnem eius nec bibit eius Sanguinem.

That is to say.

He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, bideth in me and I in him. This is therefore, to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke, to abyde in christe, and to haue christ abide in vs. And by this, he that abideth not in christe, and in whome christe abydeth not, without doubt, he eatethe not his fleshe spiritually, nor drinketh his bloud.

How sayest thou now?

HER.

Euen as I thought at the firste. For ye can not say, but these are (so far as they go) euen the very same wordes, whiche Saynt Austen hath in the firste of the other two places before.

CATH

The verie same sayest thou?

HERE.

The very same, all saue one worde.

CATH.

Ye, whiche one is that?

HERE.

Thys worde, spiritually.

CATH.

Thou sayest euen trew. And therefore that same one worde spiritu∣ally, was the verie thinge, that caused Frithe to refuse this place of Saynt Austen, and to runne to those other two places, wherein that worde spiritually was not ex∣pressed. By reason wherof, Frithe had in them some hope, where as in this, he had none at all. For he percey∣uinge this place to speake precisely, and expressely of one eating that is speciall, (whiche geueth an other to be vn∣derstand, that is general) thought, that if he should make his allegation thereof, it wolde geue an occasion, of a great interruption of all his purpose. And therefore he toke the other two places, (which (as he thought) semed to deny the very eatinge that is generall) to serue hys turne farre better then this, whiche doeth expresse the speciall. Wherin he clerely deceyued him self, as it may well appere by this, that Saynt Austen doeth euen here, the verie same that he doeth there, speake onely, (as I sayde) of one sorte of eaters in speciall, and not of all ingenerall. Wherfore the same eatinge that S. Austen

doeth meane there, must nedes be vnderstande of thys eatinge, whiche he doeth expresse here. For indeede they be all one, as the speciall state and sorte of the eaters is, of whome he speaketh in all three places.

Cap. 38.

HERE.

Then I maruel greatly, that Saint Austen wolde in these two places, so bestow his wordes and speake them, after suche a sorte as he doeth.

CATH.

Why doest thou maruell there at?

HER.

Be∣cause he doeth therin, seme rather to meane, as Frithe taketh him, then to meane as you reporte hym.

CAT.

To whome doeth he so seme to meane?

HERE.

To eue∣rie man I thinke.

CATH.

That is not so, for I, and moste men, taketh him to meane therin, far otherwise then Frithe dothe. And therfore he semeth not so to vs, as he doeth to him.

HERE.

I can not tell how he semeth to you, but well I wol, he semeth to me and ma¦nie other mo to meane euen as Frithe dothe take hym.

CATH.

Ye but wotest thou why?

HERE.

No not yet.

CATH.

In very deede because Frithe and suche other as he was, were none of these, to whome Saynt Au∣sten wrote in those two places, after that sort as he doth.

HERE.

To whome th••••?

CATH.

Wythout sayle vnto none, but onelie to men of good wyll, and that of the learned sorte of the Catholyke faythe.

To whome Saynt Austens mynde, is in those two pla∣ces, theare ••ng••e, and out of all doubte. Therfore only to them (I say) he wrote there, as he doeth, and not vn∣to anie such heretikes as Fryth was, whome no trewth can satysfie. For looke where so euer Saynt Austen

wrote any thynge vnto them, that is to saie vnto here∣tikes (because they lacke both trewth and also good wil to) he left therfore no parte of his minde vnexpressed (so farre as the matter requyred, wherin he procured their amendment) but did at large, with suche plainenesse so set it foorth vnto them, that they them selues could haue no doubt of his meanynge, although they were neuer so vnwillyng to take any profyte of his playne saiynge.

This he vsed alway vnto them, but not alway so vnto vs. Because in vs, there was no suche neede. For we, by his expresse and manifest speakynge of this matter in some place, do ryght well know his trew secret and sy∣lent meanynge therof (although not expressed) in euery other place. Wherin we doo not as ye wolde do if ye myght.

HERE.

What is that?

CATH.

Ye wold hyde, and ouerthrow that, whiche is very certaine and manifest, by that, whiche seemeth vncertaine and secret. But we contrariwyse, as reason compelleth vs, do show and defend that, whiche seemeth incertaine and secret, by that, whiche is moste certaine and manifest. For where Saint Austen saith.

They that abyde not in Christe, nor Christe in them, ea∣teth not his fleshe nor drinketh his blood, although they eate and drynke the sacrament of so great a thynge.

Because he expresseth not there, euen certainely what maner of eatyng it is that he meaneth (wherefore some, are therof in doubt) we may and iustly do, way that place by this, where he saith.

He that abideth not in Christe, and in whom Christe aby∣deth not, without doubt he eateth not his flesh spiritually, nor drinketh his blood.

By this place therfore, we waie the other, because he

excludyng all doubt in this, doth plainely expresse what maner of eatyng it is, that he doth meane in the other, wherein he dooth but leaue it to men of good wyll to be vnderstande, who neuer faileth to take it ryght.

Therefore when that maner of eatynge, whyche he dooth meane, is made very certaine in the one place and not so in the other. That is to say, plainely ex∣pressed in the one place, and not expressed in the o∣ther, why dyd Fryth alledge him in that place, where it is not expressed (sith in that maner of eatynge ly∣eth all the matter) and wolde not alledge him in the other place, where it is expressed, and put cleane out of question? what other why (as I sayde before) can there be found in his so doinge, but onely falshed? For who wòulde take a mannes tale to witnesse, where he speaketh but obscurely or incerteinly, and vtterly refuse it there, where he speaketh it full, hole, and plainly? a∣ny man els, but onely Frithe, and such as he was? for the plaine place he wilt well, he could nother ouerthrow, nor yet wrynge it to anye apparence of his purpose.

But the obscure and ambiguous place, he thought he might wrest, whiche waie he liste, and so to make many beleue (as he did in deede) that it sufficientlye serued his turne.

HERE.

Yet ye confesse that place of Saint Austen whiche Frythe dooth alledge, to be obscure and ambiguous.

CATH.

Ye to them, that lacketh good wyll or knowledge. But not to them, (as I sayde) whiche be learned and of the catholyke sayth. Wherefore, thus maiest thou see, Why Frith alledged that place of Saint Austen and not this, so craftylie as he dyd. Whiche was no more but one∣ly

because, when he saw, there was made therein, no speciall mencion by name of the reall eatynge, whiche is moste common and generall, nor yet of the spyrytuall eatynge, whiche is more singuler and specyall, but of eatynge symplie, without anie dy∣recte or proper distinction, he thought he myght vn∣derstande of them bothe, whiche he lyst, or els take it, as thoughe there had bene none other maner of eatynge thereof, but euen verie one alone. And thereuppon he did take that place to be no lesse, then enoughe, and very sufficient to proue his purpose.

As I graunt it had beene in deede, if it had beene after that sorte to be vnderstande, as he tooke it.

But he looked so muche vpon this poynte, that he founde there no mencion made of anie dystynction of eatynges (whereby he thought he myght take (as I sayde) whyche he lyste or one for all) that he forgat, what mencion Saynt Austen made there, of the distynctyon (although not of eatynges, yet for all that) of eaters, whiche was enoughe, to show what maner of eatynge he mente. For as his manifest speakynge was there, of a peculiar sorte of eaters, so his very meanynge, muste needes be vnderstande of a peculiar maner a eatynge.

For it is agaynst all reason and trewthe, to denye that to some, whiche is common to all, or to graunte that to all, which perteyneth but to some. And therfore, thou maist well know, that Saint Austen wolde not do so. For he denyed not there, but onely that eatynge, whiche apperteyneth vnto some, and not vnto all.

That is to say, only to them that be good, and not vnto them that he nought. Of whom there, he dooth make mecion, and of none other. For the libertee real of eating perteyneth both to good and bad. But the spirituall ea∣tyng perteyneth to none but onely to them that be good.

Cap. 39.

HERE.

Sir, Saint Austen maketh no suche di∣stinction or difference betwene reall and spiritual eatyng, nor betwene generall and speciall eating as ye speake of.

CATH.

Why saiest thou so? for, although he doth it not, euen in those maner of woordes, with suche conference of both together as thou woldest haue yet he doth it in deede for all that. as it doth right well appere vpon the syxt of Saint Iohn, Tracta. 27. where his woordes be these.

Hoc totum quod dominus de carne & de sanguine suo loquutus est. Et quod in eius distributionis gra∣tia vitam nobis promisit aeternam. Et quod hinc vol∣uit intelligi manducatores carnis & sanguinis sui vt in illo maneant, & ipse in illis. Et quod non intellex∣erunt, qui non crediderunt. Et quod spiritualia car∣naliter sapiendo, scandalizati sunt. Et quod eis scan∣dalizatis, & pereuntibus, consolatio domini affuit discipulis qui remanserant, ad quos probandos inter∣rogauit, Nunquid & vos vultis ire, vt responsio per∣māsionis eorum innotseceret & nobis, nam & ille no∣uerat qui manebant. Hocergo totum, ad hoc nobis valet DILECTISSIMI, vt carnem Christi & sanguinem Christi, non edamus tantum in sacramen∣to, quod & multi mali, sed vs{que} ad spiritus perticipa∣tionem

manducemus & bibamus. Vt in domini cor∣pore tanquam membra maneamus, vt eius spiritu ve∣getemur, & non scandalizemur, etiamsi multi modo nobiscum manducant & bibunt temporaliter sacra∣menta, qui habebunt in fine aeterna tormenta.

That is to say.

All this that our lorde spake, of his fleshe and his blood, And that in the grace of distribucion therof, he promised vnto vs lyfe euerlastynge, and that therof he wolde to be vnderstande, that the eaters and drinkers of his fleshe and blood, should abyde in him and he in them, And that they did not vnderstande, whiche did not beleue, And that they were offended, by vnderstandynge spirituall thinges carnally, And that they beyng offended and perylshynge, the comforte of our lorde was present to the disciples which did abide, vnto the probacion of whom he asked, wil you go away, that the answere of their abiding might be also knowen to vs, for he knew them whiche did abide. All this therefore, most deerely beloued, auayleth vnto vs for this purpose, that we shoulde not eate the fleshe of Christe and the blood of Christe onely in the sacramente (whiche many doth that be nought) but that we shoulde eate and drynke it, vnto the part taking of the spirite, that wee shoulde abyde as membres in the body of our Lorde, that we might be quickned with his spirite, And that we should not be offended, although many now, dooth eate and drynke the sacramentes with vs temporally, whiche shall haue in thende tormentes eternall.

Now what canst thou wishe more plainely spoken, for the reall eatynge and drynkynge of Christes most precious fleshe and blood in the holy sacramente, then when he sayth (as here thou seest) we eate it not onely in the sacrament? that same not onely in the sacramente, dooth moste cleerely declare it to be therin euen verely eaten. for he wolde not haue said,

not onely in the sacrament, but not in the sacrament. For not in the sacrament, and not onely in the sacrament, are two thinges. Not in the sacrament, denyeth it to bee eaten therein, but not onely in the sacrament, confesseth it to bee eaten therein, and also other wise to. Wherefore this very reall eatinge of Christes blessed flesh and blood in the holy sacrament, must nedes be common and generall, when (as here S. Austen saith) many doth it, which be nought, whose eating therof, thou maiest well know commeth not to the perticipacion or partaking of the spirite that quickneth, when those be they, that abyde not in Christe, nor Christe in them.

And therefore the participacion or partakynge of the spirite therin, is and must needes be, the spirituall ea∣tynge, whiche is not generall, but speciall and proper onely to those, that abyde in Christ, and Christ in them. as the noughty and euill sorte dooth not. And yet they in the sacrament (as Saint Austen doth here plainly say) do eate his fleshe, and that must nedes be really, because it is to playne, that it can not be spiritually. Wherfore, here thou hast now of Saint Austen plainely expressed, and distinctlie touched, both the very reall eating, which is common to good and had, and also the spirituall ea∣tyng, whiche perteyneth to none, but onely to them that be good.

HERE.

Yet this place of Saint Austen, al∣though ye make the most of it that ye can, neuerthelesse it doth not so well satisfie me, as you thinke.

CAT.

In that thou shewest of what sorte thou arte, And therfore here him in an other place, where his woordes be these.* 1.29

Illud etiam quod ait. Qui manducat carnem meam & bibit sanguinem meum in me manet & ego in illo,

Quomodo intellecturi sumus? Nunquid etiam illos hic poterimus accipere, de quibus dicit Apostolus, quod iudicium sibi manducent & bibant, cum ipsam carnem manducent & ipsum sanguinem bibant?

Nunquid & Iudas magistri venditor & traditor ipsi∣us, quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum Sacramentum carnis & sanguinis eius cum caeteris discipulis, sicut apertius LVCAS EVANGELIS∣TA declarat, manducaret & biberet, mansit in Chri∣sto, aut Christus in eo? Multi denique qui vel cor∣de ficto carnem illam manducant & sanguinem bi∣bunt, vel cum manducauerint & biberint Apostatae fiunt, nunquid manent in Christo, aut Christus in eis? Sed profecto est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem & bibendi illum sanguinem: quo modo, qui manducauerit & biberit, in Christo manet & Christus in eo. Non ergo quocunque modo quis∣quam manducauerit carnem Christi & biberit sangui∣nem Christi, manet in Christo, & in illo Christus. Sed certo quodam modo, quem modum vtique ipse vi∣debat, quādo ista dicebat.

which may thus be englished.

How shall we vnderstande this whiche he saith, he that eateth my fleshe, and drinketh my blood, bydeth in me, & I in him? may we take those to be vnderstande here, of whom thapostle doth say, that thei eate & drinke their own damnacion, when they eate the same fleshe, and drinke the same blood? Also did Iudas the wicked traytour and sel∣ler of his maister, although he did (as Luke the Euange∣lyste dooth apertlie declare) eate and drynke with the other disciples the same sacrament of his fleshe and blood when it was first made in his owne hands, abide in christ and christe in him? farthermore, there be many, that euen with a feigned hart, do eate that fleshe and drinke that blood, or when they haue eate and drinke it, forsake

ther fayth, abyde they in Christe, and Christe in them? but in very deede ther is a certayne maner of eatyng that fleshe and drynkynge that blood, whereby, he that eateth it and drynketh it, abydeth in Chryste and Christe in him. Therfore not in what so euer maner, anye man eateth the fleshe of Christe, and drinketh the blood of Christe, a∣bideth in christe, and christe in him. But in a certaine ma∣ner which maner he saw, when he spake these woordes.

If thou be not here now euen thorowly satisfyed, both as touching the certeintee and also the difference, of these two eatings and drinkings of Christs most blessed fleshe and blood, that is to say, both of the reall eating, and also of the spirituall eating of it, it is not Saint Austen, nor all the other holy fathers besyde, that therein can satisfy the. For no man can more plainly expresse them, then he doth here distinctly deuyde and show them.

Cap. 40.

HHER.

Ye but sir, Frith by al those woordes of ea∣ting and drinking of Christs owne very fleshe and blood, doth vnderstand none other meaning therof but only spirituall eating and drinking of it in faith, and not very reall eatyng and drinkynge of it in deede, but after such a sorte as he meaneth and speaketh of, in the fourth leafe of his booke, where his woordes be these.

Abraham (he saith) did eate his body and drynke his blood thorow faith.

And in the first leafe he saith also

It was not necessarie, that the woordes should so be vn∣derstand as they sound.

That is to say, he wold not haue it so taken, that these words of eating & drinking, should, as they sound, be vn∣derstand of the very reall eating and drinking of christes

owne fleshe and bloud in deede, but only of the fayth and beleuing in him, as it appereth in the .17. lefe of his boke where he sayth.

Who so euer dwelleth in Christe, (that is to say) beleueth that he is sent of god to saue vs from our sinnes) doeth ve∣relie eate and drinke his body and bloud, althoughe he ne∣uer receyue the sacrament. This (sayeth he) is the spiritual eating necessarie for all that shalbe saued.

And in the .47. leafe.

As for, our faythe (he sayth) it nedeth not to haue him pre∣sent in the breade. For I may (sayeth he) as well eate hym and drinke hym thorow fayth, that is to say, beleue in him as thoughe he were as presentlie in the Sacrament as he was hanginge on the crosse.

Now therfore by this, you may perceyue that Frithe (as I sayde) doeth vnderstande none other by all those wordes of eatinge and drinking of that fleshe and bloud, but only spirituall eatinge and drinkinge of it in faythe. That is to say, onelie beleuing without any reall eating of it at all.

CATH.

What, in so many places, and so diuersly, as our Sauiour Christe him selfe, his holy apo¦stles, and al the other holy fathers of the Catholike chur¦che, doeth speake of it, in those playne wordes of eatinge and drinkinge? And when none of them all, doeth so de∣clare it, nor teache it? as in witnesse whereof, it dothe in the wordes of S. Austen, last recited before, very clerely appere, if thou remember them well. When therein he sayeth, that those doeth eate the same fleshe and drinke the same bloud, of whome the holy Apostle doeth saye, they eate it and drinke it, to theyr dampnation. And playne it is that those, whiche eate it and drinke it to theyr dampnation, doeth nother eate it, not drinke it spi∣ritually. For yf they did, it coulde not be to their damp¦nation,

But to theyr saluatiō. Wherfore how so euer Fri¦the doeth take it, sithe it is cleare by Saynt Austen, that those, which doth eate it & drink it to their dampnation, doth eate the same flesh and drinke the same bloud, and yet not spiritually, it must therefore needes folow, that they do eate it & drinke it euen in very deede really. Ex∣cept thou wylt say, they eate it not at all, whiche were di∣rectly agaynst Saynt Austen and Saynt Paule bothe.

Farthermore, thou shalt vnderstande, that in Saynt Austens dayes, there were many, that came and dyd be∣leue in the name of Christe, whiche were called Cathe∣cumini, that is to say, herers or learners. And so called because they were not baptised, for that they beleued not some certayn mysteries in some of the Sacramen∣tes. And therfore where the gospell doeth say, that when Christ was at Ierusalem in the tyme of Easter, many did beleue in the name of hym, for the myracles they saw him do,* 1.30 but Iesus did not commit hym selfe vnto them.

Saynt Austen vpon the same place doth say, that all those be suche, whiche are called cathecumini, that is to say, herers or learners. For his owne wordes thereof in latin be these.

Tales sūt oēs Cathecumini. Ipsi iā credunt in nomine Christi Sed Iesus non se credit eis. Intendat & intelli∣gat charitas vestra. Si dixerimus cathecumino, credis in Christo? Respondet, credo, et signat se. Iam crucem christi portet in fronte. Et non erubescit in cruce do∣mini sui. Ecce credit in nomine eius. Interrogamus eum, manducas carnem filii hominis & bibis sanguinē filii hominis? Nescit quid dicimus, quia Iesus non se

credit ei.

Which may thus be englished.

Cathecumini are al of the same sort. For they beleue in the name of christ. But Iesus cōmitteth not him self vnto thē. Let your charite marke and vnderstande. If we shall say to the cathecumini, doest thou beleue in Chryste? he wyll answer and say, I beleue, and blesseth him self. Now he beareth the crosse of Chryst in hys forehead. And is not a∣shamed of the crosse of hys lorde. Beholde, he beleueth in hys name. We aske hym agayn, doest thou eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke the bloud of the sonne of man? he knoweth not what we say, because Iesus hathe not committed hym selfe vnto hym.

How sayest thou now? what thinge is it, whiche thys Cathecuminus doeth here not know, when he is asked this playne question of the eating and drinking of Chri∣stes most blessed fleshe and bloud? The wordes be playn. And therefore what is there in them, that (as Saynt Au¦sten saieth of him) he doeth not know?

HER.

The spiri∣tuall vnderstanding of it?

CATH.

What meanest thou by the spirituall vnderstandinge of it?

HERE.

The spy∣rituall eatinge and drinkinge of that flesh and bloud.

CATH.

Ye but what is the spirituall eatinge and drinkinge therof?

HERE.

It is, as Frithe hath sayd to beleue in Christe.

CATH.

To beleue in Christe? is it that thinkest thou, whiche Saynt Austen doeth here meane, that (as he sayeth) this Cathecuminus doeth not know, when he hym selfe sayth of him, that he beleueth in christe? Thou mayst perceyue it can not be so. For yf S. Austen had ment here none other eatinge and drin∣kynge of it but that, he wolde not haue noted him to be ignorant of his question, when he him selfe reporteth

him to beleue in the name of Christe. For that were as muche as he requireth, if he had ment nothinge els.

Therfore if thou perceyue it not alredy, let vs looke far∣ther what S. Austen doeth meane, by hys not know∣inge. Anie thinge els, but his not beleuinge? And what meaneth Saynt Austen by his not beleuing, but that he beleueth not accordinge to his askyng? And what is it to beleue accordinge to his askinge, but to beleue the very eatinge and drinkinge of Christes fleshe and bloud? for that is the verie playne question, whiche he doeth aske him. Wherfore that must needes be the thinge which the Cathecuminus knoweth not. And that because, he be¦leueth it not. And therfore it is hys lacke of faithe in the reall eatinge and drinkinge of Christes holy fleshe and bloud, that Saynt Austen doeth here finde faute wyth him for. And not for anie other eatinge and drinkinge therof, which as Frithe sayeth is nothinge els but onely faythe and beleue in Christ. Whiche fayth (as Saynt Au∣sten sayeth) this Cathecuminus hath, and yet christ com∣mitteth not him selfe vnto hym. Therefore when Saynt Austen doeth aske him the question of eatinge and dryn∣kinge of the fleshe and bloud of the sonne of man, it is an other eatinge and drinking that he doeth meane and speake of, then this Cathecuminus doeth knowe or be∣leue, or els he wolde not réprehende hym therein as he doeth. It is an other also, then Frith doeth beleue, when he sayeth a man may vse it, althoughe he neuer receyue the Sacrament. And therfore what other is it, but euen only the very reall eatinge and drinking of it in the holy Sacrament?

Cap. 41.

HERE.

Why syr, doeth not Saynt Austen say as Frithe doeth alledge, in the .17, leafe of hys booke

Why preparest thou teethe and belly? beleue and thou hast eaten.

CATH.

What of that? wilt thou gather thereof, that there is none other eating of it, but only beleue? There∣fore if there be an other, what doeth this make for Fry∣thes purpose or thine other? And that there is an other, haue I not proued it all reddie before, by the manifest wordes of Saynt Austen hym selfe? Wherefore if thys be trew, (as Frithe doeth say it is) that these wordes of eatinge and drinking in this matter, meane nothing els but faythe and beleefe, it must needes folow, that Saynt Austen doeth here vniustlye reprehende this Cathecu∣minus, of whome he doeth confesse no lesse hym selfe, but that he hath faith and beleueth in the name of christ. And beside that, this must also folow thereof likewyse, that when he sayeth.

Beleue and thou hast eaten.

It is no more, nor none other to say, but beleue and thou hast beleued. What reason is this? or who wolde thinke S. Austen to meane so?

HER.

Why what should he there, meane els?

CATH.

Euen as he dothe, which is this. Beleue trewly, and thou hast eaten spiritually.

For the spiritual eating, commeth not to passe, but tho∣row the whole trewth of beleuing. And the hoole trewth of beleuinge, consisteth not in holding some partes of the fayth, and denyinge some other, but in holdinge them whole, euen altogether. Therefore Saynt austen

doeth here (as in many other places moe) farther mean then he doeth expresse. For where he doeth here (as tou∣ching the fayth) no farther say, but beleue, yet he mea∣neth these wordes, wholy, and trewly, to be vnderstande with all. For he meaneth no suche beleue, as is mixed or corrupted with any falshed, or with the lacke of any parte of it. Therefore besyde thys, he meaneth farther then so to. For he meaneth not that same beleefe nother, althoughe it be neuer so whole and trew whi∣che is infected with euyll and wycked maners. But he meaneth that, whiche (as the Apostle doeth say) worketh by charite. Wherfore beleue so, and I wyll graunte, that thou hast eaten, or els not. For withoute that maner of beleuynge (whiche is but accordinge to Saynt Austens meaninge) doubtles there can be no spirituall eatinge at all. And in that maner of bele∣uinge, there is and must needes be contayned, the ve∣rye beleefe of the reall eatinge. For the spyrytuall eatinge was not ordeyned for the reall eatynge, but the reall eatynge for the spirituall eatynge. And therfore without the very beleefe of the reall eatinge, the spiri∣tuall eatynge can neuer he had.

HERE.

Then the spirituall eatinge, and the reall eatynge must needes go so together, that the one can not be wythout the other.

CATHOLICVS.

That is not trew, excepte it be in beleefe. For therein they must needes go alway toge∣ther. But els, so muche they dyffer, and are some tyme a sonder, that an infidele may chaunce to eate it really, but yet for lacke of faythe, neuer spiritually. And a good Christen man may eate it spiritually, althoughe, thorow some lawfull impediment, he eate it not real∣lie.

Wherefore by thys it is cleare, that all the sort of you, whyche denieth it (as Frithe doeth) to be eaten really, without doubt do neuer eate it spiritually. Wher in your tortuous and eluishe doctrine, doeth most mani∣festly appere. For ye holde wyth that, whiche ye neuer do. And vtterly deny that, whiche ye dayly do.

HERE.

How so?

CATH.

Ye graunt and holde with the spiri∣tuall eatinge of Christes holy fleshe, which eatinge with∣out fayle, ye neuer come to. And ye stifly deny the reall eatinge of it, which eatinge in deede ye often and com∣monly do. And therfore when ye do that, whiche your sel¦ues denie, how is it done, but vnworthyly? and wherto tendeth that, but (as the Apostle sayeth) to your owne dampnation? but now I let that passe,* 1.31 and to an other place of Saynt Austen, where hys owne wordes be these.

Sicut audiuimus, cum sanctum euangelium legeretur,* 1.32 dominus Iesus Christus exortatus est promissione vitae aeternae ad manducandam carnem suam & bi∣bendum sanguinem suum. Qui audistis haec, non dum omnes intellexistis. Qui enim baptizati & fideles estis, quid dix erit nostis. Qui autem inter vos adhuc Cathecumini vel audientes vocantur, potuerunt esse cum legeretur audientes, nunquid & intelligentes? Ergo sermo noster ad vtros{que} dirigitur. Qui iam manducant carnem domini & bibunt sanguinem eius, cogitent quid manducent, & quid bibant, ne (sicut Apostolus dixit) Iuditium sibi mandu∣cent & bibant. Qui autem non dum mandu∣cant & non dum bibunt, ad tales epulas inuita∣ti festiment. Per istos dies magistratus

pascunt. Christus quotidie pascit, mensa ipsius est illa in medio constituta. Quid causae est O audi∣entes, vt mensam videatis, & ad epulas non acceda∣tis? Et forte modo cum euangelium legeretur dixistis in cordibus vestris, putamus quid est quod di∣cit, Caro mea vere esca est, & sanguis meus vere po∣tus est? Quomodo manducatur caro domini & bi∣bitur sanguis domini? Putamus quid dicit? Quis contra te clausit vt hoc nescias? Velatum est.

Sed si volueris, erit reuelatum. Accede ad professio∣nem & soluisti quaestionem. Quid enim dixerit do∣minus IESVS, iam fideles nouerunt. Tu autem Ca∣thecuminus diceris, Audiens & surdus es. Aures enim corporis patentes habes, quia verba quae dicta sunt au dis, Sed aures cordis adhuc clausas habes, quia quod dictum est non intelligis.

Whiche may thus be Englished.

When the holy gospell was red as wee haue herde, our Lorde Iesus exhorted vs to the eatinge of his fleshe and drinkinge of hys bloud, with the promyse of euerlasting lyfe. You, whyche haue hearde these thynges, do not yet all, vnderstande them. For you whiche are baptized and are faythfull, doeth knowe what he sayde.

But those amonge you, whiche are yet called Cathecu∣mini or hearers, may be hearers, but therein vnder∣standers thynke you? Therefore our sermon is direc∣ted vnto bothe. Nowe those whyche doeth eate the fleshe of our Lorde and drynke hys bloud, lette them take heede, what they eate, and what they drynke, leaste (as the Apostle sayeth) they eate and drinke it to theyr owne dampnation. But let them, whiche doeth not yet eate, nor yet drynke, beynge in∣uited, make haste vnto suche dayntes. For in these dayes magistrates doeth eate. Chryst doeth dayly feede,

That table of his. is set in the middes. What is the cause, O ye herers, that ye see the table, and come not to the deli∣cates? perchaunce now, when the gospell was redde, you sayde in your hartes, perceiue wee what it is that he saith, my fleshe is verely meate, and my blood is verily drynke? how is the fleshe of the lorde eaten, and the blood of the lorde dronken? perceiue we what he saith? who hath hid it from the, that thou knowest it not? hid it is. But if thou wilt, it shall be opened. Come to the profession, and thou hast solued the question. For those that be now faithfull, knowth what our lord Iesus sayd. But thou art called an herer, and yet in heryng thou arte deaffe. For thou hast the eares of the body open, because thou herest the woordes whiche are spoken. But thou hast the eares of the hart yet shut, because thou vnderstan∣dest not that, whiche is said.

Now, meaneth Saint Austen here nothyng els by all these playne words of eatyng and drynkyng of Christes holy fleshe and blood, but onely faith and beleefe? which only Frith doth call the spirituall eatyng and drynking thereof, saiyng there is none other but that? Therfore is it onely that eatyng and drinkyng, whereunto Saint Austen doth here inuite those, which he calleth Cathe∣cumini or heres, who hath feith (as he sayd before) and doth beleue in the name of Christe all ready, and bea∣reth his crosse in their forheades? is it also that eatyng and drynkyng, that is to say, onely faith and beleefe,

Wherevnto he doth here inuite them, with the name and promise of deinties and delicates, set vpon the table? the name of the table deintes or delicates, pretēdeth & decla∣reth an other maner of eatynge and drynkynge then is onely feith and beleefe, if thou loke well vpon it? more∣ouer, is only faith and belefe, that same eating and drin∣king, which (as he saith) our sauiour Christe doth exhort

vs vnto, with the promise of euerlastyng lyfe? when the Cathecuminus (as he doth also declare (hath faith and doth beleue in the name of Christ, and yet cummeth not to this eating and drinking, that Saint Austen speaketh of. Is it not also that eating and drinking, that is to say, only faith and belefe, wherof he saith, let them whiche doth eate the fleshe of our lord, and drinke his blood take hede what they eate & what they drinke, lest (as thapostle saith) they eate it and drinke it to their own damnacion? He saith not how they eate & how they drinke, but what they eate & what they drinke. And what meaneth he by that same what? very bread in a bare significacion as Frith doth take it? did not those Cathecumini or herers take it so, whom S. Austen doth reprehēd? wherfore did he blame them? but because they beleued therin to be no¦thing els but only that, wherin they were deceiued to?

How be it, after Frithes vnderstandyng, it is all one to say, let them take bede what they eate, and what they drynke, and to say, let them take hede what they beleue and what they thynke. I will not deny, but those war∣nings be very good, but yet to say they be both one (as Frith doth take them) who wold vnderstande it so, but only he, and the blind weiward schole which thou art of?

Cap. 42.

HERRE.

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.

CATH.

Then sith thou wilt be so folishe as to take it after that sort, tell me what the Sacrament is?

HERE.

As Frith dooth say, a figure, token, or signe of Christes body and blood, representyng his deth.

CATH.

And is there no more in it but that?

HERE.

No.

CATH..

Then why is it damnable to eate it vnwoorthyly?

HER.

Be∣cause it is (as I sayd) a figure, token, or signe of Christs body and blood representynge his death.

CATH.

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?

HER.

Because Paule saith it is so.

CATH.

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.

HERE.

No sir not so. For I will not deny, but the sacramente hath in it, that the roode hath not.

CATH.

What is that?

HERE.

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.

CATH.

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.

HERE.

Tushe sir, I can not away with that reason.

CATH.

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,

* 1.33

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.

Cap. 43.

HERE.

What will ye dooe syr? wyll ye now departe, without any farther examinacion of so large a matter, as Frith hath gathered together, out of all the other holy doctours besyde?

CATH.

Ye why not? for it were but a lost labour to bestowe anye more tyme about that, sith he bringeth none of them al, for any other purpose (as I sayd at the first) but onelie to confyrme that, which he wolde make vs to beleue, he gathereth out of Saint Austen. And that apeereth by his owne woordes, whiche I recyted vnto the before, and also will now agayne, to put the in better remem∣braunce thereof. For his woordes be these.

This (saith he) were proofe enough, to conclude, that all the olde fathers did holde the same opinion. For who woulde once surmise (seynge we haue Saynt Austen so playne for vs, whiche is the chiefest among them all) who wolde once surmise (I say) that he dis∣sented, in this great matter, from the other fayth∣full fathers, or they from him? Neuerthelesse I dare not let him stande post alone, least ye dispyse hym.

And therefore I will showe you the minde of certaine o∣ther also. And first of his maister Saint Ambrose.

HERE.

Ye marry sir, I pray you let vs here what Saynt Ambrose saith.

CATH.

What neede that? For thou seest it playne, that he bryngeth not in Saint Ambrose nor anie other besyde for any thynge els, but onely to show thagrement betwene Saint Austen and them. And therefore looke (as I haue declared vnto the) how Saynt Austen dooth make for his pur∣pose, euen so dooth Saint Ambrose, and all the reste lykewise. That is to saie, none otherwyse in deede, but euen dyrectlie agaynste him.

HERE.

Yet if ye will not recite those woordes of Saynt Ambrose, whiche Frith dooth alledge, I will recyte them my selfe.

CATH.

What nede that, when thou knowest them wel enough alreadie, or els how couldest thou recite thē?

HER.

Yet I will do it, to here what ye will say to them.

CATH.

Although I haue therein sayde enoughe alreadye. Yet chose the do as thou wilt.

HERE.

Then ye shall vnderstande, that his allegacion of Saint Am∣brose is euen this.

Saint ambrose (saith he) writyng vpon the epistle of paule to the Corinthians in the .xi. chapiter saith.

Quia enim morte domini liberati sumus, huius rei in edendo & potando carnem & sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus,

That is to saie.

Because we be deliuered by the death of the lorde, in ea∣tynge and drynkinge this thing meaning the sacrament, we signifie the fleshe and blood whiche were offerered for vs.

Here doeth saynt Ambrose say enough (sayth he) yf men were not sophisters, but wolde be content with reason.

Now by thys ye see, that Frithe desireth none other, but that reason might rule, as it ought to do.

CAT.

In deede this reason I finde in it, that thy recitall herof (as I now perceyue (chaunceth very well for thee, if thou will be so happy, as not to trust falshed wilfully. For if euer thou foundest a falser harlot, then Frithe shalbe founde in this, trust me no more. And that not only in his allegation of Saynt Ambrose wordes, but also in his translating of them into englyshe to. And to thyntent it may the more playnlie appere vnto thee, I wyl so trew∣lie alledge the very same place of Saynt Ambrose my selfe, as thou shalt not fayle to finde it, worde by worde, looke where it is, when thou wilt. For the very wordes of Saynt Ambrose are these.

Quia enim morte domini liberati sumus, huius rei membres in edendo & potando carnem et sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus.

That is to say.

Because we be deliuered by the death of our lord, we mind full therof do in eating and drinkinge the fleshe and bloud whiche were offred for vs, signifie.

HERE.

Ye what do we signifie?

CATH.

Softe let that alone for a whyle. And let vs fyrst conferre Frithes allegation and mine, not only in latin but also in Eng∣lishe bothe together, that we may se, how well they doo agree. And therfore in his allegation of the latin, what hath he done with this worde Memores, whiche is to say in Englishe mindefull. Why dyd he leaue out that, and wolde not bringe it to light? he thought perchaunce that Saynt Ambrose did not well to put it in. Or els he

thought to make an exchaynge with hym, and for that latyn worde, to gyue him in recompence, these three or foure Englyshe woordes. That is to say, meaninge of the Sacramente. For what Latyn worde hathe Saynt Ambrose here, that may be trewlie turned in to thys Englishe worde meaninge? Or into this worde Sacrament? If he haue here none suche, (as he hath not in deede) what foloweth, but that Frithe of purpose did put them in, to deceyue and make the symple Englishe reader beleue it to be, the minde of Saynt Ambrose when it is but his owne false Hereticall practise, and nothinge els? As it may well appere by thys, that vnder the colour of a translatour, he playeth here the false expositer. And why? but as I sayde to seduce the reader. For where as Saynt Ambrose doeth ioyne these wordes (huius rei) and thys worde (Memores) together, whiche are to say, myndefull of thys thynge, Frithe putteth away this worde, memores, and ioyneth to huius rei, these wordes, in edendo & potando.

Whiche beynge so ioyned are to say, in eatynge and drynkynge of thys thynge. Nowe to saye, myndefull of thys thinge, as Saynt Ambrose sayeth, and to saye, in eatynge and drinkinge of this thynge, as Fryth sayth thou mayst perceue, hath a greate difference. Whereby doeth it not euen clearely appere, how false a parte he playeth herein? And yet to make vs beleue, that Saynt Ambrose dyd meane, by thys same, huius rei, the Sacrament, he of hys owne head addeth vn∣to it, for an exposition thereof, these wordes, mea∣nynge of the Sacramente. When Saynt Ambrose meaneth by it not so, nor anie thynge els, but (as

it is playne) the very same, that he maketh mention of before, whiche is the death of Christe, whereby we are delyuered, sayinge.

We myndefull of this thinge, in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud, which were offered for vs, do sig∣nifie.

HERE.

Yet syr ye make thereof no parfyt sense. For as I asked of you before, what doo we sygnifie? we can not sygnifie except we sygnifie some∣what. And as ye doo handle it, there is nothing expres∣sed. Wherefore there must, other be somewhat vn∣derstande, or els thys worde signifie maketh no sense at all.

CATH.

There is no doubte, but some thynge there is to be vnderstande. And what is that, but the deathe of Chryste, whyche before is expressed? specially when Saynt Ambrose, meanynge none other, but euen the same doeth say.

We myndefull of this thinge do signifie it, in eatinge and drynkinge the fleshe and bloud whyche were offered for vs?

And this is the sense and very meaninge of Saynt Ambrose wordes.

HERE.

Here is a maruaylous thinge to see, how Frithes Englyshinge of thys mat∣ter and yours doeth dyffer. For where ye say, the mea∣nynge of it is thys, that we sygnifie the death of christe, Frythe doeth say, we sygnifie the fleshe and bloud, whiche were offred for vs.

CATH.

If Frithe wyll needes vnderstande it and take it so, then I aske of him, how and after what maner do we sygnify them?

HER.

In eatynge and drynkinge sayeth S. Ambrose.

CA.

Ye, wherof?

HERE.

Frithe sayth, of the sacrament.

CA,

Ye but there frith lieth. For S. Ambrose saith not so

For he sayth, of the fleshe and bloud whyche were offred for vs.

In eatinge and drinkinge of them (sayeth he) we sig∣nifie the deathe of Christ. For he hath not here any such worde as the Sacrament is, nor any suche meaninge as Frithe doeth say he meaneth nother. Wherfore by thys it may once agayne, euen playnly appere that Frythe doeth here falselie belie Saynt Ambrose, as he doeth Saynt Austen, and all the other holy fathers besyde.

And therefore I pray thee tell me one thinge, that I will aske thee.

HER.

What is that?

CATH.

Thou seest what a place of Saynt Ambrose, Frithe hath pykte out for his purpose, and how he hath handled hym selfe therein.

HERE.

What of that?

Cap. 44.

CATH.

Why did he not as well alledge Saynt Ambrose in this place, that is to say, Libro. 4. de Sacrament. & Cap. 4. Where hys wordes are e∣uen these.

Panis iste panis est ante verba sacramentorum. Vbi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit Caro Christi.

That is to say.

This bread is breade, before the woordes of the Sacramen∣tes. But when the consecration is cum to it, there is made of the breade, the fleshe of Christe.

And in the next chapiter of the same booke, his wor∣des be also these.

Antequam consecretur panis est. Vbi autem verba christi accesserit, corpus est Christi. Deni{que} audi dicen tem. Accipite & edite ex eo omnes. Hoc est corpus

meum. Et ante verba christi, Calix est vini & aquae plenus. Vbi verba christi operata fuerint, ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit. That is to say.

It is breade, before it be consecrat. But when the wordes of Christe commeth to it, it is the body of Chryste. And for proufe therof, herken to him that sayth Take and eate of it all you. This is my body. And before the wordes of Christ, the Chalice is full of wyne and water. But when the wordes of Christe hath wrought, there is made the bloud, whyche redemed the people.

Farthermore in the .6. booke and the fyrst Chapiter of the same worke, his wordes be these.

Sicut vaerus est dei filius dominus noster Iesus Chri∣stus, non quemadmodum Homines per gratiam, sed quasi filius ex substantia patris, Ita vaera caro, sicut ipse dixit, quam accipimus.

That is to say.

As our Lorde Iesus chryste is the verye sonne of God, not as men are by grace, but as the Sonne of the sub∣stance of the father. So is it very fleshe, as he sayth him selfe, whiche we receyue.

Now therefore tell me why, that Frithe doeth not alledge these places of Saynt Ambrose (amonge many other lyke in hys wordes besydes) as well as that o∣ther place, whiche he doeth alledge, and so falsely handle as I haue declared vnto thee? Is there any other why, but only because he was not able to deface the manifest trewth of these places, as he did (so farre as in hym lay) the trewth of the other? Besyde thys, he doeth in the .39. leafe of his booke alledge also the blessed mar¦tyr Saynt Cyprian in these wordes.

Cyprian sayeth (sayeth he)

that the people is annexed in the sacrament, thorow the myxture of water.

Why therfore doeth he not as well alledge hym in that place, where he hath these wordes.

* 1.34

Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi, fac∣tus est caro.

That is to say.

This breade, whiche our lorde gaue hys disciples, beynge chaynged, not in outward forme, but in nature, by the al∣mighty power of the worde, is made fleshe.

This place made not for Frithes purpose. And in deede no more did the other nother, as it may well appere by this, that he nother doth, nor yet can frame any maner of proufe of hys purpose by it. For he doeth no more but without cause therof, fayne hym selfe to maruell, that men will not vnderstande and take it, as he doeth.

For therevpon, his wordes be these.

I maruell me muche (sayeth he) that they are so conten∣tions and wyll not see, that as the water is the people, so the wyne is christes bloud, that is to say, in a mistery, be∣cause it representeth Christes bloud, as the water doeth the people.

Here thou seest, he gathereth of this place, whiche he doeth alledge of Saynt Cyprian, nothing els, but only a maruell, that we take it not as he wolde haue vs.

HERE.

Yet syr he doeth saye, that as the water is the people, so the wyne is Christes bloud, that is to say, in a mistery, because it representeth Christes bloud as the water doeth the people.

CATH.

Trew it is, that so he sayeth, but so he doeth not proue it for all that. And therefore as he doeth but only say it of Christes bloud, euen so he doeth but only meane the lyke of Chrystes fleshe. Wherof Saynt Cyprian doeth not say, this bread is made in a mistery, sygne, or signification of fleshe, but

he sayeth it is made fleshe, That is to say, fleshe indeede for if he had not verelie-beleued, the nature of the bread (whiche he taketh for the substance thereof) to be as he sayth, by the almighty power of the word, conuerted and chaynged into the very fleshe of Christe in deede, he wolde neuer haue so sayde of it, as here thou haste hearde he doeth. Wherfore now thou seest how well S. Ambrose and Saynt Cyprian bothe, serueth hys pur∣pose in Saynt Austen. And euen so wythout question, doeth all the rest of the olde holy Fathers which he doeth alledge besyde. For doubtlesse of them all, he doth nothynge els, but onelie pyke out suche places, as he knew well, the vnlearned reader should not be able to vnderstande. Speciallie when he, for hys owne parte doeth set them so craftelie foorthe vnto hym, and handle them so vngraciously as he doeth. Whereof a parte, I haue here nowe declared vn∣to thee by manyfest example of hys wycked and false handelynge, not onely of Saynt Ambrose, but also of Saynt Cipryan to. But as for anye suche other places, whiche Saynt Ambrose, and the other holy Fa∣thers haue so playne, as may easely put the symple reader in suertie of the trewth, and cleane out of doubt, he wolde in no wyse touche, nor brynge foorthe anie one of them, but so wynke at the matter, as thoughe there were no suche in deede. And there∣fore to knowe what he was, and what hys doynges are, what is there els, that thou woldest haue more, then I haue tolde thee? If thys to thee bee not enoughe, in very deede there is nothyng will serue.

HERE.

Yes syr somethynge wyll serue,

but yet not all this, I may say to you?

CATHOLI.

Why so?

HERE.

Because I doo knowe, why ye wolde so fayne haue done, & make such hast to be gone.

CATHOLICVS.

Why?

HERE.

Because Frithe hath one sayinge of a certayne Doctour to be answered vnto, whiche I perceyue ye be not willinge to med∣dell with all.

CATH.

What Doctour is that?

HERE.

Frithe shall tell you that, him selfe. For in the .76. leafe of hys booke, his wordes be these.

That there remayneth breade (sayeth he) myght be pro∣ued by the authorite of many doctours, whyche call it breade and wyne, euen as Chryste and hys Apostles did. And thoughe some Sophisters wolde wrest theyr say∣inges and expounde them after their owne phantasye, yet shall I alledge them one doctour whiche was pope, that maketh so playne with vs, that they shall neuer be a∣ble to avoyde hym. For Pope Belasius writeth on thys manner.

Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sangui∣nis Christi, diuinae res sunt. Propter quod & per eadem diuinae efficimur consortes uaturae. Et tamen non disinit esse substantia vel natura panis & vini. Sed permanet in suae proprietate naturae. Et certe Imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in actione Misteriorum celebrantur.

That is to say.

Suerly the sacramentes of the body and bloud of Chryste whyche we receyue, are godlye thynges. Therefore tho∣row them are we made partakers of the godly nature.

And yet doeth it not cease to be the substance or nature of breade and wine, but they contynew in the properte of theyr owne nature. And suerly the Image and similitude of the body and bloud of chryste are celebrated in the arte of the mysteries.

This am I sure (saith he) that no man can auoyde it, nor so wrest it, but that all men shall soone espy his folly. And therfore I may conclude, that there remaineth the sub∣staunce and nature of bread and wyne.

Here ye maie now see, how sure of his purpose Fryth maketh him selfe, by the playne testimonie of this doc∣tour.

CATH.

Ye but yet I perceiue, thou seest not, how sure I make my selfe, that he for all this, is neuer∣thelesse deceiued.

HERE.

That were to straynge. For there can be no plainer wordes for his purpose, then he doth here alledge of this doctour.

CATH.

Thou saiest wel, and therefore let vs returne to Saint Am∣brose againe. And that not onely with good remem∣braunce of what so euer I haue alledged of him vnto the already, but also with dew consideracion of this, that I shall alledge of him more vnto the now. For in the ninth chapiter of his worke intituled De his qui mi∣sterijs initiantur, where he maketh a comparison bee∣twene the blessed body of Christe in the sacramente, and the shadowes and figures therof in the ould law, he hath euen these woordes.

Potior etenim lux quā vmbra, veritas {quam} figura, cor∣pus authoris quam Manna de coelo. Forte dicas. Ali∣ud video. Quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi corpus accipiam? Et hoc nobis adhuc superest, vt probemus.

That is to say.

Better is the light then the shadow, better is the trewth then the fygure, better is the body of the maker, then the Manna from heauen. Peraduenture thou woldest say, I see an other thynge. How affirmest thou to me, that I receiue the body of Christe? That doth yet remaine for vs to proue.

And now therfore take thou good heede, because for

his profe therof, these be part of his woordes.

Probemus hoc non esse quod natura formauit, sed quod Benedictio consecrauit. Maiorem{que} vim esse Be∣nedictionis, quam naturae. Quia Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur.

That is to saie.

Let vs proue this not to be that, whiche nature hath for∣med, but that, whiche benediction hath consecrated. And that the power of benediction, is more then the power of nature. For thorow benediction also nature it selfe is chaynged.

Whiche thinges he proueth by no lesse then manifest example of holy scripture, saiyng.

Virgam tenebat Moyses, proiecit eam & facta est ser∣pens. Rursus apprehendit caudam Serpentis & in vir∣gae naturam reuertitur. Vides igitur prophetica gra∣tia, bis mutatam esse naturam & serpentis & virgae.

That is to say.

Moyses had a rodde. He dyd cast it foorth, and it was made a serpente. He tooke the serpente by the tayle, and it was turned into the nature of the rodde agayne. Therefore thou seest the nature, both of the Serpent, and also of the rodde, by the prophetical grace, to be twise chaynged.

Now after this example of the scripture and diuers other mo, he hath also these woordes.

Aduertimus igitur maioris esse virtutis gratiam, quam naturam. Et adhuc tamen propheticae Benedi∣ctionis numeramus gratiam, Quod si tantum valuit humana Benedictio vt naturam conuerteret, Quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina, vbi verba ipsa domini Saluatoris operantur? Nam sacramentum istud quod accipis, Christi sermone conficitur.

Quod si tantum valuit Sermo Heliae, vt ignem de

coelo deponeret, Non valebit Christi sermo vt species mutet elementorum? De totius Mundi operibus legisti. quia ipse dixit & facta sunt, Ipse mandauit & creatasunt. Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihi∣lo facere quod non erat, Non potest ea quae sunt, in id mutare quod non erant? Non enim minus est, nouas, rebus dare, quam mutare naturas.

That is to saie.

Therefore we perceiue grace to be of more power then na∣ture. And yet hytherto we recken the grace of the prophe∣ticall benediction. wherin, if mannes benediction was so stronge, that it did chainge nature, what say we of the di∣uine consecracion it selfe, where the selfe same woordes of our Lorde and Sauiour doth worke? For this sacra∣ment whiche thou doest receiue, is made by the worde of Christ. For if the woorde of Helias was so stronge, that it brought doune fyre from heauen, shall not the woorde of Christe be so stronge, that it maie chaynge kyndes of e∣lementes? Thou haste redde of the woorkes of the whole worlde, that he spake the woord, and they were made, he commaunded, and they were create.

Therefore can not the woord of Christe, which was a∣ble to make that of nothinge, which was not, chainge those thinges that are, into that which they were not? For it is not lesse, to geue new natures to thinges, then it is to chaynge them.

Here thow hast now herde, what Saint Ambrose saith. And therfore I wolde fayne know of Frith, how he wold ioyne that saiynge of Gelasius, and these of Saint Am∣brose together?

HER.

How can they be ioyned toge∣ther, when they be cleane contrary? for gelasi{us} both say.

That it seaseth not to be the substaunce or nature of bread and wyne, but they continew in the propertee of their owne nature.

And Saint ambrose doth say.

That thorow benediction the nature is chaunged. And thorow cansecracion, there is made of the breade, the fleshe of Christe. And thorow the operacion of Christes woordes, there is made of the wine and water, the blood which redemed the people.

And so after him, there remaineth no substannce nor nature of bread and wyne at all. But after Gelasius there remaineth both. Wherfore these two doctours be directly one against another.

CATH.

And doest thou beleue, that they be so in dede?

HERE.

It is so plain, I can not choose.

CATH.

Then is Frith not onely therein against the, but also against him selfe to. For thou knowest (as I tolde the before) that he doth in these woordes aske this question.

Who wolde once surmise that Saint Austen dissented in this great matter from the other faithfull fathers, or they from him?

As who say no man wolde so surmise. And therefore if none of them, in this great matter, dissented from S. Austen, nor he from them, It foloweth thereof, that none of them, dissented from other. If none of them dissen∣ted from other, and Gelasius one of them in deede, as Frith him selfe doth take him to be, then doth Saint Am∣brose and Gelasius by Frithes owne saiynge agree to¦gether well enough. Therefore if Saint Ambrose and Gelasius do agree together well enough, why doth not Frith in this great matter, beleue them both, that is to say as wel saint ambrose in these places which I haue recited, as he doth gelasius in that place, which he doth recite?

HERE.

It were but reason, if they did agree together in deede, but plaine it is they do not so.

CAT.

Then Frith doth lie. For by his owne saiyng they do

agree for all that.

CATH.

If they do not, how come this to passe, that none of them bothe, in all this longe tyme, from their daies hytherto, hath bene touched with any sclaunder or note of heresy? Frith scaped not so, but was quickly taken for an heretyke, as he was moste woorthy. Therefore if they had dissented in this great matter one from an other (as Frith doth say, they did not) there is no doubt, but one of them both, had bene an heretyke in dede, and coulde not haue scaped away withall, thus longe in the Churche of Christe, without the worthy infamie and note therof.

HERE.

Yes sir well enoughe. For in this case, there is no matter of heresie at all. For Frith saith, there is no man bounde to beleue it vnder peyne of damnacion.

CATH.

Al∣though I toulde the enough of that saiynge of his, euen yester day, yet now therin, marke his lacke, of witte, learnyng, or grace, or els rather of al thre. For here thou hast herd, how he calleth it, and cōfesseth it to be a great matter.

HERE.

That is trew.

CATH.

And I tould the yester day, how and where, he calleth it an article of our faith.

HER.

Ye but none of our crede, he saith.

CATH.

Yet an article of our faith he confesseth it to be for all that. And therfore when he dooth con∣fesse it to be, not onelie an article, but also a great mat∣ter, what other thinge therin dooth he, but (althoughe vnwares to hym selfe) confesse it to be a great article of our fayth. For the article can not be small, and the matter thereof great. And therefore if it be a great article of our fayth (as it is in deede) wherein dooth heresy consist, if it be not, in the not beleuynge thereof? And who denieth it to be a damnable faut, not to beleue

a great article of our fayth, but such a great heretike, or the very same that Frith was in deede? when the not beleuynge, of the least article therof, is enough to make an heretike with all. Wherfore this maist thou see what wit, learnynge, or grace was in Frythes head, that wolde say they dooe agree, and dissent not one from an other (as they do not in deede) and yet houlde not so muche with the one, as he doth directly agaynste the other, that is to say, not so muche with Gelasius, as a∣gainst holy Saint Ambrose.

Cap. 45.

HERE.

Syr I pray you let that passe. And to this, that (as I perceiue) you do take these two doctours, S. Ambrose and Gelasius, not to dis∣sent one from an other, but very well to agree together, wherat I meruayle, their wordes being so contrary as they are.

CAT.

Of their agrement I haue no doubt. But whether they be the very words of Gelasius which Frith doth here alledge of him or no, I haue some doubt of that, because he doth not show, nor note in what place of Gelasius woorkes, we maie fynde them. But let vs graunt him the most he can aske, that they be the verye wordes of Gelasius in deede. And therefore let me see what he can gette by that?

HER.

No more but euen as the very woordes of Gelasius doth declare, whiche are playne, that

It dooth not cease to be the substance or nature of bread and wyne, but they continew in the propertee of their owne nature.

Therefore what doubt can there be, in the meaninge of

these so plaine wordes?

CATH.

Some perchaunce in this, that he saith, it ceaseth not to be the substance or na∣ture of bread and wyne. He saith not the substance and nature, but the substaunce or nature, As doubtynge whiche of them both he myght best say. And therfore it is incertaine to Frith, whiche of them both he ment.

HERE.

That is not so. For there is no doubt, but Ge∣lasius ment as well the one as the other, and referreth to vs, the libertee of vnderstanding or taking of whiche we lyst, because although they be two wordes, yet they are both of one signification.

CATH.

They are some tyme confounded (thou maist say) and taken one for an other, But yet not bothe of one proper signifycacyen for all that. For substaunce perteyneth properly to the pryncipall beynge of a body, makyng it to be the same that it is. And nature, althoughe it bee some tyme taken more generally or largely for the whole thinge, yet commonly it perteyneth but to the accidentall qualitees, and propertees thereof, declarynge it to bee rather suche as it is, then what it is. There∣fore if Fryth saye, that Gelasius ment both substance and nature, that I maie well denie, because his woordes be disiunctiuelie spoken, of the one, or the other.

HER.

Yet maie we then choose, and take which of them we will.

CAT.

Which shall that be?

HER.

Substaunce.

CATH.

Nay not so. For thereof Ge∣lasius maketh a restraynt him selfe, if thou marke it well. For when he dooth say, They continew in the pro∣pertee of their nature, he sayth not, in the propertee of their substaunce. Whiche had bene as much to saye, as in the propertee of their chiefe and principall beynge,

For of the substaunce euery thynge that is a body, (as breadde and also wyne is) hath his nominacion. Ther∣fore he saith not in the propertee of their substaunce.

But in the propertee of their nature, as of a lesse be∣ynge then of substaunce. And yet euen therein, this is also to be noted to, that he sayth not in their nature, but in the propertee of their nature. For nature and the propertee of nature, is not without a difference, as it is well proued by this, that the one procedeth and is sayde of the other. For the propertee of nature, is but the operacion of it accordynge to the same.

Whereof nature is some tyme letted by one occasion or other. And yet then, althoughe it be so put or let from the proper operacion thereof, it is neuerthelesse nature styll for all that. And therefore Gelasius, to amende or qualyfye, his woordes of substaunce or nature, and to auoyde all synyster vnderstandynge therof, doth adde vnto them and saye, They continew in the propertee of their nature. As he mighte saie, I do not meane the verye substaunce or nature it selfe, but the naturall quantitees, qualitees, and proper∣tees thereof. Wherefore, if he had ment (as Frith dooth take him to meane) the very substaunce or na∣ture it selfe of breadde and wyne styll to remayne in deede, it had beene superfluous and to no pur∣pose, but rather a very folly to tell vs, (as he dooth) that they continew in the propertee of their nature.

For who doeth not know, that all substanciall and naturall thinges, for the tyme of their beyng, do conty∣new in the propertee of theyr nature? Therefore, Gelasius was to wyse, and to well learned, to

teache vs that, for a speciall or a necessary lesson, whych euery man knoweth alredy.

HERE.

Why euery man doeth know, that they contynew in the properte of theyr nature.

CATH.

Ye but euery man doeth not knowe that they so do, wythout their owne proper substance.

And that is the cause, why Gelasius doeth so say therof as he doeth. For els he should speake it wythout cause or any neede at all. And that he wolde not do. For yf he had thought or ment, that the very substance or na∣ture it selfe, of breade and wyne, had therin contynued styll, he wolde not haue sayde they contynew in the pro∣pertee of theyr nature, whiche euery man knoweth, but he wolde haue sayde they contynew in the verytee of theyr substance, because the contrary therof, is wel and trewly beleued. For therin lyeth all the doubt or que∣stion if anie be. In so muche, that when it is hearde, that the substance or nature of a thynge doeth cease to be, it is thought, by and by, that the propertee thereof doeth cease wythall, because in the common course of thinges, it doeth so in deed. This same thought therfore, did Gelasius intende to helpe, when he sayth, they conty∣new in the propertie of their nature. As who saye, al∣thoughe theyr proper substance and nature be chaynged yet they continew in the propertee of theyr nature for al that, and in nothing els, as the trewth is, they do not in deede. Agayne of the other syde, when it is hearde, that the propertee of nature in any thynge, doeth holde and contynew, it is thought streyght way, that the sub∣staunce and nature of the thynge, doeth also contynew likewise. Wherefore that same thought, dyd Saynt Ambrose purpose to helpe, when and where he doeth

say, that.

Thorow benediction the nature is chaynged. And thorow the consecration, ther 〈◊〉〈◊〉 made of the breade, the fleshe of Christe. And thorow the operation of Christes wordes, there is made of the wyne and water, the bloud whyche redemed the people. And as our Lorde Iesus Chryste is the very sonne of God, so it is very fleshe (as he sayth him selfe) whiche we receaue.

Here thou mayst playnlie perceyue, according to the agrement of these two doctours, how the one defendeth the other. For who so euer wolde take and gather of S. Ambrose, that there doeth not remayne the naturall propertee of breade and wyne, because he speaketh so playne of the alteration and chaynge of the substance or nature therof, Gelasius doeth directly for hym answer and say, they contynew in the popertee of theyr nature. That is to say, the propertee of theyr nature doeth contynew styll, althoughe the substance or nature it selfe be chaynged. And who so euer wolde, for this sayinge, take and gather of Gelasius (as Fryth doth) that there remayneth the very substance or nature of breade and wyne styll, because he speaketh so playne, of the continewance of the naturall propertee thereof, Saynt Ambrose doeth in that behalfe, directlie answer and say, that.

Thorow benediction the nature is chaynged. And by con∣secration there is made of the breade, the fleshe of Christ, and so foorth.

Wherfore, by thys it doeth moste clerely appere, that Frithe was not deceaued in that he sayeth, these fayth∣full fathers dyssented not one from an other, but well and trewlie agreed together. But how therefore,

doeth he agree with him selfe, in this that he so sayeth, and yet aloweth not so muche the sayinge of the one, as he dooeth vtterlye deny the sayinge of the other? when dyrectelie agaynst Saynt Ambrose he doeth say, there remayneth the substaunce and nature of bread and wyne. Who can be more agaynst hym, then he is herein agaynst hym selfe? He holdeth wyth the saying of Gelasius, but not with the saying of Saynt Ambrose. And yet doeth holde, that they dissent not one from an other. Haste thou hearde of any man, that euer framed hys thynges together after this sorte?

HER.

Why say you that he holdeth not with Saynt am∣brose? If he helde not with hym, he wolde not alledge him so often as he doeth.

CATHOLI.

Thou sayest well. For euen so he holdeth wyth Saynt Ambrose, as he doeth (for all hys sayinge) wyth Gelasius.

That is to say, wyth none of them boeth. For it is two thinges for hym, to holde with them, and to holde wyth his owne false vnderstandinge of them, as he, thou, and manie other doeth. For yf he sought in them anie thinge els but that, he wolde not (as he did) pyke out onlie suche places, as be to the simple reader darke and obscure, but wolde haue set foorthe as well suche o∣ther places, as are cleare and out of all question, and not omitte or rather hyed them (as I tolde thee before) euen purposly to deceue.

HERE.

How should he set foorthe such playne places of them, as ye speake of, when parchaunce he neuer saw them?

CATH.

Nay thou shalt not excuse hym so. For in the .81. leafe of hys booke, his wordes are these.

Of this (sayeth he) springeth the maner of speakynges,

that the olde fathers do sometime vse. whiche at the fyrst syght, myght seme contrary to our sentence. But yf they be well pondered, it may soone be seen, how they should be taken.

Now tell me, how coulde he (as here he doeth) make mention of that maner of their speakynges, whyche (as he confesseth) mought seme contrary to hys sentence, if he had not seen them? And hauinge seen them, what is the cause, that he bringeth foorthe none of them, to let vs see, how they do but seeme contrary to hys sen∣tence, and may be otherwyse taken? Is there any cause why, but that he knew, they wolde make cleane agaynst him, sythe hys owne wordes declare no lesse, but at the least, they seme so to do? Therefore in auoydinge of all doubt, why doeth he not bringe foorthe some of them, that we might see, how they seeme, and how he wolde proue that they do no more but so?

HERE.

Marry syr he doeth euen immediatly folowinge show ye how, and that in these wordes.

Many tymes (sayeth he) when they speake of the Sacra∣ment and outwarde eatinge, they applie vnto the Sacra∣ment and outwarde eatinge, the fruite and conditions of the inwarde eatinge and thynge it selfe. Because, that in a faythfull man, they are so ioyntly ioyned, that the one is neuer without the other.

Lo here he doeth tel, how that maner of speakinges and sayinges of the olde fathers, are in those places, to be taken and vnderstande.

CATH.

In what places?

HERE.

In those, where their sayinges might seme (as he sayeth) to be contrary to hys sentence.

CATH.

What be those sayinges?

HERE.

That shall not skyl, for here he hath showed you how they should be taken.

CATH.

Hast thou heard of any man so mad, so foolishe,

or rather so false, that wolde make an exposition, vpon no special recitall of any sayinge? where are the wordes of those olde fathers? where shall we finde that maner of theyr speakynges? where or whiche are the places wherin they make this application that he speaketh of? He telleth vs not that. But maketh vs an exposition, we see not whereof. He sendeth vs foorthe, and will not tell vs wether. How shall we trie his sayinge, or herein make him answer?

HERE.

That is no matter, for be requyreth none.

CATH.

Thou sayest euen trew. For so that his sayinge might be allowed, he wolde aske no more. But full well did he know, that if he had alled¦ged those playne places or anie of them, thys false glose of his, coulde haue done him no seruise. And therefore he thought it better for hys purpose, to reporte them as he liste, then with any iuste recitall of theyr owne wordes, to let them reporte them selues. Wherfore yf thou wilt thy selfe, thou mayest now, easely perceyue, the cause why he bringeth not foorth, those manifest and playne places of the olde Fathers, as he doeth the o∣ther obscure, whiche he doeth so falsly handel, as I haue declared vnto thee.

Cap. 46.

HERE.

Syr ye can lay no suche handlinge of Ge∣lasius wordes vnto his charge. For he maketh no maner of exposition of them, but doeth take thē euen as he fyndeth them.

CATH.

Euen as he findeth them? What is that to the purpose? for if thou go to fyn∣dinge, why did he not take the Catholike faythe, euen as

he founde it? For once he founde that well enoughe, if he wolde haue kept it. And because he wolde not kepe it, therfore he loste it. And not onely that, but also the trew vnderstanding of them, whiche dyd most parfitlie teache it. For how myght he vnderstande the very tea¦thers of trewth, when he hym selfe, was so ernestlye bent as he was, agaynst the trewthe? And for a more clere knowledge therof, thou must consider, that trewth is denied two maner of wayes. One, in the bare worde it selfe, an other, in the meanynge therof. And therfore whether the trewth of the worde and the trewth of the meaning go bothe together, or els a sonder, (as some tyme they do, and some tyme not) yet Frithe thou shalt finde vnable to be defended in any of them bothe. As when Saynt Ambrose doeth say.

Thorow benediction the nature is chaynged.

Trewth is there, bothe in the worde, and also in the meaninge. Whyche Frithe (as well in the one as in the other) doeth vtterly denie. Where he sayeth.

There remayneth the substance & nature of bread & wyne.

And agayne when Gelasius doeth say.

It ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of breade and wyne.

Trewth is there also, in the meaninge, but not in the worde, as Frithe doeth take it. For he taketh sub∣staunce there, as the logition doeth take it. And as it is one of the ten predicamentes, where it is alway ta∣ken in corporall thinges, to signifie that, whyche sustey∣neth, and is as a receptacle of naturall quantite, & qua∣lites, as heate, tolde, colour, ordor, forme, figure, or such other. For that, wherin those accidētal quātites and qua∣lites are conteyned, is (as it ought to be) after the logi∣tion,

called the substance of the thyng. And in that sense, doeth Frithe take it, wherin he was vtterlie deceaued, or willinge to deceaue. For here, it ought not so to be taken. And therfore after that sense, trewth is not here in the worde, but yet in the meanynge for all that.

For yf the worde had here bene put in that sense, there had bene no trewth in anye of them bothe. That is to say, nother in the worde, nor yet in the meanyng nother.

HERE.

Why syr, dyd Frithe amisse to take the mea∣ninge of Gelasius, accordinge to the worde?

CATH.

Why doest thou aske of me that question, sithe indede, he tooke it not so? for when the worde hath dyuerse and manie meaninges, how coulde Frith be sure to take the meaning according to the worde, before he had made it certayne, in whyche of those meanynges the worde is put? For substance, is a worde of suche a sorte, as by that, is mente some tyme one thynge and some tyme an other. In so muche, that some tyme it is taken for wordlie goodes, by reason whereof, we say of a ryche man, that he is a man of greate substance. Some tyme, when we beholde a goodly new buyldinge, we say that it is substancially done. There, substaunce is applied partlie to the strengthe of the thynge to con∣tynew, and partely to the connynge of the artificer.

Also it is some tyme taken for a certayne quantytee of stuffe, and some qualytee of workemanshyp.

As when a man commeth to a Drapers shoppe, to hye hym a Cloke or a gowne clothe, and hathe an endee of the peace turned oute vnto hym to looke vpon, he desyreth at lengthe to see the other ende of it, and when he hathe felte that in hys hande,

ye marry sayeth he, here is an other maner of substance in thys ende, then is in the other, cut me therefore that I shall haue, oute of this ende. Therefore what meaneth he, by that other maner of substance, but a more quantitee of stuffe, and some qualite of better makynge in that ende, then in the other. For the ve∣rie substance of bothe the endes, and also of the whole clothe, after the Logition, is all one. But not so after the common vse of speakynge. Agayne it is also ta∣ken sometyme, for the pythe or pryncipall parte of a tale. As when we heare a man longe aboute the vtteringe thereof, we byd hym go quicklie to the sub∣stance of the matter. Substance is not there, taken after the logition nother, but after the common spea∣che. Besyde thys, it is some tyme taken for nature it selfe, as nature is also taken for it, and that as though there were no difference betwene them. And so doeth Gelasius put it here, when he sayeth.

It ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of breade and wyne.

Meaninge indeede none of them bothe after the logi∣tion. But yet in that he doeth say, substance or nature, he putteth no difference betwene them, but (as thou say¦dest before) take whiche we list, it is all one to hym. For yf they had not beene to hym as bothe one in thys case, he wolde not haue put as he did, the one or the other. As who saye I care not whiche ye take, but he wolde haue put the one and the other, (as two distincte) or the one and not the other, (wher∣in had beene no question) or els nether of them bothe. Therefore sythe it was all one to hym, to take of them,

whiche we liste, it foloweth well, that he did not put the one, but for the other. And whiche for other, that was, his owne order of woordes doth well declare. Which is not, nature or substaunce, but substaunce or nature. He putteth substaunce before, for that which he putteth after, as an exposicion thereof. That is to say, nature. Therfore he saith substaunce or nature, as who say by substaunce I meane nothynge els but nature. For if he had put nature for substaunce, as he doth substaunce for nature, he wolde not haue ioyned vnto them these woordes, saiyng, they continew in the propertee of their nature, but he wold haue said, they cōtinew in the proper¦te of ther substāce. How be it, he wold not say so, because it had bene directly agaynst his purpose. Wherfore euen as he dooth put substaunce for nature, so in very deede, he doth put nature for the propertee of nature. And therfore as a playne exposicion of his mynde therein he doth say, they continew in the propertee of their nature. As who say therein is all the beynge they haue. For if he had thought them to haue any other, or more beynge then that, it had bene but a vayne saiynge of him, to say that they continew in the propertie of their nature, when it had bene farre better, more certaine, and playner, to say they continue in their very substaunce, or very na∣ture it selfe, which towcheth ther whole beynge, where as the propertee of their nature, toucheth but a parte of it. For the proper nature of bread and wyne it selfe, and the propertee of their nature, is two thinges. And ther∣fore Gelasius saith not, that they continew in their pro∣per nature, but in the propertee of their nature, which is lesse. And so muche of bread and wyne, we graunte

to remaine in the holy sacrament, as well after the con∣secracion as before. And yet not afterwarde, and sub∣stance or nature of bread and wyne for all that, excepte thou take nature, for the onely accidentall quantitees, qualitees, and propertees therof, as it is oft tymes vsed to be taken. Ye and somtime for the condicions and be∣hauiour of men, both good and badde. As when we see a man of a customable gentle behauiour, we say, he is a man of a gentle nature. Againe when we see a man of the contrary sorte, and alway intractable, we say he is a a man of a straynge nature, or a man of an euill na∣ture. And as some will say, I neuer saw man of that na∣ture. And yet all men are but of one nature, as nature is some way taken. Therfore when substaunce and na∣ture both, may and daily are, so diuersly vsed and taken, as they are in dede, what can Frith (for all his craakes) get of gelasius, by those words? he should first haue tried and made it certaine, how or in what sence gelasius dyd put them and what he meaneth by them. And then so to allege them with their dew exposicion accordingly. But that, because he neuer vsed to do with S. aust. nor S. am∣brose, he thought it to late to begyn it with Gelasius· For he did better like the first sound of those words after his owne minde, then he did the very meanyng of them, after gelasius mynde. Wherfore this maist thou see how very nothing Gelasius maketh for him, although they were the very woordes of Gelasius in deede. There∣fore what if they bee not his woordes? how then?

HERE.

Then some where, I must needes graunte a faute, if it were so. Now be it, I can not beleue that e∣uer Frith wolde alledge them in Gelasius name, if they were not Gelasius woordes in deede.

Cap. 47.

CATH.

Then for a farther triall thereof, I wolde wishe the to take so muche payne (which were not great) as to reade ouer that notable and worthy booke, intituled, (the assercion and defence of the sacra∣ment of the aulter) made by maister doctour Smith of Oxforde a man well known to be of great and famouse learnyng. Wherin amonge other his good and perfecte solutions, to a great sorte of Frithes hereticall obiecti∣ons, thou shalt fynde one solution concernyng this mat∣ter, in the .148. leafe of the said booke, where part of the woordes be these.

For an answere here vnto (meanyng Frithes allegacion of Gelasius) ye shall vnderstand (saith he) that this saiyng ascrybed vnto Gelasius, beynge of this sorte as it is, is neyther founde in anie of the woorkes reputed and ta∣ken for the trew and vndoubted woorkes of Gelasius, nor yet it is so redde in the sayd booke, intituled, Antidotum contra hereses, as here in this obiection it is deduced, like as it shall manifestly appere vnto the reader therof, con∣ferrynge them both together. And vndoubtedly amonges learned catholyke men, it is constantly beleued, that this saiyng of Gelasius, as it is here deduced, is falsly ascry∣bed vnto gelasius, and counterfet by the lutherians, who (for the maintenance of their false errour and naughtie o∣pinion or heresy, beyng that with the very trew body and blood of Christe, there remaineth materiall breadde and materiall wine) haue so contriued the matter, that where in all Gelasius woorkes, there can not be founde any one saiynge after this sort, they haue yet iobbed it in, in an other booke. Ye and to auoyde suspicion of falshed, and to get them the better credite, they haue put it in the sayde booke, hauynge an honeste name, beynge intytuled a tryacle or remedy agaynste heresies, thynkynge that in suche a booke, hauynge suche a title no man will

thinke that any heresies are planted at all, to be maintey∣ned in anye wyse, But that in suche a booke all ve∣ritees and catholike assertions are set forth to bee allowed. And that this is very lyke te be as I do say, it appereth in maner notoriously of it selfe, as well for that the sayde sai∣ynge, as here it is deduced, is not (as I sayde) amonges the other saiynges of Gelasius in his knowne and appro∣ued woorkes, as also for that no writer (in the sayd Gelasi∣us tyme) dyd eyther holde this opinion, so ascribed to ge∣lasius, nor yet any thynge speaketh in or for the confuta∣cion therof, which vndoubtedly they woulde haue done, in case the thynge had bene so in deede, as it is deduced and purposed for trew, semblably as they did the lyke, a∣gaynste all other errour and heresies, whiche then dyd sprynge and were sowne abrode, especially beyng of such importaunce and weyght as this is of. Moreouer this thyng by the way (good reader) maie be noted to the great confusion and shame of these falsifyers and corrupters of bookes (as Fryth is and other also of that sorte) that the saiynge of Gelasius is so here rehersed, that a plaine man wolde thinke that Gelasius had so sayde, as Fryth dooth here brynge him in, and lookyng vpon the boke intituled ANTIDOTVM, out of whiche, the saiynge of Ge∣lasius is extracted, there shall ye fynde farre otherwyse. Ye and moreouer, the thynge whiche ye shall fynde there, in the foresayde booke, it is so corrupted, that ye can not (as it is there) make any sentence of it. &c.

Now these wordes of this great learned mannes set∣tynge foorth, with the reste that folowe in the same place, if thou woldest thorowly reade, peruse, and well way them with indifferent iudgement, thou shouldest easyly perceyue, whether there be so muche as anye lykelyhood that those pretended woordes of Gelasius be Gelasius woordes in deede, or no. Therfore if they be not what doth Fryth get by them? Of the other side, if they were his woordes as Fryth doth say they be, yet

well and trewly, waied, considered and with reason vn∣derstande, thou shouldest fynde (as it doth now already appere) that they make not onely nothynge for him, but also rather, euen cleane agaynst him. Wherfore, sith (as I told the at the fyrst) that all frithes purpose in the olde holy doctours, was no more but only to get some colour of, or by such certein saiynges of theirs, as he could & did pyke out, to make it (as it were by them) seme that his vnderstandynge of those places of scripture, whiche he doth meddle with all, could not be but trew, pretending that they were to bee taken in the same onely sense that he did put them for. And againe sith it is now pro∣ued, that the chiefe of all those places of the holy fathers, whiche he did so pyke out, and moste trusted vpon, he did but falsely vnderstande after his own blinde phansy, and not after their mindes, but far otherwyse and clean contrary to their meanynges, as it hath most plainly a∣pered, euen by the testimony of their owne saiynges, which I haue trewly recited vnto the, what folowth her∣of but this? if his vnderstanding of those places of scrip∣ture be trew, thers is false. if theirs be trew, his is false. And whiche shall we take? for both, we can not they be so contrary. Therefore because their vnderstandyng thereof, is well knowne to be so trew, that euen he him selfe nother did nor durste deny it, and his vnderstan∣dyng so false, that all the colour and craft he could set apon it, is not able to defend nor hide it, who is so blind, weywarde, and wylfull, as, notwithstandynge al this, will yet trust or beleue him? any other but suche, as passeth not muche, whether they go to god or the diuel? wherefore, if the dew consideracion hereof, be not e∣noughe

to a certayne thee, that he was but a false and a wicked teacher of errour and Heresye, it shalbe e∣noughe to a certen me, that thou arte but a man in∣tractable, and full of insatiabilite. And therfore more of me now, thou gettest not at thys time.

HERE.

Yes syr a litle, I pray you. For what say you to hys natu∣rall reasons, whiche ye haue reported to be nothynge worthe, and promised to proue the same? Therefore I wolde fayne here, what ye wolde say to some of them eare we parte.

CATH.

I maruel that euer thou wilt require, looke after, or regarde anye reasons of hys, whome thou haste seene proued so false and foo∣lishe as he was. For thou hast now hearde to ma∣nie good reasons agaynst him, to thynke that anye of hys, can make wyth him. For verie reason thou mayest well knowe, can neuer be agaynst it selfe.

Nor anie one of that sorte agaynst an other, be they neuer so manie. And therefore the manyfest trewth of those reasons, whiche thou haste hearde agaynst hym all redy, myght make thee sure, that none of hys can holde, althoughe they seeme neuer so muche to the contrarie.

HERE.

Ye but syr, ye must an∣swer them otherwyse then so, or els can not I be con¦tente. For hys reasons, I may say to you, wor∣keth more in my head, then all that euer he sayeth besyde.

CATH.

Then must thou take a new daye, for I wyll tarry no longer aboute that mat∣ter nowe.

HERE.

Then what say you to thys, that ye haue loste a greate peece of the labour, whiche ye haue taken at thys tyme alredy.

CATH.

Although in thee, I feare the same, yet I wolde haue thee tell

me, how or wherein.

HERE.

In that ye haue so spiced your talke, wyth suche obscure wordes and straynge termes at many tymes, y^t I cannot tell what ye meane by them.

CATH.

Why diddest thou not tell me so then, when I dyd speake them and was in hande wyth them?

HERE.

I thought I wolde not let your purpose so muche, but wolde and did rather her∣ken, whervpon ye wolde rest in the ende.

CATH.

Then, why fyndest thou more faute with any obscuritee or strayngenesse of my wordes, then thou doest wyth any of Frithes wordes? for he vseth as straynge wordes as I do, and more straynge to. For in the .42. leafe of hys booke, thus he sayeth.

What neede he (meanynge Saint Austen) to make these, woordes and Antithesies, but because. &c.

Now what vnderstandest thou by thys worde antithe∣sies? Canst thou tell what it meaneth?

And agayne in the .52. leafe, where also he sayeth.

It must be, Ratione porositatis vt in igne & ferro, nam penetrationem dimentionum nunquam probabit.

This, he doth not so muche, as expresse, or turne into englyshe. how be it that was perchaunce because his ig∣norant disciples should thinke him the greater clarke. for some there be, that, the lesse they vnderstand of what so euer they heare, the better lerned iudge they him, which is the speker. But notwithstanding, if he had put foorth the very englishe of it, as it had bene his parte to do, sith he wryteth in Englishe, yet how muche shouldest thou haue bene the wyser for that?

HER.

Euen so muche as the vnderstandyng of that commeth to. For then I should haue known what he meaneth by it.

CAT.

that will I see streight way. For the englishe of it is this.

It must be (sayeth he) by reason of porsfite, as in fyet and yron, for penetration of dementions he shall neuer proue.

Now tell me what he meaneth by it?

HERE.

That coulde I soone doo, yf it were not for a worde or two.

CATHOLI.

why for that worde or two, but because thou doest not vnderstande them? And why doest thou not vnderstande them, but because they be to thee, obscure and straynge as euery thinge is to him that knoweth it not. And therefore sythe he v∣seth wordes and termes, more obscure and straynge then I do, how come this to passe, that thou cannest not as well away with the obscurite and strayngenesse of my talke full of trewth, as thou cannest wyth the abscurite and straygenes of hys talke, full of errour and falshed? Wherein thys augmenteth my maruell greatlie, that euer thou woldest be so lyght and so rashe as to chaynge thy faythe in so weyghty a matter as thys is, beynge not able (as thou arte not, by thine owne say∣inge) to vnderstande suche conuenient and necessary talke therof, as it requireth vpon suche occasion, as Frythe and other Heretikes hath giuen vnto it. Where∣fore in those poyntes, whyche thou art ignorant of, trust nother thy selfe, nor yet those, whiche are as blynde as thou arte, or as false as Frithe was. But consulte wyth suche as can skyll, and be of good wyll, for at theyr handes thou shalt be sure of nothynge but trewth. And now get thee hence I pray thee, for I haue some what els to doo.

HERE.

Then syr, when shall I come vnto you agayne to here what ye can say to Frythes reasons?

CATHOLICVS.

Come to me when thou wylt.

HERE.

To morrow by eyght

of the cloke?

CATH.

Content.

HERE.

Then I wyll say no more at thys tyme, but God be wyth you.

CATH.

Farewell.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Galat. 1.
• * 1.2

  1. cor. 10
• * 1.3

  1. cor. 10
• * 1.4

  Iohn̄. 15
• * 1.5

  Aug. 3. li. doct. christia∣na.
• * 1.6

  Iohn̄. 6
• * 1.7

  Luc. 14.
• * 1.8

  Luc. 24 Iohn̄. 20 Mat. 17.
• * 1.9

  Psal. 92.
• * 1.10

  Luc. 24
• * 1.11

  Mar. 8,
• * 1.12

  Luc. 9,
• * 1.13

  1. cor. 15
• * 1.14

  2. cor. ••
• * 1.15

  ••. cor. 15
• * 1.16

  1, cor. 2
• * 1.17

  Ex. 34.3. re. 19.
• * 1.18

  2. cor. 5, 1. cor. 15
• * 1.19

  Iohn. 5
• * 1.20

  Iohn. 6.
• * 1.21

  ••po. 2.21
• * 1.22

  Cor. 15.
• * 1.23

  Iohn. 6
• * 1.24

  Iohn. 8.
• * 1.25

  2. cor. 5.
• * 1.26

  2. cor. 5,
• * 1.27

  2. cor. 5
• * 1.28

  Phili. 3,
• * 1.29

  Sermo .1••. de verbis domini
• * 1.30

  Iohn. 2.
• * 1.31

  1. cor. 11.
• * 1.32

  August sermo. 46. de verbis. domini
• * 1.33

  Iohn̄. 6.
• * 1.34

  Cipri. Serm. de caena domini