A PLAIN DEMONSTRATION OF JOHN Frithes lack of wit and learning in his understanding of holy Scripture, and of the old holy doctors, in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, Newly set forth by John Gwynneth Clerk. ♣ LONDINI. 1557. Qui cupit Haeretici, nunc scirc Sophismata Frythi, Plebs, quibus, est miris ludificata modis. Commonstrat Gwinneth tibi Clericus, ecce johannes, Isto quem fecit Codice mart suo. In quo se multum videas sumpsisse laboris Praesertim, quem nunc cana senecta premit. Poenitet haud tanti, tamen, ipsum omnino laboris, Se tibi fructiferum, si modo percipiat. The Prologue. GOOD Christian readers, where as of late, in the beginning of my writing against Frithes book, I promised this order. first to set forth by itself, what manner of state it is, wherein an Heretic leadeth his life. Secondarily, what manner of foundation it is, that Frithe bildeth his wicked purpose upon. Thirdly, how falsely he doth understand, not only the holy scripture, but also the old holy Fathers, and ancient Doctors of the Catholic church. Fourthly how crafty, false, and foolish, his reasons, and arguments are to be found, if they be well and truly tried. Fiftly, what is to be said against his opinion, that one body cannot be in two places at once. sixtly, that the possibility thereof, may be proved by very good reason. Ye shall understand, that of this division, the first and second part, I have performed and put forth all ready, although but rudely and not in all points even as I would, if my haste to the rest, had not been the greater. But yet sufficiently, and even more then enough, to show the due prouse of so much as I thereby did intend. And now therefore, here doth follow the third part, for which, I dispatched my hands with the more quicker speed of the other two paste. And that not with out cause. For in this consisteth the very chief pith of my principal purpose in all the rest. Which is to make his false understanding of the old holy Doctors and 〈◊〉 true meanings plainly to appear. And therefore I wish, all those in especial, which hath most need thereof, to look well, and wisely upon it. And therein to have no respect unto me, nor yet to any pain or labour bestowed of my part in that behalf. But to have good respect only to the truth, which is and may clearly be found therein. Whereof I dare say, they shall not miss, if they be of such good will, as without which, they cannot be saved. For if good will, be to us in all things so necessari, that we can nothing do rightly with out it, how much more necessary is it to be had, about the trial of truth, in so weighty and worthy a matter, as is the very real presence of the blessed body of our Saviour Christ in the holy Sacrament? For to even by the truth, of a most weighty, & worthy thing, there is always required a most pure, and perfect good will. Which is never mixed with pride, nor vain glory, never infected with disdain, nor envy, never yoked with stout stubbornness, nor obstinacy, but ever endued with meekness and humility, with due fear of God and charity, with patience and pity of man's weakness and infirmity, for only to men of that sort were, these most gracious and merciful promises made. Petite et dabitur vobis, quaerite & invenietis, pulsate & aperietur vobis. That is to say. Ask, and to you it shall be given, seek, and ye shall find, knock and it Shallbe opened unto you. And therefore what is more precious, and more expedient to be had, than the truth of this holy Sacrament? wherefore, let him take heed which hath it not. For when shall he have it, if he will not so much as ask it? when shall he find it, if he will not vouchsafe to seek it? or when shall he enter into it, if he will not knock to be let in? The door is not to be opened, but only to them that will knock. The thing is not to be found, but only of them that will seek. Neither is it to be granted, but only to them that will ask. And who doth ask for it? who doth seek after it? or who doth knock, to enter into it? In very deed, none rightly, none wisely, nor any profitably, but only those, that be of good will. Wherefore only to them (as I said) those promises were made. And therefore it is not enough, to read, to talk, or to reason, and question of the matter. But it is much more to be weighed and considered, with what manner of will, and intent, all that is done. For truth is a Lady, always of that straingenes, that she will not vouchesaufe to show her amiable face, but only to them that be of good will. For if any other by chance fortune sometime to see her, (specially there, where they have no lust or desire to meet with her) indeed unto them, for all her beautiful countenance, she giveth but a lowering look, with small occasion of any credence. And no marvel why, for those be they, of whom the Scripture doth say. Mat. 13. They see and see not, They here and here not. And that is not all for lack of knowledge, but in very deed for lack of good will. For as the common saying is. Who is so blind as he, that will not see. Therefore good will (Gentle readers) good will is it, which doth both ask and obtain, seek and find, knock and is hard, and so let in. For without that, most true it is, that nothing can speed in this kind of things. Wherefore this matter, is to be weighed, and pondered thereafter. For who doth not know, that readers there be of diverse and sundry sorts. Whereof some will soon conceive myslykinge, if they find but the matter any thing long in reading, and say, it is to tedious. How be it in very deed those be they, of whom men may say. They are soon weary of well doninge. Some other therebe which in reading, falleth straight into misliking, if they find any thing pass their under standing, saying it is very dark and to obscure. And all because, they love not in such good labour, any while to tarry or long endure. But of that, they do first, they will make the last, and so give it over. Some, if they find not the matter, set out with painted speech according to their pleasure, straight, they will say it is very gross, and but rudely done, without wit or learning, and so make that an excuse of their misliking. Some will mislike the matter, because of the writer. And some the writer, because of the matter. And some not each for other, but even indifferently both together. But what estemers, or lovers of truth shall we reckon all these, which will think it to dearly bought, with bearing the light burden of a little tediousness? or to painfully gotten, with the labouring away of a little obscurity, and darkness? or to be the less worthy good acception, for lack of some fine and curious expression? or to be regarded after the writer. And not, as it ought to be, even after the matter? what estemers (I say) or lovers of truth shall we reckon these? how unworthy of truth be they, which will other refuse it, or set the less by it, for these causes or any other like? specially in so great a matter, as this holy Sacrament is? Wherefore this much have I said, for a loving warning, and a friendly monition, only to them, which hath need thereof. trusting, that when this, that followeth shall come to their reading, they will not forget this necessary warning, but well and wisely will bear it in mind, and use themselves accordingly. For otherwise, read they may, but profit they can not. And therefore now good Christian readers, because no man is, or can be herein, sufficient of himself, but as the holy Apostle doth say. ¶ Our sufficiency is of God, I wish unto you, 2. Cor. 3 as even to myself, the perpetual succour and help of that holy Spirit, which is the worker and merciful giver of every good will. To whom with the Father, and the Son, be honour and glory now and ever. Amen. ☞ ♣ IT is to be noted that where I do not recite the words of Frith, nor any of his allegations, but that I show in what leaf of his book, the reader may find it, ye shall understand, that I mean it of his book which is of the first print, bearing date Anno Domini 1533. for his book of any other later print (which I have heard of and not seen) may chance to vary from the first, in the numbered of leaves. And so by reason of that, it might peradventure be thought, that other (I say) not truly of him, or else of the places, where I report him to say, as he doth. In avoiding whereof I have thought it good to give this knowledge thereof before. The arguments of the chapters. THE cause, why Frith doth allege the old holy doctors, and specially Saint Austen. Cap. 2. That his false understanding of Saint Austene proved, is full proof enough against him, in all the rest of the old holy fathers beside, and of the scripture also. Cap. 3. How Fryth doth handle this text, This is my body: and Saint Austen upon the same. Cap. 4. & 5. How Frith behaveth himself in his allegation of Saint Austen writing against Adamantus. Cap. 6. What Frithe concludeth of the Sacrament, and what he maketh of Christ. Cap. 7. How frith lieth upon the plain literal sense of Scripture. Cap. 8. How Frithe under pretence of Englishinge Saint Austin's words, doth therein falsely expound them for his own purpose. Cap. 9 How he lieth upon saint Austene? and what an argument he maketh between this word, eat, and this text, This is my body. Cap. 10. That this text, This is my body, hath a literal sense proved by Saint Austen directly against Frithes purpose. Cap. 11. How falsely Frithe doth understand this that saint Austen saith, Christ bore himself in his own hands after a certain manner, and what a certain manner is. Cap. 12. &, 13. How Frith pretendeth to believe Saint Austen, and yet believeth him not in deed. Cap. 14. Of the good and perfect agreement of the words of Saint Austen, where he saith, ye shall not eat this body that ye see, nor drink that blood which they that crucify me shall shed out. And where he saith, Christ hath given us the same flesh to eat, wherein he walked here in earth. Cap. 15.16. How directly Frithe in apert words is against Christ. Cap. 17. How Frith deceived himself in this text, what if ye see the son of man ascending thither where he was before: and how he belieth Saint Austen upon the same. Cap. 18. What a part Frithe playeth with Saint Austen in understanding of this text, The flesh profiteth nothing. Ca 19 That Frithe gathered out of the old Father's sayings, not their meanings, but his own foolish dremynges, whereby he deceived himself and other also. Ca 20 What the spiritual understanding of this matter is. And that Frithe understood it not. Cap. 21.22. That it is not even properly spoken to say, that Christ hath now a natural body or natural flesh. Cap. 23. What spiritual understanding is, after the mind of Chrisostome. Cap. 24 He that understandeth Christ's flesh to be immortal, and understandeth nothing in it to the contrary, understandeth it Spiritually. Cap. 25. That those which are and shallbe dampened in Hell and so continue for ever, can not for all that, be truly & properly called immortal. Cap. 26 That there is nothing now in Christ's body, that may be so understand, as it is now in our bodies, or was in his, before his resurrection. Cap. 27. &. 28. How falsely Frithe doth understand those places of S. Austen, which he doth allege out of his work. De Civitate dei, libro. 21. Cap. 25. and out of his sermon (as Frithe doth note it) De sacra feria Pasche. Cap. 29. &. 30 How many manner of ways the blessed body of Christ is eaten. And whether it may be properly said, to be any way eaten corporally or not. Cap. 31 Of the difference that is betewne Corpus & Corporale, That is to say, between a body and a bodily thing or pertaining to a body. Cap. 32. That the Sacrament in respect of itself, is not corpus, that is to say, not a body, and yet it is corporal. And that there is no such corporalite in Christ's body now, as is in ours. Cap. 33 That although the blessed body of Christ, be of good Catholic men, for diverse good causes, called corporal and natural, yet it is not properly so, but supernatural and super corporal. Cap. 34 Whether the quantity of Christ's body now, be such as ours is, or whether he hath his quantity thereof, as we have ours or no. Cap. 35. &. 36 That Frithe doth not allege Saint Austen upon certain texts of Scripture even there, where he goeth even purposely upon them, but taketh him in other places, where he toucheth but part of the sense, to confirm thereby such other matter as he hath in hand. And the cause why, that Frithe doth use him so. Cap. 37. The cause why, that Saint Austen doth some time write more obscurely to us, than he doth to heretics. Cap. 38 That, not only the very real eating of Christ's blessed body in the holy Sacrament, which is general, but also the spiritual eating of it which is special, is proved by Saint Austen. Cap. 39 That Frithe by Saint Austen is convinced in this, that he would have none other eating of Christ's very body but only spiritual, which he meaneth to be nothing else in effect, but only to believe that Christ died for us. Cap. 40. &. 41. That if Frithes faith were true, the ordinance of man in the Rood, should be better than the ordinance of christ in the Sacrament. Cap. 42. What a false part Frithe playeth with Saint Ambrose, and of the cause why. And what he saith of Belasius. Cap. 43. &. 44. What false dissimulation Frithe useth in the sayings of the old holy fathers. And how directly he is therein against himself. Cap. 45 That this word substance, and also this word nature, are taken and used each of them very diversly. Cap. 46. The faults escaped in the prynting apeereth in the later end of the book. A DEMONSTRATION. HERETICUS. O sir, who could have made me believe, that ye would have served me after this sort? CATHOLICUS. Why what is the matter? HERALD Is this to morrow? CATH. No, this is to day. HERE. Tush, will ye be there? ye wots what I mean well enough. For did ye not promise me at our last parting (after ye had declared your mind upon that part of john Frithes book which he calleth his foundation) that we should here have met together again, the next morrow after? CATH. Was it Monday, Tewsdaie, or Wenesday, when I made thee that promise? HERE. Tewsdaie. CATH. And what day is this? HERE. Marry Wenesdaie. CATH. And is not Wenesday the next morrow after Tewsdaie. HERE. Ye, but I pray you sir, how many Wenesdays hath there been sense that Tewsdaie? And yet could I (from that time hitherto) never meet with you till now. CATH. Marvel not thereat. For to be short and plain, thou shalt understand, that there chanced unto me such business, immediately after our parting, that I could never have time connenient, to discharge myself of that promise till now. And therefore even now am I come, only for that purpose and nothing else. Wherefore, if thou take this Wenesday, even as the next morrow after that Tuesday, it is no great matter, for all shallbe one in the reckenydge, sith I will perform now, no less than I promised then. HERE. If ye so do, I will be very glad. For in your so doing, we shall have (as I guess) some straying talk ere we part. CATH. Thou mayest be sure of that, for the matter requireth no less. HERE. Yet first I pray you, may not a man be so bold, as to ask you, what your business hath been all this while, which hath so long kept you from the performance of your promise? CATH. Thou mayest not only ask, but also know it to, if thou wilt. HERALD Perchance I know a good part of it all ready. CATH. Thinkest thou so? HERE. Ye truly. For I dare say that your chief let, hath been about the writing of all the talk, that you and I have had together, both the first day, and also the second. CATH. How knowest thou that? HERE. By such a mean as deceiveth me not, for wots ye what? CATH. What? HERE. In very deed, it is now in print, & abroad in many men's hands. CATH. What is it? HERE. Even as I tell you. CATH. And what of that? HERE. Nothing else, but as I told you at the first, that if would displease a great sort, if it came to their hearing, as it doth now in deed. CATH. And did not I then tell the again, that it could displease none, but only such, as would other keep their grief thereof secretly to themselves, or else in their disclosing thereof unto other, show them selves what they be. HERE. Ye but yet for all that, it goeth farther than so. For beside those, whom ye mean, it doth not please some other, which are (as ye count them) even both wise, and also learned. CATH. That may chance to be true, how be it, although it doth not please them, yet is it enough to me, that it doth not displease them. HERE. It must needs displease them, when it doth not please them, CATHOLICUS. That followeth not. For it is two things to displease, and to not please although they seem and be some time used and taken for both one. For not please, is properly but as it were a mean between please, and displease. As it may well apeere by the diversity of things, whereof some doth please, and therein they gender delight. And some doth displease, and therein they gender grief. And some be indifferent, and they do neither of them both, that is to say, neither please nor displease. And therefore, of that sort I take my labour to be, to them that be learned and wise. For although it be hard for them to be pleased with that, which they could do far better themselves, yet their wisdom and learning, will not suffer them to be displeased with that, which holdeth the truth, and refelleth the contrary, although not so aptly as they could frame it. Wherefore mine intention therein, was not so much, to please those of learning which be wise, and of my help hath no need, as it was to help those ignorant heads, which for lack of grace and learning both, are not so wise, and therefore of help, hath very great need. And this, those learned which be wise, doth weigh and consider well enough: Being (as always they are) more willing to set forward the truth with their good patience, then to burt or hinder it, with any dispraise or great misliking, of my simple handling thereof. And therefore tell not me of any displeasure taken with all, but only among such, as I told thee of before. HERE. Well sir, yet I would wish you, neither to do, nor say, that should displease any man. CATH. Why dost thou wish that to me, more than to an other? HERE. I wish it not only to you, but also to other like wise. CATH. And I wish unto thee, a little more wit, than to wish so to me, or to any man else. For doubtless therein, thou wishest away with the best doing, and also good saying, that ever was, or shallbe used of any man. HERE. Do I so? CATH. Thou dost no less. For who hath done or said so, that he hath therein displeased no man? I dare say, not the holy apostles, nor our Saviour Christ himself neither. Therefore thou makest herein the strangest wish, that I have herd. wherein thou dost not consider, this notable saying of the holy Apostle Saint Paul. Galat. 1. Si hominibus placerem, servus Christi non essem. That is to say, If I should please men, I should not be the servant of Christ. Therefore, who can do, speak, or write, that shall displease no man? Cap. 2. HERE. Sir I pray you let all that pass. And let me here what ye can say to the dispatch of your promise. CATH. What was that? HERET. Have you for gotten? CATH. No not so. But yet, although I have not forgotten it myself, I doubt for all that, whether thou dost so well remember it, as the truth thereof doth require. HERE. Yes sir that I do, for your saying was this, that ye could, and would prove, that john Fryth did falsely understand, both the scripture, and also the old holy Doctors to. And futhermore, that his reasons were and are, but deceivable sophistications, and nothing else. CATH. True it is. That was my saying in deed. And for the performance thereof (which is the cause of our meeting here now) thou shalt understand, that he doth not allege those holy doctors, for any thing more, then for the proof and confirmation of his own intellection, and understanding of those Scriptures, which he would have us believe, doth make for his purpose. And therefore, when I shall prove his understanding of those holy doctors to be utterly false, and far from their meaning in deed, shall not that be a sufficient proof, that other they make directly against him, or else at the least, nothing for him? And therefore if they make nothing for him, why doth he allege them? If they make against him, is not also that, even proof enough, of his false understanding of Scripture, which he would defend by them? when his saying is ye, and their meaning nay? Except thou wilt say, that he is more credible than all they, when he never thought so himself: For if he had, he would not have brought them in, for his witness as he doth. HERE. Well sir, when ye have made this proof ye spoke of, you shall then, know farther of my mind. CATH. With that am I well content. And therefore now to draw near unto it, thou must (for a more compendious brevitee of the matter) farther consider, that as he bringeth the old holy doctors for nothing so much, as (if it would be) to confirm his false understanding of Scripture, so he bringeth none of them all saving one, but to confirm his false understanding of that same one, whom he taketh only to be enough for his purpose. Wherefore if I prove him false in his understanding of that one, it must needs follow, that he is therein proved false in his understanding of all the rest. HERE. Ye but which one of them is that? CATHO. If thou wilt needs know, it is even holy Saint Austen. HERE. And how know you, that be bringeth in, all the rest of the holy doctors, only to confirm his understanding of Saint Austen? or that he understandeth Saint Austen falsely, as ye say he doth. Cap. 3. CATH. I will recite unto thee some of his own saying, and by that, thou mayest perceive how I know it. For in the 30 leaf of his book, he thinking, or feigning, that he hath his purpose proved by S. Austen, doth say these words. This were proof enough (saith he) to conclude, that all the old fathers did hold the same opinion. For who would once surmise (seeing we have S. Austen so plain for us, which is the chiefest among them all, who would once surmise (I say) that he dissented in this great matter, from the other faithful fathers, or they from him? Nevertheless, I dare not let him stand post alone, lest ye despise him. And therefore I will show you the mind of certain other also. And also of his master Saint Ambrose. etc. In these words of his, it appeareth plain, and much worthy to be noted, that he doth not only bring the old holy fathers to confirm his understanding of Saint Austen, but also that, (to fortify the same) he would have no man, so much as once surmise, that S. Austen in this great matter, dissented from other the faithful fathers, nor they from him, as I grant all that to be true in deed. But what a surmise is this of him, that (as he saith) he dare not let Saint Austen stand post alone, lest we would despise him, if he should not bring forth the mind of the other faithful fathers to defend him? where took he any occasion thus to surmise, but only of his own arrogant foolish head, to make ignorant persons believe, that this holy man S. Austen maketh clearly for him in his wicked purpose? as in the .29. leaf of his book, he boasteth in plain words, which are these, Blessed be god (saith he) which hath so clearly discussed this matter by this faithful father. Now, lest thou wouldest say or think, that this same arrogant surmise of his, proceeded not, but (as many a man doth some time speak) rashly by chance, hear him in the .24. leaf of his book, where he hath these words. Now were this enough (saith he) for a christian man that loved no contention. But because there are so many sophisters in the world, which care not what they say, so they hold not their peace, I must needs set some bulwark by this holy doctor, to help to defend him. For else they will shortly over run him (as they do me) and make him an heretic to. Therefore I will allege his master Saint Ambrose. etc. How sayst thou now? who can declare his malicious and arrogant blindness, so fully as he declareth it himself? for what a malicious blindness, is this of him, thus to surmise any need to defend Saint Austen against us, as though we would not allow him? Therefore when it may here, of his own words appear, that he bringeth not in, the rest of all those faithful fathers, for any need he hath of them, but to defend Saint Austen, whom he saith, is proof enough for his purpose because he dissenteth not from them, nor they from him, it must needs follow, that if Frithe be found false in his understanding of Saint Austen, he shallbe therein found false in his understanding of them all, and of the scripture to, when they do all agree (as he doth confess) and herein descent not one from another. Wherefore what need I, to travel about the trial of his falsehood any farther, but in Saint Austen only? Cap. 4. HERE. Ye but what bringeth he of Saint Austen that you can prove he doth not truely understand? CATH. Thou shalt soon perceive what, if thou mark where about he goeth, and what his principal purpose is. HERE. Marry sir his principal purpose is this, to prove, that Christ's very body flesh and blood, is not really, verily, and presently in the sacrament. And to begin his proof with all, his own words in the .21. leaf of his book are these. Except I bring (he sayeth) evident Scripture, which they all shall expound as I do, I desire not to be believed. This I dare say is a reasonable request. CATH. In very deed, thou sayest even truth. For it is so reasonable, that I would to God, all his followers would assent unto it, and grant him no less. But I fear that many of them, granted him such a request at the first, that they will now deny him this at the last. And therefore as touching his bringing of evident Scripture, and his exposition of the same, This that I find in the. 6. leaf of his book, is much to be noted, where his words be these. In every text (he saith) is but only one verity, for which it was spoken. And also again, in the .18. leaf he hath these words. Some texts of Scripture (he saith) are only to be understand after the letter, and some texts are only to be understand spiritually, or in the way of an allegory. And, some must be understand both literally and spiritually. Here we may first ask of him, how he will prove, that some text must be understand both literally and spiritually, if it have in it (as he saith it hath) but only one verity? for only one verity in one text, to have two sundry understandings, and both true, is very straying, and that more straying, then may well agree with reason, or truth other. Again we may ask of him also, why should any one text have any more understandings in it, than any other hath, if it have in it but only one verity, as those other hath, which he saith are only to be understand after the letter, or only spiritually? very repugnant it is, to say (as he doth) that in every text is but only one verity, for which it was spoken, and to say, some text must be understand both literally and spiritually, whereof the one understanding or the other, can not be true, if the text have in it but only one verity (as he saith) it hath. Nevertheless, upon this fantasy of his, even there doth he conclude with these words. And I say (sayeth he) that this text of scripture, This is my body, is only spiritually to be understand, & not literally. How sayest thou to this? dost thou perceive what he saith? HERE. Ye very well. Cap. 5. CATHOLICUS. Then how will he prove that this text, This is my body, is only spiritually to be understand, and not literally? HERE. Marry sir even by Saint Austen. For even there immediately following he addeth unto it these words. And that doth saint Austen (sayeth he) also confirm, which writeth unto Adamantus, and sayeth, These sentenses of Scripture, Christ was the stone, the blood is the soul, and this is my body, are figuratively to be understand, (that is to say spiritually, or by the way of an allegory) and thus have I Saint Austen wholly of my side which thing shall yet hereafter more plainly appear. How say ye now? CATH. I say this, that Frithe doth herein but report Saint Austen this to say. And doth not allege where, nor yet perchance recite Saint Austin's own words, in such order and form, as he doth speak them himself neither. Wherefore Frith is herein to be rather mistrusted, then believed. And beside that, these words which he himself doth here report of Saint Austen, doth leave this text (This is my body) so much at large, as to be understand literally, as well as figuratively. And doth not drive it to this narrow straight of only figuratively, as Frithe would wrest and wring it unto: for figuratively, and only figuratively, doth very much differ. Because, with the one, there may stand an other, but with the other, no more but itself alone. It is two things to say, that our Saviour christ is a man, and to say that he is only a man. For the one is said truly, and the other is a damnable heresy. Wherefore as he that saith Christ is to be understand a very man, and yet taketh him not therein to be only a man, nor denieth him to be very god. Even so S. Austen which doth say, that this text, This is my body, is to be understand figuratively, doth not therein say or mean it to be understand only figuratively. Nor denieth it to be understand literally. For although a thing be truly said to be so or so. Yet that draweth not with it this consequence to be only so. But Frith doth reason the matter after this sort, as if he should here a man reported, to be learned in Astronomy, he will straight conclude, that the man can no skill of Physic nor Geometry, but only of Astronomy. When for all that report, he may be, as diverse are, learned: some in two, and some in all three. Therefore of this kind of conclusions, I hope thou seest enough. Wherefore, how can Saint Austen (whom Frithe himself, doth here report, to say none otherwise of this text (This is my body) but that it is to be understand figuratively, make any thing for him, in this that he saith it is to be understand only figuratively and not literally? when the words reported of Saint Austen maketh no farther mention, but of the one, and not of the other. And yet, without putting any difference between figuratively, and only figuratively, or bringing for him any due allegation of Saint Austin's own words where, or in what order he spoke them himself, the blind arrogant fool is not here a shamed to boast and say, that he hath herein Saint Austen, wholly of his side. Who doth here nothing touch any part of his purpose. Cap. 6. HERETICUS. Sir me think ye do use him, with very ungodly terms. CATH. Not so ungodly as he is worthy. And that shall well apere ere we part. HERE. Yet where ye say, that he doth not perchance herein allege saint Austin's words in such order, as he doth speak them himself, in deed although he doth it not here, where you impute unto him that fault, yet he doth it afterward, in an other place, both in latin, and also in english. CATH. Where is that? HERE. In the 30 leaf of his book his words be these. Saint Austen saith (saith he) Non enim dominus dubitavit dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis sui. Et in eodem capite exponit. Sic est enim sanguis anima quomodo Petra erat Christus, nec tamen Petra (Ait) significabat Christum sed ait Petra erat Christus. That is to say, The Lord doubted not to say, this is my body, when he gave a sign of his body. And after in the same chapter he expoundeth it. For truly so the blood is soul, as Christ was the stone. And yet the apostle saith not, the stone did signify Christ, but he saith, the stone was Christ. CATH. Is this his allegation of Saint Austin's words? HERE. Yea sir. CATH. Properly done. For between these words of Saint Austin's, The lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave a sign of his body. And these words. So the blood is the soul, as the stone is Christ. There runneth as many words more of Saint Austin's beside, as I dare say, occupieth near hand in some book, and hundred lines. And between these words. So the blood is the soul, as the stone was Christ. And these words, Yet the Apostle saith not the stone did signify Christ, but he saith the stone was Christ. There runneth also an other number of words and sentenses likewise: so that it is not possible for any man to understand or perceive, for what purpose Saint Austene doth speak any of those sentenses, being thus put forth, as frithe doth here ch●i●e them feintly together, omitting that (as he doth) which goeth immediately before and after. And beside this, thou mayst also perceive, that these words which he joineth withal. saying. And after in the same chapter he expoundeth it. Avenone of S. Austin's words, but Frithes own words, craftily put in, to allure us to believe, that S. Austen doth expound that, which goeth before, with that, that Fryth joineth unto it after, which is this. For truly so the blood is the soul, as christ was the stone. Therefore that we may the better perceive, how well this saying, doth expound the other before (as he saith it doth) let us consider them both together, to see how well they do agree. The first is this. The lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he, gave a sign of his body. This as frithe doth say, Saint Austen doth expound in the same chapter with these words. For truly so the blood is the soul, as Christ was thee, stone. How sayest thou now? greeth not these two sayings well together? do they not well depend one of an other? yet Frith doth say, that S. Austen expoundeth the one by the other. Moreover, what is all this is to his purpose of this text, This is my body, to be understand only spiritually, and not literally, as he saith it is? furthermore I would fain know, what he himself, doth farther gather of Saint Austen in this place. HERE. It appeareth immediately following in the same leaf. CATH. What is that? HERALD His words be these. Here (saith he) Saint Austen saith plainly, that Christ called the sign of his body, his body. And in this chapter doth compare these three texts of Scripture, This is my body, The blood is the soul. And Christ was the stone. & declareth them to be on phrase, and to be expounded after one fashion. Now have you hard, what Frith gathereth of this place of S. Austen, and therefore what say you to it? CATH. I say, that S. Austen, saith not here, so plainly, that Christ called the sign of his body, his body, as Frith doth here plainly bely him in so reporting of him. For S. Austen, hath here no such words, as can be wrested unto that sense. For is it all one to say, that the lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave a sign of his body. And to say, that he called the sign of his body, his body? As if I lay my hand flat upon an heap of fine sand, saying, this is my hand, will it follow thereof, that I call the sign of my hand, my hand? which sign I make in the sand, by laying my hand thereupon? how be it this consequence is not so straying, as it is common with frith: Therefore as he lieth falsely upon S. Austen in this, so he doth likewise in the rest, for Saint Austen maketh no such comparison there, of those three texts together, nor declareth them so to be one phrase, nor to be expounded after one fashion, as Frith doth here speak of, and would have us take it. And therefore to then●●● he would not have us come by the trial of his falsehood herein, he, fearing lest it should be sought out and spied at length, provoketh us by the manner of his allegation to search for it there, where he knew right well, we might so long look after it, that we should he willing rather to let it pass, then to labour any further for it. HERE. Why say you so? CATH. Because it is so. For didst thou not thyself recite unto me right now, that Frith saith, Saint Austen doth write to Adamantus this same that he now gathereth herein for his defence? HERE. That is true. CAT. Then if Saint Austen wrote it (as Fryth saith he doth) unto Adamantus, that writing is to be found, other among Saint Austin's epistles, (where I dare say it is not) or else in some book of his, dedicat or entitled to Adamantus by name, where as in deed, there is no such neither. Therefore why may I not say, that herein he provoketh us to search & labour in vain, to the intent we should not find whereby, his falsehood might be brought to light? HERE. Sir ye take him wrong, for even there, where S. Austin's words in latin, before alleged, doth stand in Frithes book, in the margin of the fame place, is noted these words. Augustinus contra Adamantum. Whereof the english ye know well enough. CATH. That is no more to say, but Austen against Adamantus. HERE. Ye say truth. CATH. Then how frameth these two together, that this is put in the margin, Austen against Adamantus, and frith saith in the letter, Saint Austen wrote to Adamantus & for although to Adamantus, and against Adamantus, may stand together in some respect, yet so can they not do here. For S. Austen writeth not to Adamantus, but only of him, and against him. Therefore if Frith himself, did make that note in the 〈◊〉, than he greeth not with himself in the letter. If the printer did note it in the margin, to mend Firths lie thereof in the letter, why did none of them doth amend this, which Frith doth say, (And in the same chapter he expoundeth it) and telleth us not which chapter, nor yet maketh any mention thereof before neither? Had it been any great matter for Frith (if he had meant well) to have said, saint Austen in the. ●●. chapter of his book written against Adamantus, hath these, and these words and so forth? thinkest thou that Frith refused this to do, for no cause? it were not hard to find more cause than I speak of now, if a man would waste so much time about it, as needeth not: For thou hast hard enough all ready, to perceive herein part of his false wily ●e●hes; wherein he trusted, not so to be seen, as now he is, and more shallbe ere we part. Cap. 7. HERE. I wish that ye would here his conclusion hereof, before we go any farther. And then will I tell you more. CATH. what conclusion is that? HERE. Immediately after those words of his, which I last recited unto you before, he addeth unto them these. Now is there no man (saith he) so mad as to say, that Christ was a natural stone (except he be a natural fool) whose judgement we need not greatly to regard. Therefore we may well conclude that the sacrament is not his natural body: but is called his body, for a similitude that it hath, wherein it signifieth & representeth his body. And that the Sacrament of so great a thing, is called even with the name of the very thing itself. CATH. Is this his conclusion? HERE. Ye truly. CATH. Thou sayest well: for those he his words in deed. And therefore who is he, that would deny him this conclusion, being rightly understand? No man I think of any learned judgement. But what is it to his purpose of improving or disprovinge the real presence of Christ's very body in the holy Sacrament? or whereof doth this conclusion follow? of this, that he saith, there is no man so mad, as to say that Christ was a natural stone, is he so mad, as would have it follow thereof? HERE. No not so. CATH. Whereof then? HERE. He doth mean, that as Christ was called a stone, and was not a natural stone indeed, so the Sacrament is called his body, and is not his natural body indeed neither? CATH. Well, this granted, what is it to the purpose of the very presence of Christ's blessed body in the sacrament? for that is it, which he goeth about, with all he can to disprove? will it follow that Christ's blessed body is not really and verily in the Sacrament, because the Sacrament in respect of itself, is not his natural body? The question lieth upon in, or not in. And Frith concludeth upon is, or is not. As if I say, my book is in the Church, he will prove the contrary by this, that the Church, is not my book. Therefore because the church is not my book, is it not thereby well proved thinkest thou, that my book is not in the Church? because we say, as the truth is, that the very body of christ is in the sacrament, he will prove the contrary by this, that the sacrament is not his very body. Pluck out of his book, all those conclusions, that he of this fort, and trust me truely, thou shalt therein leave but few or none behind. For it is common with him, to make his assertion of one thing, and his conclusion of an other. Which is good enough, to such rash, light, wilful, and ignorant heads, as can no skill of the matter. For when they find this, (his nedlesse probation) true, that the sacrament is not the very body of Christ (as it is not indeed, in the bare respect of itself) they take what so ever he sayeth beside, to be sufficiently proved in the same. For well knew he, that the most part, are far from the knowledge and consideration of the distinction and difference, that is between the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament. Whereof the old holy Fathers doth say. Aliud est Sacramentum, & aliud res Sacramenti. That is to say. The Sacrament is one thing. And the thing of the Sacrament is an other. And therefore because the one sometime beareth the names of both, that is to say, the name of itself as it is, and also the name of the other, not as itself is, but as it is called, for good cause why, he thought, that as the Sacrament is called Christ's body, and yet is not his very body indeed, so he thought as thou saidest before, that his body is said to be therein, and yet is not verily therein indeed. Wherefore as he thought the true proof of the one, should be enough to colour his false pretended proof of the other, so with the truth of the same one, he would take away, not only the truth of the other but also our very profit of them both together. But whether he saw this much himself or no, I can not perfectly tell. But of this am I sure, that his followers seeth it not, for if they did, they would not all, (I suppose) do as they do. And therefore when he saith (as thou hast recited) that there is no man so mad, as to say, that Christ was a natural stone, except he be a natural fool, I would have them all, for the trust they have in him, tell me how much more, than a mad natural fool was he to say, that it is not damnable so to think? which is far worse, than so to say? for parchance in some case, it may sometime so be said, when in no case, at any time, it may so be thought, but most damnably. HERALD Ye but I pray you sir, where doth Fryth so say? CATH. Dost thou not know, that in the .59. leaf of his book, he speaking of his belief in the Sacrament, hath these words? The believing of this point (he sayeth) is of itself not damnable, as it is not damnable to think, that Christ is a very stone or a vine. These words thou seest are plain enough. For what difference is there between a very stone and a natural stone, but utterly none at all. And therefore what wicked wretch hath there been hard of, so cursed that ever spoke any such thing of our Saviour Christ? for what followeth thereof but this, that it is not damnable to think Christ to be worse, or not so good, as a dog? for a Dog in the due order and dignity of nature, is far better than a stone or a Vine other. For a stone hath but a bare being without any life at all, where as a vine hath so much, and a vegetable life also. But a Dog hath not only being, as well as a stone, and a vegetable life, as well as a Vine, but also a sensible life, which is far passing them both. Wherefore, except thou be of that wilful blindness, which will say, as no man else will that no life is better than life. Or a vegetable life, better than a sensible life, thou must needs grant a Dog far better than a very stone, or a vine other. Therefore what soever is thought to be a very stone or a vine, must needs be thought to be worse, or not so good as a Dog. But this wicked kaytise, saith it is not damnable, to think that christ is a very stone or a vine. Wherefore it doth, and must needs follow thereof, that it is not damnable to think that our Saviour christ is worse, or not so good as a Dog. O what a thing is this of him, but such an unspeakable cursedness, as never was, nor yet is, to be hard of, if a man might choose? But it is with him, as the Gospel doth say. Exabundantia cordis os loquitur, That to say. Of the store of the heart, the mouth doth speak. Therefore how came this into his heart, but thorough the most cruel subtle and wily blast of the father of liars, and consequently the father of all Heretics? How was it otherwise possible for him this to say, but by that mean? And yet that, not without the holy permission of God's inscrutable providence, to the great and wonderful shame of all those, that followeth this cursed kaytyves opinion. To their shame, I say, that ever they should be of such a wilful blindness, and thereby so infortunate, as to be the followers of such a damnable lying leader. And yet in this, their inevitable shame, is offered unto them (if they will take it) a wonderful occasion of obtaining the great mercy of God again. For what greater occasion of their return unto truth again, can they have or imagine, than this their notable shame of following him, whose most damnable error is so great, and also manifest, that they themselves are not able to defend, nor excuse it? It is none excuse that some of them doth make, saying that Frithe might so say in some respect. For in what respect may any man think, but dampnablie, that Christ is a very stone? Who so ever thinketh him a very stone, can therein think him no better thing. For a very stone, of him that so taketh it; can be thought no better than a very stone, of what sort or kind so ever it be. Therefore, Frithe being found the author of such a doctrine, what need we any farther trial of him, other in the holy scripture, or in the holy doctors other, when we have such a proof of him, as this, his most cursed saying is, that it is not damnable to think that Christ is a very stone or a vine? who would trust him in any thing else. Scythe we have found his falsehood so abominable in this? Cap. 8. HERE. Sir there may be more said herein for his defence than you ween. For ye find much fault with the manner of his recital of saint Austen. And yet here you recite his words after such a sort yourself, that ye will be sure to take that, where with, ye may make against him, and leave out that, which followeth and maketh for him. CAT. If that be true, I pray thee first tell me this, why may not I do so with him, as well as he doth so with Saint Austen? HERE. Where doth he so with Saint Austen? CATH. If thou dost not perceive it all ready, thou shalt see it plain enough ere we part. But first tell me where I do so with him? HERE. Marry sir in your recital of those words of his, where he sayeth. It is not damnable to think, that Christ is a very stone or a vine. For there ye leave out these words following, which he joineth unto them saying, Because the literal sense so saith. For these words doth show the cause, why he speaketh those words before. And therefore I marvel why, you recite not these, as well as the other. CATH. Because the other without these, was enough to declare, what a blind malicious Heretic he was: but yet nevertheless (sith thou goest so far) I will say now more than I said before. For this brother of liars, was so set a work by the father of liars, that where as he lied before, but upon saint Austen, for to colour the falsehood of his own purpose, now here, for a farther cloak of the same, he lieth also upon the holy Scripture, which he falsely taketh to witness. For where findeth he any literal sense, ye or mystical sense other, in all holy Scripture, that saith, it is not damnable to think that Christ is a very stone. HERALD Lo here ye misseunderstand him again, & take it far otherwise, than he doth mean, for he doth mean, that the literal sense doth say it is not damnable so to think, but he doth mean, that the literal sense doth say, that Christ is a very stone, & therefore he himself saith it is not damnable to think that Christ is so. CATH. Yet thou shalt not excuse his lie of the holy Scripture so. For where doth he find, that the literal sense doth say, Christ is a very stone? HERE. Where Paul saith. Petra autem erat Christus. That is to say. 1. cor. 10 A stone was Christ. CATH. Although there be a difference to say a stone was Christ, and to say (as Frith doth) a very stone was Christ, or Christ a very stone, yet here, why more a stone was Christ, Then the stone was Christ? HERE. That is all one. CATH. Ye among Heretics. For I think your tergiversations, be never to seek. For is it all one to say (a stone) and to say, the stone? when the one, is so general, that it may be understand of any stone. And the other so special, that it maketh relation to some certain stone, mentioned before or after? And therefore it is not all one to say. The stone was Christ and to say, A stone was Christ. For in signification (The) and (A) doth here much differ. Wherefore Frith doth falsely English the literal sense (which is) the stone was Christ, with this that he saith, a stone was Christ. 1. cor. 10 For the one maketh plain relation to the spiritual stone expressly mentioned of the Apostle himself immediately before, & so doth not the other. Moreover frithes falsehood herein resteth not thus, but goeth farther & addeth unto it this word (very) saying christ is a very stone. Putting away by that word veri, all ambiguity of sense, that might rise of this word a stone. Therefore he saying a very stone, what literal sense in the scripture can there be found, that so saith of Christ? Or what is there to be said for Frith herein, but that thou must needs confess him a very manifest liar, and that upon the literal sense of holy Scripture? HERE. Although there be no literal sense that so saith of the stone, yet the literal sense saith, even so of the Vine, saying, Iohn. 15 Ego sum vitis vaera. That is to say, I am a very vine. CATH. What maketh that for Frith? For although the literal sense be so, of the Vine, yet it is not so, of the stone. Nevertheless Frithe speaketh it of the stone, and not of the vine. For he saith. It is not damnable to think, that Christ is a very stone, or a vine. And saith not a very vine. HERE. Yet ye may there perceive by this word (or) that he meant the same word (very) of the vine, which he speaketh of the stone. CATH. Then, why doth he, but only mean it, without any expression of it, where it is. And expresseth it, so plainly, where it is not? HERE. Because it may be understand of the stone, as it is expressed of the vine. CATH. That is false. For although the literal sense doth say in the one place, a very vine, yet it neither doth, nor can say, in the other place, a very stone. HERE. Why so? CATH. Because the stone there, hath in it contained a particular respect to that, which goeth before. And so hath not the vine, which is spoken in such a generalitee, that it hath no respect to any one vine, more than to another. And therefore by this it may well appear, that falsely doth Frithe bring in, these two texts, of the stone, and the vine, to be one phrase of speech, without any difference. How be it, that doth he, only to th'intent he might there withal, wring in, this text, This is my body, to be likewise of the same fort, and of one manner of speech. Which hath from them both, a far greater difference, than they have each from other, which is not small neither, when the one can not be truly englished with this article (A) saying a stone, nor the other with this word (The) saying the vine. But in those places (A) is proper to the vine, and (the) to the stone. As the very true and perfit sense of the letter in both places, doth of necessity require. Wherefore, thus mayest thou see, how well Frith hath quit himself, in his understanding of the scripture hitherto, and of S. Austen both. Cap. 9 HERETICUS. Ye but sir, he hath not yet done, with the scripture, nor with Saint Austen neither. In so much, that for a farther proof of his understanding of this text, This is my body, he doth in the 22. leaf of his book, allege Saint Austen again, in these words. Si autem flagitium aut facinus jubere videtur, Aug. 3. li. doct. christiana. figurata locutio est. Nisi Manducaveritis (inquit) carnem filii hominis & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni dominicae esse communicandum & suaviter atque utiliter in Memoria recondendum, quod pro nobis Caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit. That is to say. When so ever the Scripture or Christ seemeth to command any foul or wicked thing, then must that text be taken figuratively, that is, it is a phrase, allegory, and manner of speaking, and must be understand spiritually, and not after the letter. Except (saith Christ) ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. He seemeth (saith S. Austen) to command a foul and a wicked thing. It is therefore a figure commanding us to be partakers of his passion, and sweetly and profitably to print in our mind, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Now have you hard his allegation of S. Austen, both in latin and also in English. CATH. Therefore thou shalt here mine allegation also of the same place of S. Austen again: and then tell me how Frithes allegation thereof and mine, both agre together. For S. Austin's words be these. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem, aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata locutio est. Nisi Manducaveritis (inquit) carnem filii hominis & sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in Vobis. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni dominicae esse communicandum & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in Memoria, quod pro nobis Caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit. That is to say. If the Scripture seem to command an evil or a wicked thing, or forbidden a profit or a good thing, it is a figurative speech. Except ye eat (he saith) the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. Therefore it is a figure commanding us to be partakers of his passion, and sweetly and profitably to print in our memory, that his flesh was crusified and wounded for us. Here thou mayest now perceive plain that Fryth hath not so many latin woordis, in his allegation of S. Austen, as I have in mine, and yet I have fewer english words in mine, than he hath in his, by a great sort. HERE. How cometh that to pass? CATH. Not without a falsehood of his part, if thou mark it well. For where these few latin words of S. Austin's, Figurata locutio est, are no more to say, but (as I have said) it is a figurative speech, Fryth doth english them after this sort, saying. Then must that text he taken figuratively, that is, it is a phrase, allegory, and manner of speaking, and must be understand spiritually and not after the letter. Hast thou hard of any true man, that would, or truly could, so turn those latin words into English as he doth? Dost thou not see, how his wily falsehood doth here, under pretence and colour of Englishinge S. Austin's words, bring in nothing else, but his own false fantastical exposition of them, to make his disciples believe and think, that Saint Austin's meaning, was but according to this, his own false feigning? what words hath Saint Austen here, that may be wrested to this, which this false liar doth say, it must be understand spiritually and not after the letter? where findeth he this same, not after the letter? therein lieth all the matter, And thereof here speaketh S. Austen nothing at all. For he saith no more, but that this text. Except ye eat the flishe of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. Is a figurative speech. And doth not say, only figurative, or not literal, as this merchant doth bear us in hand, and would make us believe that he doth. HERE. Yet sir, if it be a figuratius speech, then must it be understand figuratively. CAT. That is true. HERALD Therefore if it must he understand figuratively, than it may not be understand literally. CATH. That followeth not. For Fryth himself doth grant and say, (as I told the before) that some texts must be understand both figuratively, and also literally. And therefore why may not this, which Frith speaketh 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 up the knot with these words. This truth (saith he) thanks he to god, doth Saint Austen declare unto us. which thing beside the opening of this text, against master Woores' mind, doth plainly show, what he thought in the words of Christ's supper. Which is no more to say, but that those words may not be understand after the letter, because here, Saint Austen telleth us nothing of that matter, whether they may or not. Therefore doth not Saint Austen declare this truth unto us very well, when he speaketh nothing of it? HERE. Sir, if it might be understand, both figuratively and also literally to, S. Austen would not have made mention (as he doth) 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 therefore that is enough to him, to conclude so falsely thereof as he doth. But thou must understand, that it was not Saint Austin's mind there to speak of any of them both, that is to say, neither of the one sense, nor of the other, but as it chanced the one and & not the other, to serve his purpose for example of that he had in hand, which was to give a rule, whereby a figurative speech in the scripture might be known. And not to discuss how or whether that text might be literally understand or not. And therefore, grant this to be true, which Fryth doth here say that Saint Austen. Doth plainly show, what he thought in those words of Christ's supper. Yet it followeth not thereof, that he doth show all, that he thought therein. For it is two things to show what he thought, and to show all that he thought. HERE. Marry sir that is true, but Fryth, for the opening thereof, doth allege him again in these words. Cap. 3. CATH. Nay soft I pray thee, let us first hear what Frithe faith more of this place, which he hath here alleged all ready, before we go any farther. For he hath yet showed us almost nothing, what he gathereth of it, after his own mind, but only his false exposition thereof, brought in (as I said) under the colour of Englishing of Saint Austin's words. Therefore let me here what he saith farther of it himself, without any cloak or colour at all. HERE. That shall ye do. For immediately after this his saying, that S. Austen doth plainly show, what he thought in the words of Christ's supper, he addeth unto it these words. For sith he called it (saith Frith) a foul and a wicked thing to eat his flesh, then may you soon perceive, that he thought it as foul and as wicked a thing, to eat his body, seeing his body is flesh. And then consequently it shall follow, that other this word, eat (where Christ said, take this and eat it) must be taken spiritually, or else that this saying of Christ. This is my body, must be figuratively spoken. But this word, eat, is taken after the letter (for they did in deed eat the bread) therefore it must needs follow, that this sentence (This is my body) must be figuratively spoken. Now have you heard what he saith and gathereth of it himself. CATH. Than saiyst true. And therefore shall I need to bid thee mark his false lie, that he maketh here again of Saint Austen? For doth Saint Austen call it a fowl and a wicked thing (as this liar saith he doth, when he saith no more but that the scripture therein seemeth to command an evil or a wicked thing? Saint Austen neither calleth it so himself, nor yet doth say, that the scripture calleth it, or commandeth it so neither. He saith the scripture so mech to command such a thing. And doth not say, the scripture doth command it. But in deed to command, and seem to command, to call, and seem to call, or to be, & seem to be, is all one with Frith. As who say there is nothing otherwise then it seemeth to be, nor any thing seemeth to be, otherwise than it is. HERALD Sir ye can not avoid his argument so. CATH. His argument? what is that? HERE. Ye have hard how he doth say, that Either this word eat (which Christ said, take this & rate it) must be taken spiritually, or else that this saying of Christ, This is my body, must be figuratively spoken. But this word ●ate (saith he) is taken after the letter, for they did (he saith) eat the bread, therefore it must needs follow that this sentence (This is my body) must be figuratively spoken. CATHOLICUS. I marvel where Frith learned this kind of argument, which can bring forth such a worthy conclusion. For doth it not properly follow, that this sentence (This is my body) must be figuratively taken, because (as he saith) this word eat, is taken after the letter? And this he doth but say, without any proof at all. HERE. That is not so. For he doth prove, that this word (Eat) is taken after the letter? CATH. That is but a part of it, and yet (for all thy saying) he proveth not that nother. HERE. Yes, he proveth it by this, that (as he saith) they did eat the bread. CATH. Ye but that I deny. For without question they did eat that, which they were bid to eat, whereof, it was to them said, Take eat, This is my body, which shallbe given for you. And that was not bread, except thou wilt say, that bread was given for their redemption. And therefore, where he saith, that this word bread, is taken after the letter, And thereof would have it follow, that this sentence, This is my body must be figuratively spoken, I ask him why figuratively, more than lytterally, or why fygurativelie, and not rather literally? For if the word of eating, he taken after the letter, doth it not thereof much better follow that the words of that which is eaten, should be taken after the latter likewise? To take the word of eating, in a literal sense and therefore the words of the thing eaten, is a figurative sense is more strange than I can skill of. Yet the one (saith he) must needs follow the other. But by what reason, although no man can tell, yet to such as will needs believe him, it is good enough, although it be never so false and foolish to any man else. And therefore sith it appeareth in the .47. leaf of his book that he taketh not the eating of Christ's body, but only for the believing in him, I ask him, why may not this word (Eat) be taken spiritually, as well as this text, This is my body, be spoken figuratively? or why may not the same text be taked literally, as well as this word (Eat) be taken after the letter, sith thes be so joined together? HERE. Because there is a great difference between them. CATH. Ye that is, as Frith would have us take them, but not as our saviour Christ in the unity of sense and sentence together doth join them. For there is no doubt, but the meaning of this word Eat, and also the meaning of this same saying of Christ, This is my body, are both together of him so inseparably kint and contained in this one sentence. Iohn. 6 Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. That they both maketh one perfect sentence and sense, whether thou take it to be literal or spiritual. And therefore by this one lesson aforesaid, it may well appear, that they can not so differ in sense, but that they must other be both spiritual, and not literal, or both literal and not spiritual, or else both not only spiritual, but also literal, Wherefore, Frith can not say, that they be both spiritual and not literal, because he sayeth ●he an● 〈◊〉 them, that is to say, this word Eat, is taken after the letter. Again, he can not say, that they are both literal, and not spiritual, because he doth both hold and say, that the other which is, This is my body, must be taken figuratively, that is to say spiritually. And therefore it must needs follow, that they be both, not only spiritual, but also literal. Cap. 11. HHERE. Sir that can not be. For as I was about to tell you before, Frithe bringeth Saint Austen plain against it. CATH. How so? HERE. Look you in the .23. leaf of his book, and there shall ye find how he doth allege Saint Austen, both in Latin and also in English in these words. Quando loquebatur dominus noster jesus Christus de corpore suo, Nisi (Inquit) quis manducaverit carnem 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 vivificat. That is to say. When our Lord jesus Christ spoke of his body, except (quoth he) a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he shall have no life in him false. For my flesh is very meat and my blood is very drink. The spiritual understanding saveth him that believeth, for the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth. Here you see plain, that Saint Austen is clearly against the literal sense. CATH. Whether he be or not, it is Frithes mind therein, which I require. HERALD That shall ye have, for his own words upon the same place be these. Here may you plainly perceive (saith he) that this text must only be taken spiritually. For he say th● to take it after the letter, it killeth, and profiteth nothing at all. And therefore I wonder that we have been led so long in this gross error. CATH. And I wonder that Frithe was led so long in this gross blindness, that he would wade so far as he did, upon a figurative sense, before he had made it certain, in what respect it is figurative. That is to say, whether it he figurative in respect of the very mer● essential substance of the thing, or else in some other respect pertaining as it were to the same, or to the use thereof. HERE. Sir I suppose this is but an invented evasion of you, to shake of the matter and nothing else, For here Saint Austen saith plain, that the letter killeth. And that he would not say, if there were any literal sense in it. CATH. Then sith thou takest it so, although we might doubt of Frithes allegation herein, because he showeth not where Saint Austen doth speak those words, but by this note in the margin of his book (August. in sermo. ad infants) which sermon, I have not seen, nor no more (as I think) did Frithe neither, yet to grant him no less, but that they be the words of saint Austen indeed, Thou shalt here how Saint Austen doth speak them himself, where I have read them in an other place. For upon the title at the .33. Psalm, where he sayeth. Quando loquebatur dominus noster jesus Christus de corpore suo, (Ait) Nisi quis manducaverit carnem meam et biberit sanguinem meum, non habebit in se vitam. Caro mea vere est esca, et Sanguis meus vere potus est. There, in that place followeth immediately these words Et discipuli eius qui eum sequebantur expaverunt. etc. And not these words. Intellectus spiritualis credentemsaluum facit, quia littera occidit, Spiritus est qui vivificat. Which Frith addeth unto them, and placeth them there of his own head. How be it, I will not deny, but that Saint Austen hath those words, but where? in very deed not there, where Frithe doth place them. But four or .v. lines before, clean to an other purpose, than Frith would here make us believe, that Saint Austen speaketh them for. And therefore what a part he playeth in that, judge him now thyself. HERE. Sir, perchance Saint Austen hath in some other place, all those words together in the same order as Frith doth here allege them. CATH. Grant that to be true, and yet it can not prove Frithes purpose for all that. HERE. What, not when Saint Austen doth say, that in those words of christ, the letter killeth? CATH. No truly. For although it he true, that the letter killeth, yet there may be therein, (as there is) a literal sense for at that. HERALD Then it killeth? CATH. No, not so neither. HERE. How prove you that? CATH. I will leave all other proofs, and prove it even by Saint Austen himself. HERALD Nay then, if you prove that by S. Austen, I will tell you an other manner of tale, than ye look for. CATH. What so ever thou wilt tell, I tell thee, that upon the title of the said .33. Psalm, S. Austen speaking there of the prophet david, as the story compelleth him to do, doth say these words. Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Hoc vero fratres quomodo possit fieri in homine quis intelligat? Quis enim portatur in manibus suis? Manibus aliorum potest portari homo. Manibus suis nemo portatur. Quo modo intelligatur in ipso david secundum literam, non invenimus. In Christo autem invenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis. Quando commendaus ipsum corpus suum ai●. Hoc est corpus meum. Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis. That is to say. He was borne in his own hands. But brethren how this may be done in a man, who can understand? for who is borne in his own hands? A man may be borne in the hands of other. But in his own hands no man is borne. How it may be understand in David himself after the letter, we do not find. But we find it in Christ. For Christ was borne in his own hands, when he setting forth the same his own body saith, this is my body. For he bore that body in his own hands. Here it can not be avoided, but even by Saint Austen, these words of Christ. This is my body, must needs have a literal sense. HERE. That is not so. For although Saint Austen, doth here say, that christ was borne in his own hands, when he said, This is my body, yet it followeth not, but that he mente he bore himself in his own hands figuratively, and (as Frith sayeth) not literally or after the letter. CATH. A, wilt thou be there? doth not Saint Austen here plainly say, that he findeth the same in Christ, which he findeth not in David? And this (he sayeth) he findeth not in David, how it may be understand that he was borne in his own hands after the letter. Wherefore it must needs follow, that he findeth how it may be understand in christ that he was borne in his own hands after the letter, when he said, This is my body. And thereupon doth Saint Austen rest. For otherwise, he might have found it in David, but (as he sayeth) not after the letter. And therefore after the letter he findeth it in Chiste. Now therefore tell me where is Frithes denial of this literal sense becum, sith he is therein, thus clean over thrown, and that by the plain words of Saint Austen himself, whom he falsely boasteth to make so much and clearly for him? when the truth is, he maketh directly against him. Cap. 12. HHERE. Sir ye hear not yet, what Frith doth farther say, unto it. CATH. It shall not skill what so ever he say, against so plain a truth as this is. Specially when against truth, can nothing be brought but fasshed. HERE. Yet me think you should hear him, as well in the rest, as in this that is paste, before ye give any judgement thereof. For he taketh upon him to prove, that Saint Austen, doth not here so mean, as ye understand him. CATH. Peradventure he taketh it so upon him, for it is more easier to take it upon him twice, then to do it once. HERE. Yet perchance ye shall see him do it indeed. CATH. Which way? HERE. Even by Saint Austen himself. CATH. That would I hear. HERE. In the .84. leaf, of his book these be his own words. The text of Saint Austen (saith he) which they there alleged against me was this, that in the Sacrament, christ was borne in his own hands, where unto I said, that Saint Austen doth full well expound himself. For in an other place he saith. Ferebatur tanquam in manibus suis. That is, he was borne after a certain manner in his own hands. And by that he saith after a certain manner, ye may soon perceive what he meaneth. Now have ye hard what Frithe sayeth of Saint Austen again. CATH. Thou sayest truth. And thereby do I well perceive him to follow more that, which he hath in this point hard of Saint austin by other, then that, which he hath seen of saint Austen himself. And that appeareth not only by this, that he maketh here no mention of any special place of Saint Austen, where those words should be, but also by this, that in the place, where I have red Saint Austen concerning the same. That is to say, upon the title of the .33 Psalm, his very words be these. Ferebatur in manibus suis. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis? quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suum & 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 own hands. Now was he borne in his own hands? because when he did set forth the same his own body, and his blood, he took that into his hands, which the faithful doth know. And he bore himself after a certain manner, when he said, this is my body. These be the words of Saint Austen in that place which I have red. And although it be no great matter, yet there is no such, tanquam in manibus suis, as Frithe doth here speak of. Therefore if he himself saw and read this place of Saint Austen, and would not (as he doth not) allege the words of it as they be, judge thou what a part he playeth in that. Of the other side, if he saw them not himself in S. Austen, but took them (as I believe he did) out of some heretics book, to colour his false purpose with all, how foolish was he to think, that it would never be spied? HERE. Sir all this, is but a void draft. For in the words which ye do here recite of Saint Austen yourself, appeareth enough for Frithes purpose, and as much as he requireth. CATH. What is that? HERE. This that Saint Austen saith. christ bore himself in his own hands after a certain manner, when he said, this is my body. For by this that he saith after a certain manner, ye may soon perceive (sayeth Frith) what he meaneth. CATH. O after a certain manner? indeed it is to us after a certain manner, that Frithe doth always make his conclusion, upon an incertain ground, although it be to him, aftter his common manner. For what is the cause that he doth not first make it certain, what Saint Austen meaneth by this, that he saith, after a certain manner? HERE. Frithe sayeth ye may perceive what he meaneth. CATH. Ye, we may, and do, but yet why doth not Frithe express the meaning of it, lest he take it one way, and we an other? HERE. He doth express it in the same place immediately following, and that in these words, saying. How be it, if Saint Austen had not thus expounded himself, yet he saith, Ad bonifacium, that the Sacrament of a thing hath a similitude of the thing, which it signifieth. And for that cause, it hath many times, the name of the very thing which it signifieth. And so he sayeth, that he bore himself, because he bore the Sacrament of his body and blood. CATH. And well said. Is this the bearing of himself in his own hands after the certain manner, which S. Austen meaneth, to bear the similitude or sacrament of himself in his own hands? HERALD What else? CAT. Then, where is the bearing of himself in his own hands after the letter? S. Austen saith (as I said before) he bore himself in his own hands after the letter. But to bear the similitude or sacrament of himself in his own hands, is not to bear himself in his own hands after the letter. For there, the letter maketh no mention of any similitude or sacrament other. Wherefore if S. Austen had mente by this that he sayeth, after a certain manner, none other but that Christ bore the similitude of himself, in his own hands, when he said, This is my body, he might soon have found, how that might have been as well understanded in David, as in Christ. Therefore it was not that, which he meant, when he said, he found not how it might be understand in David after the letter. For david might have borne the similitude of himself in his owns hands. Wherefore this that Saint Austen sayeth, Christ bore himself in his own hands, after a certain manner, can be no exposition (as Frithe would have it to be) of this that he sayeth, christ bore himself in his own hands after the letter. Nor no more, can this nother, that he sayeth. Sacraments have a certain similitude of those things, whereof they are sacraments, and oft times of that similitude take the names of the things themselves. When the letter (as I said) maketh there no mention of any similitude or sacrament other. HERE. Then if this that Saint Austen saith, Christ bore himself in his own hands after a certain manner, can be no exposition of this that he saith, Christ bore himself in his own hands after the letter, doubtless those two sayings can not be both true nor stand together. Cap. 13. CATH. If thou or Frith other, take S. Austen after that manner, doubtless ye are both deceived in him, after a wicked manner. For what is after a certain manner, but not after a common manner? Luc. 14. As when our saviour Christ appeared unto certain of his disciples in the way going to Emaus after his resurrection, either he appeared unto them after his common manner, or else after a certain manner. If he had apeered unto them after his common manner, they had then known, it had been he, which (as the gospel doth say) they did not in deed. Wherefore he apeered unto them, not after his common manner, but after a certain manner, which was such, as by reason whereof, they knew him not, as it doth there, right well apeere. Again of the other side, his appearance also unto them then, was other after the letter, or else not after the letter. If thou say it was not after the letter, than thou deniest both his very being with them then, and also the letter to, which doth say. jesus himself drawing near, went with them. Therefore if thou say that he apeered unto them after the letter (as the truth is, he did in deed) than thou must needs grant, that he appeared unto them there, not after a common manner, but both after a certain manner, and also after the letter to, and that both at once. And why therefore sayest thou, that Saint Austin's saying of Christ's bearing himself, in his own hands after the letter, and his saying that he bore himself in his own hands after a certain manner, can not stand together, when thou mayest thus perceive that after the letter, and after a certain manner, doth well agree and stand together, in the gospel? HERETI. Yet sir me think by you, that after the letter, and after a certain manner, are not both one, but have some difference between them. CATHOLICUS. True it is. How be it no such, but that they may and do stand together well enough. For after the letter, is here said, in respect of the very real and essential being of his substance. And after a certain manner, is said in respect of the strange form, wherein he apeered unto them. HERETICUS. Ye but when he bore himself in his own hands (as saint Austen saith) after a certain manner, there was no such strange form appearing then. CATH. Yes even so strange, as when he by the way showed himself to the two disciples. For than he showed himself in the form of a man which form could not be strange, but well known, in that respect, what it was. Therefore the strangeness was not in that, but in this, that he showed himself in the form of an other manner of man, which was no man in deed, but he himself so in it, as though he had not been therein. And therefore the form is said to be straying, because it was of him so stranigly used. Wherefore likewise, when he bore himself in his own hands after a certain manner, he bore himself in the form of bread, which form, to any man could not be strange, but well known what it was. Therefore the straingnesse was not in that, but it was in this, that he bore himself in the form of bread, which was no bread in deed, but he himself so in the form thereof, as though he had not been therein. And therefore the form, may also there, be said to be straying because it was, as daily it is, of him so strangely used. Wherefore as he, to the two disciples, showed himself after a certain manner, that is to say, not in his own proper form, but in the form of an other manner of man, which made him therein so straying unto them then, so he bore himself in his own hands after a certain manner, that is to say, not in his own proper form, but in the form of an other manner of thing, which maketh him therein so straying now unto them, that be unfaithful. For as Saint Austen saith of it in many places, Norunt fideles, The faithful knoweth him therein well enough, he is not straying therein to them. For he that can use himself under one form, more than is proper or natural unto him, And that without the craft, art, or help of man, I doubt not, but that he can use himself under, an other and more forms, or under as many as he will. As it may well appear by that he showed himself, as is aforesaid to the two disciples in the form of a travailer by the way. Luc. 24 Iohn. 20 Mat. 17. And to Mary magdalen in the form of a gardener. Also an other time, to three of his disciples, in the form of a glorified body. Wherefore he did none of these, after a common manner, but after a certain manner. Yet this same certain manner, neither doth, nor yet can take away, the very real and substantial presence of the usare thereof, or have any being itself, where the usare thereof is not, or force any good and true understanding, that the usare of it should not even be there, with it or in it. For it doth but only show how diversly, he can behave himself in his appearance, and denieth not therein his presence. By this therefore it may well appear (as I said before) that this saying (After a certain manner) and this saying (after the letter) may well agree, and stand both together. As good reason, and th'example thereof which I have recited unto thee of the holy gospel, doth plainly declare. For the truth to say, (as the truth is in deed) those two sayings of Saint Austen are not spoken, but in these divers respects. The one (as I said) in respect of the very substantial being of the thing itself, whereof it is spoken. And the other, in respect of the Accidental fact or behaviour of the same. Therefore when S. Austen saith, Christ bore himself in his own hands after the letter, the very understanding thereof appertaineth only to the real and substantial presence of Christ's very body in the sacrament, nothing touching any accidental qualities or occult behaviour thereof, but the verity of the substance only. And when he saith, Christ bore himself in his own hands after a certain manner, the true meaning of that appertaineth only to the very secret and insensible behaviour of it in the sacrament, and not to the substance wherein that invisible behaviour is. And beside this, how far from all doubt of this understanding, doth Saint Austen express the matter himself, in his words before alleged? where he saith. Christ was borne in his own hands, when he setting forth the same his own body. faith, This is my body. For he bore that body in his own hands. HERE. Ye what body? CATH. The same his own body (saith Saint Austen) or the self same body of his, choose the whether. For so these words, Ipsum corpus suum, may or must needs be Englished, and no way else more truly. Wherefore those words of Saint Austen can not be applied, to any sign, similitude, or sacrament other, but directly to the very substance of the thing that he speaketh of, which is the blessed body of Christ. And that specially when he addeth unto it, and saith, he bore that body in his own hands. He saith not a body, as incertain which, but he speaketh certainly and saith, that body, whereof he doth plainly treat. And that appeareth also in the other place, where he saith. He bore himself after a certain manner. For what so ever that manner of bearing was, yet himself, can be none other but himself. Saint Austen saith, he bore himself. And there is neither sign, similitude, or sacrament of him, that is, or can be properly said, to be himself. For this word, himself, or itself, hath none other respect, but always and only, to the very real and substantial being of him or it, whereof it is directly spoken. Wherefore this that S. Austen saith. Christ bore himself in his own hands after the letter. Serveth only to convince them, that denieth the very real presence of Christ's blessed body in the holy sacrament. And this that he saith. He bore himself after a certain manner. Serveth only to help and amend the blindness of them, that considereth none other but only such common manner of bearing and being, as their own outward deceivable senses, daily dreameth upon, whereby they are drawn to such wonder at the matter, that they think it to straying, to believe therein, as the holy catholic church doth teach. And all because this bearing that S. Austen speaketh of, is not common, but after an other certain manner, than their blind fantastical dreaming of sensible things, can, may, or is able, to reach unto. And therefore therein to hold and keep them still, Frith doth labour and travail with his wring and wresting of this same certain manner, to such an understanding, as neither the words of S. Austen, nor yet any reason, authority, or learning, can bear or suffer. For he, thorough lack of putting any difference between the thing done, and the manner of the doing, doth so confound them together, that with his handling of the one, he deceiveth himself and many more, in the truth of them both. But such was his lack, not only of learning, but much more of grace. For it is two things to teach what was done, whereof S. Austen saith, Christ bore himself in his own hands after the letter. And to teach how or after what manner it was done, whereof S. Austen saith no farther, but that it was done after a certain manner, of which certain manner, here he declareth no farther, because (as he doth truly say) the verity of the thing, the faithful doth know. And therefore because he declareth here no farther thereof, Frith of his own head, taketh upon him to do it himself, after his heretical manner. Whom if we could believe, we might think our saviour Christ no better than a very stone, without (as he saith) any apparel of damnation at all. Wherefore if thou haste marked well, what I have hitherto said, thou mayst easily perceive how foolish and false his understanding of Saint Austen is. Cap. 14. HERE. That is to be weighed as we find him in the end. For he hath more places of S. Austen for his purpose then these. And specially one, which passeth all that ye have herd of him yet, and directly against the place of the. 33. psalm, which you have alleged. CATH. Which one is that? HERE. In the 27. leaf of his book, he doth allege Saint Austen both in latin and in English also, after this sort, saying that Saint Austen saith. Non hoc corpus quod videtis, estis manducaturi, nec bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificat vos, caro autem non prodest quicquam. That is to say, You shall not eat this body that you see, nor drink that blood which they that crucify me, shall shed out. I have given a certain sacrament unto you, if it be spiritually understand, it quickeneth you, But the flesh profiteth nothing. Now sir, of this, Frith doth ask this question. What things can be more plainly spoken? CATH. And I ask of him again, what things can be more falsely understand, than he doth understand them? for if he had understand them truly, or been willing so to do, he might and would, as well alleged S. Aust. in these words, which he hath no farther from that place, then in the very self same leaf, where he saith of our saviour Christ. Psal. 92. Suscepit enim de terra, terram. Quia caro de terra est. Et de carne Mariae carnem accepit. Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit, & ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit, Nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraveri, inventum est quemadmodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum domini. That is to say, He took earth of earth, because flesh is of earth. And of the flesh of Mary he took flesh. And because he walked here in the same flesh, and for our health hath given unto us the same flesh to eat, but no man doth eat that flesh, except he honour it before, it is found how such a foot stool of our Lord, should be honoured. Now, although it doth not here (for lack of that, which goeth before) even evidently apere, why S. Austen doth chief speak these words, yet may I say of this place, the same, and as well as Frithe doth say of the other, what things can be, more plainly spoken? More plainly spoken I say, as touching the verity of Christ's own blessed flesh and blood in the holy Sacrament? For is it not here, most plainly expressed of Saint Austen, that Christ for our health hath given unto us the same flesh to eat, wherein he walked here in earth? And where did he so give us that to eat, but in the holy sacrament? Therefore what could Saint Austen say more to the very plainness of the matter, if a man had asked him purposely, how he did believe therein, or what his faith was in that behalf? HERE. Nay then, if Saint Austen can handle the matter after such a sort, as of the other side, in the parson of Christ to say. You shall not eat this body, that you see, nor drink that blood which they that crucify me, shall shed out. And farther say, I have given a certain sacrament unto you, if it be spiritually understand, it quickeneth you. But the flesh profiteth nothing. If Saint Austen (I say) can handle the matter so, that he will speak so plainly of both sides, and make for each part, being so contrary as Frithes opinion and yours is, trust him who will, for so will I never from hence forth. CATH. Perchance no more thou hast done hitherto. HERE. Yes that I have always till now. CATH. So would Frithe say for his part, if he were to answer therein. And yet I dare say, he trusted him, no farther than he thought be should make for his purpose. And (as it appeareth) no more dost thou, nor any of you all. HERE. Why say you so? for as touching Frithe, I am well assured that he trusted saint Austen above all men, as it doth by his own words evidently appear. CATH. If he had so done in deed, as he did falsely so pretend, he would not alleged the one of these foresaid places, and left the other behind as he doth, being so near together in one leaf, as of some volume they are in deed, but would allege them both and made some conference between them of their agreement, if he had trusted Saint austin as well in the one, as he did in the other. How be it because he saw the one place, make so plainly with our belief, that he could cast there upon no colour to the contrary, he left out that, and brought forth the other, which as he thought might seem, to make only for his purpose altogether. Wherefore this came not of any trust that he had in Saint Austen in deed, but of the trust he had in his own false and wily handling of some certain places of Saint Austen, to deceive his disciples withal, whereof he chose this place, which thou hast alleged to be one. For if he had trusted Saint Austen as he pretended to do, he would have trusted him as well in the one of these places, as in the other, where as now it is plain, he trusted him in none of them both or at the least, mistrusted him in the one, and onwares, or wilfully, would mistake him in the other. HERE. Why sir, would he have him trust Saint Austen in both places, when they be so repugnant, and so contrary one against an other, that they can, by no reason, join nor agree together? CATH. What be they? HERE. Even as I tell you. CATH. thinkest thou Saint Austen being a man of such wit, of such learning, of such holiness, and therefore of such most excellent fame thorough all christendom so many hundred years, to be one of that sort, that in so weighty a matter, forgetteth to day, what he said yesterday? or will say one thing now, and to morrow the contrary? or in his writing overshot himself in one sentence, before an other be dry? For doubtless, these two sayings are placed so near together, that I believe the one was not dry, before the other was written. Therefore how mad a fancy were it, so to think of Saint Austen, that these two places are contrary, and one against an other? HERE. Why, who can take them otherwise, the words being so plain? for doth he not say in the one place, Christ hath given us the same flesh to eat, wherein he walked here in earth. And in the other place. You shall not eat this body that you see? And what is this, but eat and not eat one thing both at once, which is not possible? for other that body which they saw, was the body of that flesh, which (as Saint Austen sayeth) was given us to eat, and that flesh was the flesh of that body which they saw, and should not eat it, or else that body was of an other flesh and that flesh of an other body, and then the one or the other, not Christ's body or Christ's flesh, which were (I suppose) even cursedness to think. For whereof is his own body, but of his own flesh? And whereof is his own flesh, but of his own body? And therefore where he saith the same flesh, he might have said the same body. And where he saith this body that you see, he might have said, this flesh that you see, & all one. And therefore when he putteth eating in the one place, and not eating in the other, and both of one thing, what can be more contrary? Cap. 15. CATHOLICUS. I wonder that thou canst not, make as great shift, to rid thyself out of error, as thou dost, to keep thee in it? for indeed to keep thee in it, thou hast said enough, and a great deal to much. But of the other side, nothing at all. And therefore to help thee out of it (if thou be so happy) hear now, what I have to say. HERE. What? CATH. To whom shall we take these words to be spoken, that Saint Austen sayeth in the parson of christ, you shall not eat this body, that you see? HERE. I take them to be spoken to us, which do eat the Sacrament. CATH. That can not be. For that body, which he speaketh of, after that sort, as they did see it, we never saw. HERE. Then it is spoken as it were to th'apostles, and such other as did see it. CATH. That is true. And therefore how did they see it? HERE. How should they see it, but with their eyes? CATH. And what manner of body was it, that they did see with their eyes? HERE. A body sensible, passable, and mortal. CATH. Thou canst make no better, nor more direct answer, then that is. For the words of Saint Austen, are of none other, but of that body, which they saw, and that was sensible, for else, they could not have seen it. And therefore where Saint Austen saith. Ye shall not eat this body that you see, He might as well have said, ye shall not eat this body that ye feel or may feel. Whereof it is written, Palpate & videte, That is to say. Feel and see. Luc. 24 Or ye shall not eat this body that is passable, whereof it is written. Oportet eum multa pati, That is to say. Mar. 8, It behoveth him to suffer many things. Or, ye shall not eat this body that is mortal (whereof it is written.) Oportet eum occidi. That is to say, Luc. 9, it behoveth him to beslayne. And what were any of these sayings against this, that in the other place he saith. Christ hath given us the same flesh to eat, wherein he walked here in earth? HERE. Marry sir, if that be true, than he hath given us, visible, palpable, passable, and mortal flesh to eat. For therein he walked here in earth, and that he never gave us, to any such purpose. Wherefore this latter saying of Saint Austen can not be true. CATH. No can? HERE. No truly. CATH. Then how sayest thou to this? doth not Christ now in heaven, sit on the right hand of God the Father, in the same flesh, wherein he walked here in earth. HERE. That can not I tell. CATH. Why canst not thou tell? for if he sit not there in the same flesh, wherein he walked here in earth, than he sitteth not there in the same flesh, that he took of the holy virgin marry. If he sit not there in the same flesh, that he took of the virgin Mary, than he sitteth not there, but in an other flesh, or else in none at all. If he sitteth not there, but in an other flesh, or in none at all. Then is it not true to say, that he is her son, nor she is his mother. For she can not be the very mother of an other flesh, than she brought forth herself, or the mother of no flesh at all. Wherefore, other thou must grant this to be true, (as I think thou wilt not) that she is not now his mother, nor he her son, or else thou must needs grant, that on the right hand of God the father in heaven, he sitteth now in the same flesh wherein he walked here in earth. For that is the flesh which he took of her. HERE. Well sir, I will not stick to grant that now, because I see more in it then I did before. CATH. Then if he (now sitting on the right hand of God the Father in heaven) have the same flesh, wherein he walked here in earth, and the same flesh, was here in earth passable and mortal, how cannest thou avoid this, but that it is passable and mortal now in heaven? HERE. No sir not so. For I can avoid that well enough, and it were but by this, that ye declared yesterday, how john Frithe was deceived in his foundation, by mistaking of this same word, the same. For although Christ have now the same body and flesh in heaven, wherein he walked here in earth, yet he hath not there now the same, in the same and every condition. CATH. Then it is the same, and not the same. HERE. What else? For it is the same body and the same flesh in respect of the substance, but not the same in respect of the state, condition, and accidental qualities thereof, which it had when he walked here in earth. For it was then passable and mortal, but now impassable, and immortal, which are clean contrary. And therefore not the same now, that it was then, nor the same then, that it is now in one respect. And yet the very same then, that it is now, and the very same now that it was then, in an other respect. For such is the difference between the substance and the state, condition and accidental qualities of any thing, that it may always and truly be said, to be the same and not the same in those diverse respects. Cap. 16. CATHOLICUS. Thou makest me greatly marvel to here the speak. HERE. Why so? CATH. Because thou haste (as thy words doth declare) so good understanding of the difference, that is between the substance of a thing, and the state, condition, or accidental qualities of the same. And yet nevertheless, wilt take Saint Austen so overthwartly as thou dost. For where he sayeth. Christ hath given us, the same flesh to eat, wherein he walked here in earth. Thou takest him to mean that flesh in every condition, with all such accidental qualities as it had then. And not in the only respect of the substance of it. And again, where he sayeth, Ye shall not eat this body that ye see, Thou takest him to speak that, in respect of the substance, and not in the only respect of the state, condition, and qualities of it. So that, thou understandest Saint Austen wrong in both places. That is to say, thou takest his meaning of the first place, to be in the second, and of the second, to be in the first, as the places themselves, are well able to declare. For where he saith. Christ hath given us, the same flesh to eat, wherein he walked here in earth. Clear it is, that in this same word (us) Saint Austen among other, meant himself to be one. And in that he meant himself to be one among other, to whom he sayeth, Christ hath given his flesh to eat, plain it is he never mente, that Christ gave it him or them to eat, but as it was in his time, when he should eat it. And in his time when he should and did eat it, it was neither passable, nor mortal, nor yet subject to any such other accidental and natural qualities, as it was before the resurrection thereof. Wherefore thou mayest by this, with half an eye perceive, that Saint Austen, never spoke those words of Christ's giving his own flesh to eat, in respect of any such qualities, but only in respect of the verity of the substance. HERE. Then, why doth he add unto them, these words, saying. Wherein he walked here in earth. CATH. That he doth, to declare his mind and meaning in the verity of the thing, which was in Saint Austin's time, (even as it is now) the very same wherein he walked here in earth, and is now in the holy Sacrament. The very same I say, in the only respect of the substance, but (as every man doth or aught to know) not the same, in respect of those qualities, which in his resurrection were changed into such perfections as are to us inscrutable and incomprehensible. And therefore of the other side, where Saint Austen sayeth, Ye shall not eat this body that ye see, Why wilt not thou see, that to be spoken, not in respect of the substance but of the qualities, when the faculty of seeing or sight, doth no farther extend or pertain but unto the understanding of the qualities, and not of the substance? For if he had said. Ye shall not eat this body, and gone no farther. Or had added unto it these words. Which Shallbe given for you. As it was said at his institution of the holy sacrament, it had been then an other matter. But when he saith. Ye shall not eat this body that ye see. What is it else to say, but that ye shall not eat this body visible, or this body sensible, or this body in such condition and state, as ye now see it in. When the seeing itself, doth import no farther of the body, but as apertaineth unto the sight, or sensibilitee thereof? HERE. Then, why doth he add unto it these words, saying. I have set forth unto you, a certain sacrament. If it be spiritually understand, it giveth you life. But the flesh profiteth nothing. CATH. First, these words. But the flesh profiteth nothing. Are in this place, of Frithes own adding and putting unto the other before. And not of Saint Austin's putting there. How be it because they be the words of the gospel, and of Saint Austen recited, not far from the same place, where Frith doth take the rest, I will not clean omit them, but I will spare them for a while, And first go to this that he saith. I have set forth unto you a certain sacrament, and being spiritually understand, it giveth you life. Therefore what other thing is that to say but this, that when he saith, Ye shall not eat this body that ye see. Ye shall not eat it in such sort, as ye see it, but as it shall be in a sacrament, wherein ye shall not see it. For else, if he had not so meant, he would not have said. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood ye shall not have life in you. For he meant not that flesh to be eaten in that proper visible form which they saw, and yet to be eaten, in deed for all that, or else he would not have denied life (as he doth) for the not eating of it. And therefore eaten it must needs be of very necessity. Although not that, as it was of them seen, but yet that, as it should be of them and us both, truly and verily believed, in the holy sacrament. And for that cause he saith, I have set forth unto you a certain sacrament, and being spiritually understand (that is to say, farther and far otherwise than your senses can reach) it giveth you life. Wherefore because here appeareth both eating and not eating of one thing both at once, which are both true, And that can not be in one respect, it must therefore needs follow to be understand and taken, as the truth is, in two respects. Whereof the one, that is to say, the eating, is in respect of the very thing, with the invisible state, occult and secret behaviour thereof, as it is in the holy sacrament. And the other, that is to say the not eating, is not but in respect of the visible form, and sensible appearance thereof to their eyes. And therefore this eating and not eating 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 understand, it giveth you life? As who say, or else it doth not? CATH. I have told the that already. HERE. Ye but yet even therein consisteth Frithes purpose altogether, as it may partly apeere by that he saith in the .21. leaf of his book, where he reciting the saying of Christ to the jews that believed him not, And also the mind of Saint Austen thereupon (as he saith) he hath these words. Christ said, doth this offend you? what will ye say then, when ye shall see the son of man ascending thither, where he was before? Then addeth S. Austen (saith he) you shall know that he meant not, to give his flesh to eat with your teeth: for he shall ascend hole. And Christ addeth, it is the spirit that quickeneth, The flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I spoke, are spirit and life. That is to say, (saith saint Austen) are spiritually to be understand. And where Christ saith, that the flesh profiteth nothing, meaning of his own flesh, (as saint Austen saith), he meaneth that it profiteth not, as they understood him. That is to say, it profiteth not, if it were eaten. Now here ye may see, how Frith hath plainly proved both by the words of Christ, and also by Saint Austen upon the same, that all this matter lieth in a spiritual sense, and must be understand spiritually. CATHOLI. Frith hath not proved that so plainly, as he hath herein, proved himself a false liar once again. For under the colour of his allegation of Christ, and Saint Austen together, he hath herein wrapped no small piece of his own heretical falsehood, to deface the truth of them both. For of those words of Christ, the flesh profiteth nothing, when Saint Austen saith it profiteth not, as they understood him, where did this antichrist find this exposition, which he addeth unto it, saying. It profiteth not, if it wear eaten. S. Austen hath no such thing nor Christ neither. And yet as though they had, this crafty and false Raynarde doth annex it unto their sayings, to make it seem to be their meanings. HERE. And will you call him an antechriste therefore? CATH. What should I call him else? For who can be more contrary to Christ herein, than he is? for Christ saith. Except ye eat it, ye shall not have life in you. And he saith. If ye eat it, it shall not profit you. HERE. Tush, those be not Frithes words. For he saith. It profiteth not if it were eaten. CATH. And what is that, but if ye eat if, it shall not profit you? is it not all one? Therefore is there any thing more against Christ's saying then that? when Christ saith, Except ye eat it, ye shall not have life in you. Doth life not profit? and specially everlasting life, which Christ doth mean, and promise that we shall not have it, except we eat his flesh? And yet this antichrist saith, it shall not profit us, if we eat it. Therefore, which of these two, are we best to believe? Christ, or this his wicked adversary? for both we can not allow, they be so contrary. HERE. They be not so contrary as ye take them. For all Christ's meaning (as it appeareth by his own words) is of spiritual eating by faith, and not of carnal eating with the teeth. And that doth Frith defend and nothing else, as it appeareth in the .44. leaf of his book where his words be these. If Christ had (saith he) so meant, that his own body natural should have continued in the sacrament, which is the meat of the soul thorough faith, and not of the body by eating of it, and may as well be eaten thorough faith, although it remain in heaven, as if it were here present to our mouths, if he had (I say) so meant, then would he never have given us such scriptures as he did. for I say that this gross imagination may not stand with the process of the scripture, which is received, as it shall appear by certain texts. First where our saviour saith, The flesh profiteth nothing. The weight of those words doth compel us to understand our matter spiritually. For by this short sentence, we are no less plucked back from the carnal eating, then was Nichodemus, that he should not once dream of the carnal regeneration, when Christ said unto him. That what so ever was of the flesh, was flesh. And also again, in the .47. leaf, Frith hath according to the same even these words. It is impossible (saith he) the scriptures standing as they do) that the natural body of Christ, should be present to our teeth in the sacrament. And as for our faith it needeth not to have him present in the bread. For I may as well eat him and drink him thorough faith. That is to say, believe in him, as though he were as present in the sacrament, as he was hanging on the Cross. In this ye see, Fryth doth express his mind so plainly that no man can doubt of his meaning therein. Which in effect resteth but in two points, whereof the one is. That Christ's very body flesh and blood hath no very being nor real presence in the sacrament. And the other is, that what so ever Christ spoke as touching the eating thereof, must needs be understand, only spiritual. And these two hath he proved by the words of Christ, and also by S. Austen to. CATH. What, wilt thou be at that point yet, for all that thou hast hitherto heard already? thou playest the very Frithian now in deed, to say that he hath proved both, when he hath proved in deed none of the both by any thing that we have hard of him yet. But thou hast herd proof enough to the contrary, if that would serve. And therefore what so ever he hath brought for his proof hitherto, hath other made directly against him, or else utterly nothing for him. Therefore speak of no proof that he maketh, for he maketh none in deed. HERE. Yes sir, for he hath proved, that it must be understand spiritually. And thereof it must needs follow, that it may not be understand carnally, for they be two contraries. And therefore, where there may be no carnal understanding, there can be no flesh remaining. Wherefore thus hath Fryth his purpose thoroughly, that is to say, that the flesh profiteth not to be eaten, and that, by reason of the spiritual understanding, whereof he is most assured, both by Christ's words (as I said) and Saint Austin's also. CATHOLI. Then if he were so assured, he could not be therein deceived. HERE. No more he was. CATH. Trowest thou so? HERE. I think so. HERALD Why, thou mayst perceive by thine own reason, and also by this which I told the before, that although, it must be understand spiritually yet it followeth not that it must be understand only spiritually. For spiritually (as I said) and only spiritually, is two things. Therefore if Frith take it to be understand only spiritually without any other, or farther respect, than he taketh it otherwise, than he hath, or is able to prove it, by the words of Christ, or Saint Austin's other. Again of the other side, if he take it to be understand spiritually and not only so, Then hath he proved therein, so much for his purpose, as is in deed, even nothing at all. HERE. Why sir it is proof enough for him, that he is by Saint Austen most certain and sure (as he hath declared) that it must be understand spiritually. CATH. What although it be so, and not only so? HERE. Ye why not? Cap. 18. CATHOLI. Then if thou rest upon that, what if Frith knew not, what the spiritual understanding of it is? HERE. Yes that I dare say he did. CATH. Then he would have given it a definition, and made it certain, before he had wrought any conclusion thereupon, as every threw and wise persuader doth, in what so ever he taketh upon him to prove. But this we see he did not. And why? but other because he was therein ignorant, and therefore could not do it, or else because he was of such a malicious falsehood, that though he could, ye he would not do it Which is of the twain, most like to be true. For he saw perchance that if he had made a good definition, or plain distinction, between the spiritual and the carnal understanding thereof, it should not only not have served, but also clean have destroyed his purpose altogether. And therefore he chose rather to rove at a venture, than to shoot at any mark certain. wherefore let us, seek out the certainty of this spiritual understanding. And that once had, we shall soon see, whether he went about to bring it to light, or else to hide it all together, or no. For he will not deny but that Saint Austen and other old ancient, fathers and doctors of the holy church, did certainly know it, when he pretendeth to prove all his purpose, most chiefly by them. HERE. I grant that, for them he will not deny. CATH. Then remember thou well, what I have hitherto said. And let us return to thexamination of that, which thou hast recited all ready, out of the 21. leaf of his book. HERE. Marry sir that is how Christ, to those that believed him not, did say. Doth this offend you? what if ye shall see the son of man ascending thither, where he was before? Then addeth S. Austen (saith he) you shall know, that he meant not, to give his flesh to eat with your teeth. For he shall ascend hole. etc. CATHOLICUS. Is this Saint Austin's saying upon those words of Christ? HERE. So saith Frith. CATH. Therefore here, thou shalt see once again, what Frith was. For if it were not for avoiding of tediousness, I would recite unto thee, the very words of S. Austen, upon those words of Christ, both in latin and also in english. but his words in latin turned into english shall be sufficient, which are even very these. Christ answering said, Doth this offend you, that I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink? This offendeth you in deed. Therefore what if ye see the son of man ascending thither where he was before? What is this? By this he eased some, whom he knew. By this he opened wherewith they were offended. Wherewith utterly, if they would have understand it. For they thought him to divide and distribute his body. But he said, he would ascend into heaven even whole. When ye shall see the son of man ascending where he was before, ye shall certainly see even then, that he distributeth not his body, in that manner that you think. Ye shall even then certainly understand, that his grace is not with bitings consumed. Now where is this, that Frithe sayeth of Saint Austen. You shall know that he meant not, to give his flesh to eat with your teeth? Where is this (I say) where is it? in deed it can not be found. And therefore in the steed of that, this we find, that Frithe was nothing ashamed of his lies. For if he had, he would never have put so many of them in his writings as he did. And besides this, what fault is there here found, with those unbelievers of Christ, which understood him not in this matter? HERE. This fault, That their understanding ran upon the flesh of Christ. CATH. That is false. For their fault was not therein, but it was in their misunderstanding of the manner of it, as here Saint Austen in plain words doth well declare, they thought him to divide, and distribute his body peecemele. And that misunderstanding, doth Christ's question touch directly, saying. What if ye see the son of man, ascending where he was before? What were this question of his hole body to the purpose, if it were not to confound, and overthrow their misunderstanding of the division thereof in parts? for by this, he opened, (as Saint Austen sayeth) wherewith they were offended. Which was with the distribution and erogation of his body in parts as they thought. So that their fault (for which they are here reprehended) was for that they gave no farther credence to Christ, in the manner of giving his flesh to eat, than their own imagination, and blind understanding did lead them unto. And not for that, they thought his meaning to be of his own very flesh in deed. For which thinking of his own very flesh, they bore here, no smake of any blame at all, as they should have done, if it had been a fault so to think. Wherefore, this thou mayst see, how very nothing, this place maketh for Frithe, notwithstanding all the great trust that he had therein. Cap. 19 HERE. Ye but sir, ye must consider, that (as you have herd) Frithe goeth farther than this. Saying even there. Christ addeth. It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. This text excludeth all understanding of flesh, and driveth us to the spirit altogether. CATH. There, Frithe would have it indeed. But why doth he not bring in Saint Austen there, as well upon this text. The flesh profiteth nothing. As he would make us believe, he doth, upon this other before. It is the spirit that quickeneth? Sith they join so near together, as immediately one text after an other can do? HERE. He thought it was no need, because this. The flesh profiteth nothing, is so plain of itself. CATH. It is hard to find thee without an excuse. But nevertheless thou shalt here what Saint Austen sayeth of it, for all that. And then judge, why Frith did pass it over. For Saint Austin's words turned into english are even these. What is this (saith Saint Austen) that he putteth to it, it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing? let us say unto him (because he suffereth us, not speaking contrary, but coveting to know) O good lord and master, how doth flesh profit nothing, when thou hast said, except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? doth life profit nothing? And for what purpose are we that we are, but that we might have everlasting life, which thou hast promised with thy flesh Therefore what is, it profiteth nothing, the flesh profiteth nothing, but as they understood it? for they understood flesh so, as it is rend, or torn in a dead carcase, or as it is sold in the shambles, and not as it is quickened with the spirit. Therefore so it is said, the flesh profiteth nothing, as it is said science puffeth up. Now therefore ought we to hate science? God forbid. And what is, science puffeth up: alone without charity. Therefore he joineth to it. But yet charity doth edify. Add therefore charity to science, and science is profitable, not by itself, but by charity. Also now likewise, the flesh profiteth nothing, being flesh alone. Let the spirit come to the flesh, as charity cometh to science and it profiteth very much. And a little after, he speaking in the parson of christ knitteth up his exposition of this text with these words. So, I give not my flesh to eat, as they did understand flesh. Whereof it followeth (say I) that otherwise he did give it to eat, although he did it not so. For the words import no less. Therefore, here thou mayst perceive, why Frith brought not forth this place or exposition of Saint Austen, as he doth the text, whereupon he goeth. Which was in deed, because he liked not Saint Austen so well in other places, but he liked him as evil in this, for all his false bostinge, that he maketh so much for his purpose. Where as in deed, he maketh for him in no place, but directly against him in many places, as it hath, and hereafter shall right well appear. Wherefore in all this, thou seest, Saint Austen taketh not the spiritual sense so, that he excludeth the whole understanding of all flesh therein. HERE. Sir, Saint Austen cometh not to that yet. For unto this text, that is to say, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. Frithe doth add the words of Christ following, with Saint Austin's mind upon the same, which words are these. The words that I spoke unto you, are spirit and life, That is to say (sayeth Saint Austen) are spiritually to be understand. Here is the hole matter come now, even clearly to light, both by Christ and Saint Austen to. And what would you have more? CATH. This exposition of S. Austin's, which thou speakest of now, is very short. And more short than he is wont to make upon so great a matter. And therefore could Frith find no more of it but this? HERE. Yes sir somewhat more, which will like you less, if ye hear it. CATH. It were straying that I should mislike any of Saint Austin's doings in such matters. And therefore what so ever it be, I pray thee let me hear it. HERE. That shall ye do. For Frithe in the .45 leaf of his book hath these words. This is a plain conclusion (sayeth he) that when Christ said, the flesh profiteth nothing, he meant it even of his own flesh, that it could not profit, as they understood him, to be eaten with the teeth. Albe it, it doth much profit to be slain for our redemption, and eaten through faith. Which thing we may do, although his natural flesh be not in the Sacrament. For I may as well believe in him, though he be in heaven, as if he were in earth, and in the Sacrament, and before mine eyes. And that Christ spoke these words of his own body, it is plain, by Saint Austin's words, writing upon the same place. And therefore he sayeth, that they must be understand spiritually, and addeth, if thou understand them spiritually they are spirit and life. And though thou understand them carnally, yet nevertheless they are spirit & life. But unto thee, they are not spirit & life, which understandest not spiritually, those things that I have spoken. Here you may see now, that Frithe hath more of Saint Austin's exposition, than I told you of before. CATH. Ye but upon what words of Christ, doth Saint Austen make this exposition, which Frithe doth here allege? HERE. Upon these, that Christ sayeth, my words are spirit and life. CATH. Thou sayest even very true. And therefore where thou tellest me, that I may here see now, that Frithe hath more of Saint Austin's exposition, than thou didst tell me of before, I say unto thee again, that thou mayest here see (if thou mark it well) that upon these words of christ, The flesh profiteth nothing. Frith doth bring in that exposition of S. Austin's, which Saint Austen maketh upon this saying of Christ. The words which I have spoken unto you, are spirit & life. And the proper exposition that Saint Austen maketh upon these words. The flesh profiteth nothing. Which exposition, I recited unto thee right now myself, he doth clean omit and dissemble, as though there were no such matter at all. Therefore wilt thou not see, what a part he playeth herein? Thus to apply a man's exposition of one text, to an other, and his proper exposition of that other, clean omit, dissemble, and will not be known of it? Hast thou seen a more manifest falsehood at any man's hand? Cap. 20. HERE. Sir the macter is not so great as ye make it. For when Christ saith, my words are spirit and life, he meaneth those words which he spoke at that time, among which were even these. The flesh profiteth nothing. Therefore they be of the words, which he meaneth to be spirit and life. That is to say, spiritually (as S. Austen saith) to be understand. Wherefore these words of saint Austen, spiritually to be understand, do as well serve and expound this text. The flesh profiteth nothing. As they do this text. My words are spirit and life. Whereupon they were (as you say) directly and purposely spoken. CATH. Ye but why doth not Frithe, as Saint Austen doth, put each of those texts, with their own proper and whole expositions by themselves? And then with conference made between them, see what he could gather of them both together, for his purpose? HERE. I can tell what your answer would be, if you were asked that question? CATH. What? HERE. Ye would say, that he would not so do, because, that the one exposition, would have made as much against him, as the other seemeth to make with him. CATH. What month thee to think, that I would so say, but even the very truth thereof? for most true it is, that the one exposition soundeth no more of the spirit, than the other doth of the flesh. Whithe Frithe could in no wise away with all. And therefore that made him so ready to bring forth that one, which might seem to make for his purpose, and not to be known of the other, which maketh so much against him. For all his purpose was in nothing so much, as to exclude all the real being of Christ's very flesh, in the holy Sacrament. For there, he would have nothing but very bread in a bare signification. And therefore could he abide nothing, that might seem or sound to the contrary. But what so ever he could find among the old holy fathers, to sound or smack of any spiritual understanding in the matter, that did he catch and hold, thinking utterly thereby, to prove his intent thoroughly. Never searching what they mente by it, but always took it and applied it to that he went about, which was, as it doth well appear, nothing else but falsehood indeed. And therefore it proved there after. For had he been at the first, as ready to try what the old holy fathers meant, by that spiritual understanding, as he was rash and ready to run headlinge upon his own dreaming thereof, without any good advisement or dew consideration, or would have referred the judgement of his own phansyes, to the Holy Catholic church, as every true and good christian man ought to do, and as I For my part, daily pray God of his grace, that I never do otherwise, if he had (I say) this done, it had never proved with him & some other as it hath done, which was but according, to this old saying, the hasty man, lacketh never woe. HERE. Sir why do you account him rash and hasty herein, when he taketh not the old holy doctors, but according to their own sayings? CATH. I do account him so, because all sayings, are not always so simple, but that many of them oftentimes, contain and have in each of them, diverse understandings. Or else there should not be as there is, such contention about there meanings, after that men hath uttered and put forth their bare sayings. Wherefore, the fault of rashness that I find with Frithe, is because he looked so much upon their sayingis, that he passed nothing upon their very meanings, but to their sayings, he joined his own meanings, and thereby deceived himself and many other more. HERE. Why, what other meaning should he gather of this their saying, a spiritual understanding, but a spiritual understanding in deed? And that he not only doth, but also defendeth, as much as he can. And therefore as I told you before, where there is a spiritual understanding, there can be no carnal understanding. And where there can be no carnal understanding, there can be no very flesh remaining. CATH. Thou sayest so. But how will he, or thou other, prove that there is in this matter no carnal understanding, or no flesh remaining? HERE Because there is a spiritual understanding. CAT That followeth not. for I told thee diverse times before, that spiritual, and only spiritual are two things, for if it be not only spiritual, than it may be both so, and otherwise that is to say, so in one respect, and otherwise in another respect. Wherefore if it may be, both so and otherwise, where is Frithes purpose become then, which resteth all together upon only so and none otherwise? Therefore he must prove, that it is only mere spiritual, and not only that, but also, what a spiritual understanding is. For without that all his hole talk, is but vain babbling and nothing else. Cap. 21. HERE. Well sir, it is to late for him, to do that now. And therefore sith ye hold it so necessary to be done, I pray you for the fruitful furtherance of our talk herein, declare you whether the understanding of it be only mere spiritual or not, and what the spiritual understanding of it is. CATH. Then thou must first consider this, that although some, yet all and every spiritual understanding, doth not exclude, and forbid the understanding of all manner of flesh, as it doth, when it is but only and mere spiritual, as some time it is, and some time not. For if thou take spiritual understanding so, that is to say, to be always of only and mere spiritual things, thou shalt not take any body or flesh, within the compass of any spiritual understanding at all. Wherefore if thou take it so, that there may be no spiritual understanding of any flesh, thou takest it then, even directly against the holy Apostle Saint Paul, writing to the Corinthians of the general resurrection, and describing the difference of the state of the body before and after. where he saith, It is sown a natural body, 1. cor. 15 and it shall rise a spiritual body. There is a natural body. And there is a spiritual body. And a little after he saith also. That is not first, which is spiritual, but that, which is natural. And then that which is spiritual. Here thou mayest see by the holy apostle (if thou trust him) that some body is, and more shallbe, spiritual at length. And a spiritual body can not be, truly understand, but at the least in some respect spiritually. Except thou wilt say, it may be otherwise understand than it is, which is no perfit good, and true, understanding in deed. Therefore, this doth not follow, as Frith would have it, that where is a spiritual understanding, there is no flesh. But this doth well follow, that where there is spiritual flesh, there the understanding must needs be spiritual, not therein denying the verity of the flesh, but declaring the state and condition thereof. Yet this spiritual understanding, is not all only and mere spiritual, because it is not directly and only of a spirit, but of a certain perfit and very flesh, which is spiritual, and not a spirit, but spiritual, for that it is advanced so near the perfection of the spirit, whereunto it is knit, and thereby made spiritual, as of the contrary part, the mind of some man is made carnal and fleshly, not because it is fleshe-but because it is so addict unto the flesh, that it is become subject unto the vicious desires or inclination thereof. And therefore called (as it is in deed) fleshly. For of such a man, we say, he is a man of a fleshly mind, yet his mind is not flesh for all that. Wherefore as the spirit of that man is fleshly and no flesh, so is the flesh of the other, spiritual and no spirit. And for that it is spiritual, it must be spiritually understand. And that can it not truly be without the spirit, by which it is made spiritual. And therefore the words which are spoken of that flesh, are called spirit and life, that is to say, spiritually to be understand. For without that spirit the flesh profiteth nothing. Wherewith, they were truly answered, which took it otherwise, that is to say, without the spirit. As it appeareth by the words of Saint Austen recited before. Cap. 22. HERE. Yet it will not sink in to my head, but that, if this spiritual understanding of flesh, be of flesh, that is very flesh in deed, it must needs have also then, a fleshly understanding with all. Because it seemeth more agreeable to the thing, than the spiritual understanding of it doth. For what maketh understanding carnal or fleshly but flesh? or how can flesh be not fleshly understand, when understanding must needs be after, and according to the thing that is understand? CA Herein thou art as frith was, wonderfully deceived. For he did, as thou dost put no difference, Inter carnem & carnalem. That is to say, between flesh, and fleshly or fleshy, when the one hath respect to the substance of flesh, and the other, to the natural qualities, dispositions, properties and usage thereof, or thereunto belonging. And therefore when the flesh is understand, after any of them, than the understanding of it, is carnal and fleshly, For those natural qualities, properties, and dispositions of flesh, is it, that maketh the understanding of it carnal and fleshly, and not the substance itself: as it may well appear, not only By Saint Paul, but also by Saint Austen upon the same sixth chapter of Saint john, where his words be these. Qui aderant plures, non intelligendo scandalizati sunt. Non enim cogitabant haec audiendo nisi carnem quod ipsi erant. Apostolus autem dicit. Et vae rum dicit, sapere secundum carnem, Mors est. Carnem 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. Which may thus be englished. Many of them that were present, not understanding the matter were offended. For in hearing these things, they did not imagine, but the flesh that they were themselves. But the apostle saith, and saith true, to understand after the flesh, is death. Our lord gave unto us, his flesh in eat, and to understand after the flesh is death, when he said of his own flesh, that there is everlasting life. Therefore we ought not to understand flesh after the flesh. Here thou mayest see a manifest difference of understanding, between flesh and after the flesh, and therefore how sayst 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 understand the flesh after the flesh, but that we ought to understand it after some other thing, which is here meant by the flesheand not the flesh itself? CATH. I would not have thought the so foolish, as to take it so. for this as is though it were all one to say, we ought not to understand the flesh after the flesh, and to say, we ought not therein to understand any flesh at all, when the saying forbiddeth us not, the understanding of the flesh itself, but the understanding of it, after the common course, and natural disposition thereof. It forbiddeth us to understand it, as nature here daily doth use it, and at length shall lose it, but not as the spirit shall at length again obtain it. The spirit of man itself, is now in this life much after the flesh here, but the flesh in the next life, shallbe after the spirit there. After the flesh here, hath no place, nor being there. And that ought we to consider here. For the flesh is one thing, and after the flesh is an other. Wherefore although in the course of nature, they go here both together, yet in this matter, our understanding must pluck them a sunder, or else, thou shalt understand flesh, after the flesh, which is death, as thou hast hard before, and more plainly doth appear, by the manifest words of th'apostle again, in an other place, where he saith. Et si cognovimus secundum carnem Christum, 2. cor. ● sed nunc iam non novimus. That is to say Although we have known Christ after the flesh, yet we do not so now. What do we then? know we now, no flesh in Christ? God forbid. for we know it in deed: but not after the flesh. What is after the flesh? Necessity, passibilitee, corruptibilitee, mortality, and such other. These were once known in Christ. And his flesh then, known after them. But so it neither is, nor aught to be known now. And therefore not after the flesh, and yet flesh in deed for all that, although not fleshly flesh, which only maketh fleshly understanding, But spiritual flesh which maketh the understanding spiritual. For as th'apostle saith. ●. cor. 15 There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And what is that to say, but there is a natural flesh, and there is a spiritual flesh? That (he saith) is not first, which is spiritual. But that which is natural. And then that which is spiritual. These two states of flesh, thou mayest know by reason, can not have like understanding. Wherefore by this, it may well appear, that the spiritual understanding of this matter, whereupon Frith doth ground himself, and yet understood it not, is not even only and mere spiritual, as he doth take it, excluding all manner of flesh. But spiritual of spiritual flesh, which Frithes understanding did never touch, nor once dream upon. HERE. That is your pleasure so to say. CATH. No, it shall not be only my saying, but as in the .17. leaf of his book, it may be partly perceived by his own saying, which is this. As touching the other words (saith he) that Christ spoke unto his disciples at the last supper, I deny not but that he said so, but that he so fleshly meant, as ye falsely feign, I utterly deny. Now mark, what doth he mean, by this, which he layeth here so sore to our charges, that we have (as he saith) so falsely feigned of Christ'S meaning? HERALD He meaneth your feygning to be this, that Christ meant, that his words, concerning his body, spoken at his last supper, should be taken and understand fleshly, which can not be. CATH. And meaneth he so? HERE. His words declare no less. CATH. Therefore by this it is clear, that his meaning of our feigning, is even like his understanding, which is in deed both false and fleshly to. For do we feign, that Christ spoke those words of his blessed body, with a fleshly meaning? Where findeth he, that we feign that, as here he lusteth so to lie? For we do not only, not feign it, but utterly deny it, constantly affirming, and faithfully teaching, that therein Christ meant, in deed very flesh, but yet not (as this flesh monger lieth) fleshly flesh, for all that. How be it even fleshly flesh it is, which Frith dreameth upon, and none other. And that deceiveth him altogether. For commonly where so ever he maketh mention of Christ's body, his flesh, and eating thereof, he doth not call it but a natural body, natural flesh, and the eating thereof, carnal eating, eating with the mouth teeth and belly, and such other talk concerning the same, as smelleth not, but even altogether fleshly and nothing else: as it appeareth in the .44. and .45. leaf of his book, and many other places therein beside: when, as I told thee before, between flesh and fleshly, there is as great difference, which Fryth did nothing consider. And therefore it is no wonder although he came never at the spiritual understanding of the matter, being so fleshly phantasied, as his own talk therein doth plainly declare that he was. Wherefore in him are well verified these words of th'apostle saying. 1, cor. 2 Animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus dei, stultitia enim est illi, & non potest intelligere, quia spiritualiter examinatur. Spiritualis autem judicat omnia. Which may thus be Englished, The fleshly man undestandeth not those things, which are of the spirit of god. For they are foolishness to him, because he can not understand that they are spiritually to be examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all. That is to say. The spiritual man judgeth all, both spiritual and carnal. But so can not the fleshly man, whose reach passeth not the common course of natural and fleshly flesh, Wherefore it is no marvel, though this fleshly Fryth, doth falsely feign, our understanding to be but fleshly, as his understanding was, which could no farther than such flesh, as he was of himself. For in all his book, thou shalt not find one spark of understanding that he had, of any spiritual flesh at all. And therefore, his thinking that our understanding of flesh is none other, than his was, caused him in the .23. leaf of his book, to have these words. I wonder (saith he) that we have been led so long in this gross error. HERE. So doth many more, as well as he, I may say to you. Cap. 23. CATHOLI. Ye but what gross error is it, which he noteth us here to be led in so long? HERALD That ye believe Christ's very natural body and his natural flesh, to be presently in the Sacrament. And therein to have such carnal eating of it, with tooth and belly, as he maketh mention of, in diverse places of his book. CATH. What if we would grant him, that it were a very gross error, (as he calleth it) so to believe? HERE. Then ye must other confess yourselves in a great fault for so believing, or else deny, and say ye believe it not. CATH. Let it so be, that we believe it not. And what of that? HERE. Then is Frithe and you, even both at a point, and of one opinion there in. CATH. Nay not so. For we believe, that therein is very flesh for all that. But he believeth that therein, is utterly none at all. Therefore his opinion and ours are not both one. HERE. Then, how can you believe, that therein is Christ's very flesh, if ye believe not, that his natural body, and natural flesh is in it? CATH. Well enough. For if thy weak head could bear it, I would deny, that Christ hath any natural body, or natural flesh other. HERE. No not in the sacrament. CATH. No nor in heaven or any where else. HERE. What never speak it. For than it must follow, 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 comen course of nature, that his understanding could reach no farther. And yet in his time I dare say he heard of this difference of things, that some were natural, and some supernatural. Wherefore, I deny not, but that the blessed body and very flesh of our saviour Christ, was once natural, but not since the time of his resurrection. For what is natural, but what so ever is under the yoke and laws of nature, as our bodies are, and our flesh is? And what things may we call supernatural if that be not one of them, which hath been once natural, and now hath overcome the power and strength of nature, and hath gotten clean out of the laws and bondage thereof? wherefore, if thou say, that there is no such thing, than thou must needs grant, that the body, and flesh of our Saviour Christ hath even now, need of eyer and breath, meat, drink, sleep and such other, as without which, no natural body of man doth, Ex. 34.3. re. 19 or can be able, to live and endure. Except it be by miracle for a season, as in part, it was with Moses and Helyas by the space of .40. days. Therefore if the body of Christ have now, need of those things, than it is passable, and may suffer. If it be passable and may suffer, than it is mortal, and may die. And that I am sure thou wilt not grant. Wherefore if it can not die, it is not mortal, if it be not mortal, it can not suffer. If it cannot suffer, it hath no need of those things, or any other like. If it hath no need of any of those things, what hath nature to do with it, when those be things, which of necessity nature requireth? Therefore if nature have nothing to do with it, how can it be natural? That, is not natural, which the course of nature hath nothing to do with all. Therefore why doth Frithe so often call it natural, but because his understanding of it, was so carnal that he could see no spark of the state of it, which is spiritual? He did not know, that natural and carnal, are no meet, nor convenient terms, to be put to the expression of the holy flesh of christ, as they are not indeed If a man should go to the very proper signification of the words. Because therein they make no difference between the state of that flesh and ours. For ours is natural and carnal. And therefore to the declaring of his flesh, there should be put in the place of natural, supernatural. And in the place of carnal, spiritual, as now the verities of the thing, doth most worthily and duly require. For if it were always used to be spoken of so, it would perchance ease some weak minds, of many carnal and fleshly fantasies, that runneth yet in their head des about this matter, as there did none other in Frithes head, so long as he lived. For as it appeareth in diverse places of his book, he took nature, to be one of his principal grounds, to prove his purpose by, in this case. And therefore he that will go about to improve and disallow that by nature, which is supernatural, shall prove himself (I may say to thee) even as Frith did, far worse than a natural fool. Wherefore herein leave thy dreaming of what so ever is natural and carnal, and turn it to that, which is spiritual and supernatural an other while. Or else thou shall never have, true, perfect, and constant faith in this matter, while thou livest. For so long as thy cogytation herein, runneth or resteth upon the common course of natural flesh, thou shalt never be satisfied, with any truth, that thou shalt get and come by that way. Therefore remember and follow the holy Apostle in that he sayeth (as I told thee before.) Although we have known Christ after the flesh, 2. cor. 5, 1. cor. 15 yet we do not so now, for if therebe (he saith) a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Now he it that is not first, which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that, which is spiritual. Wherefore in this matter, thou must forget natural and fleshly flesh, and understand, or at the least have in belief, supernatural and spiritual flesh. And then thou shalt, as Frithe did not, truly understand the meaning of Christ, where he sayeth. john. 5 The words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life. For spiritual understanding is not here, as Frith did take it, only and mere spiritual, without all respect, and being of any manner of flesh at all. Nor the carnal understanding, which he speaketh of, and layeth here to our charges, is none such neither, as he taketh it for. He was far deceived in both. For as he took the one, to be only and mere spiritual, So he took the other to be only and whole carnal. Which are both false, as it may well appear, and it were but by the very substance of the thing itself, which indeed is flesh. But yet some way, so spiced with spiritualitee, that it is neither carnal, nor yet only, or mere spiritual, but spiritually to be understand, for the spiritual state, which it hath obtained. Cap. 24. HERE. Sir, then let me here somewhat more, whereby I may better perceive, what spiritual understanding is. For yet I know it not. CATH. It is even that, which is not carnal. HERE. By that am I never the near. CATH. Therefore mend thy question, and then thou mayest chance of a better answer. HERALD Then, what is carnal understanding? CATH. That is well asked. For with that, thou shouldest begin. Because that once known, thou shalt know the other so much the better. For that order in the same matter, upon this text, the flesh profiteth nothing, doth holy Chrisostome follow in these words. Quid autem est carnaliter intelligere? simpliciter veres dicuntur. Neque aliud quippiam excogitare. Non enim ita iudicanda sunt quae videntur. Sed misteria omnia interrioribus oculis consideranda, hoc est, spiritualiter. Qui non manducat carnem meam, et bibit meum sanguinem, non habet vitam in semet ipso. Quomodo nihil prodest caro, sine qua nemo potest vivere? vide quod ea perticula, caro non prodest quic quam, non de ipsa carne, sed de carnali auditione dictum est. That is to say. But what is it to understand carnally? simply as the things are spoken, and to imagine thereof nothing else. For those things which are seen, are not to be judged so. But all mysteries are to be considered with the inward eyes. This is spiritually. He that eateth not my flesh, and drink my blood, hath not life in him. Now doth the flesh profit nothing, without the which, no man may live? Mark, that this part, the flesh profiteth nothing, is not said of the flesh itself, but of the carnal hearing of it. Here, by this, thou mayst well perceive, that carnal understanding extendeth no farther herein then sensible experience doth lead. But spiritual understanding extendeth to that, which no sensible experience is able to reach or come unto, although it be in sensible things. As the grace of baptim, although it be in the sensible sacrament and ministration thereof, yet it is insensible itself. Farther more thou mayst here also perceive, that holy Chrisostome doth not reprehend the understanding of the flesh itself, but the carnal hearing of it. That is to say, the fleshly or fleshy understanding of it. Which is, when it is taken and understand after the flesh, as it is in the comen course of nature. For that, he doth here reprehend and nothing else. Cap. 25. HERE. Well sir, let it so be. And would you have me therefore understand very flesh to be in the Sacrament? CATH. indeed I would have thee believe it. HERE. I take understanding, and believing to be without any great difference in this case. And therefore because this point runneth upon spiritual understanding, how can I understand very flesh, but that mine understanding thereof, must be carnal and after the flesh, which I do understand? CATH. Ye what flesh dost thou mean? HERE. Marry Christ's flesh. CATH. I pray thee heartily understand that flesh, even after that flesh, and spare not. For so, thine understanding of it shall neither be carnal, nor yet natural neither as carnal and natural be communly taken. For if thou understand that flesh, after that flesh indeed, thou dost then understand it even as it is, and not as it was, that is to say, as it is now, and hath been ever since his resurrection. But not as it was, between that, & the first time of his incarnation. How be it, this same carnal & after the flesh, that I mean here, is not in him, properly called, carnal & after the flesh now, but spiritual and after the spirit. Because in him, what so ever was contained under or in the signification of this word carnal is now turned so far into the contrary, that it is comprehended under the signification of this word spiritual. And therefore if thou understand that flesh, after as it is now, thine understanding of it is then spiritual, and not carnal. HERE. Ye but although that flesh be (as ye say) spiritual, yet it is flesh. And therefore sith it is flesh, how shall I know when I understand it spiritually and not carnally? CATH. When thou dost understand it as it is. HERE. Ye how is that? CATH. Immortal. For if thou understand it otherwise then so, thou understandest it carnally, and after the flesh, and not spiritually. For although immortality cometh to the flesh, yet it cometh not of the flesh, but of the spirit. And therefore if thou understand it immortal, thine understanding thereof is spiritual. HERE. Of immortality we have none experience. And therefore, how or by what mean, should I understand it immortal? For I take immortality to be such a thing as doth far pass my understanding and as I tkynke yours to. CATH. Although it passeth my understanding never so far, yet so long as it passeth not my beleveing I do not care. but I am afraid that it passeth not only thy understanding but also thy believing to. HERE. Nay that it doth not, for I believe it verily. CATH. Then if thou do so. For the proof of the thing, this only testimony of of the holy Apostle is enough, where he sayeth. Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur. Mors illi ultra non dominabitur. That is to say. Christ rising from death, dieth no more. Death hath no more dominion over him. Therefore that living flesh, which is above, and be yond all the power of death, must needs be immortal. For although death & it, made once a fray, wherein death got the victory and the flesh gave way for a little while, yet soon after, that same flesh got the victory of death again, and that for ever. Wherefore if there were no more, nor any thing else, whereby to understand it immortal, but this one testimony of th'apostle, it were (as it is) sufficient & even enough to any good christian man. HERE. Sir because ye speak of enough. Is it enough to understand or believe it immortal? CA It is enough, so thou understand or believe therein, nothing to the contrary. HR. As how? CAT. No corruptiblitee, no passibilitee, no necessity, nor any thing else to be therein, the appertaineth by any occasion to the contrary. For as these do naturally appertain and belong unto the state of mortality, so doth their contraries, supernaturally appertain and belong unto the state of immortality. Cap. 26. HERE. Then, me think by your saying, that impassibilite doth appertain to immortality so, that they must needs go always together. CATH. What else? HERALD Therefore if they must needs go always together, than the bodies that shallbe damned in hell for ever more, shallbe impassable. For they shallbe immortal, and never die. And so suffer no pain at all, if immortality and impassibilitee go always together? CATH. I pray thee where foundest thou that? HERE. Where should I find it, but even in reason? CATH. Ye in such reason as Frithe followed, but not in very reason in deed. For I deny that those in hell, shallbe immortal. HERE. Then they shall, and must needs there die again, and have and end at length. CATH. I say not so neither. HERE. They must needs other die again, and come to an end, or else live for ever, and then they be immortal. For the one or the other, can not be avoided, CATH. As far as thou seest, thou mayest say. How be it, I deny both. HERE. What, that they shall die again, or be immortal? CATH. That same I mean. HERE. Ye may deny what you list, but yet I am sure, the one or the other must needs be true. CAT. If thou be so sure of that, then tell me what dost thou mean, or understand, by this word immortal? HERE. Marry that, which is past death for ever. CATH. Nay, that is no good answer. For a dead dog or a dead horse, is past death for ever, and yet is not immortal. HERE. I mean that, which is once past death, and yet liveth again for ever. CAT. There thou sayest well. And therefore what maketh a body to live for ever? HERE. The obtaining of life without end. CATH. What is life without end? HERE. Life everlasting. CATH? Ye what is life everlasting? HERE. I can not tell what I should call it, but even so, or everlasting life, which is all one. CATH. Then there is nothing that maketh bodies to live for ever, but everlasting life. HERE. That is clear. CATH. Therefore if no bodies can be immortal, but such as liveth for ever: And none can live for ever, but by everlasting life. It followeth plain, that it is everlasting life, which maketh bodies immortal. HERE. That I grant must needs be true. CATH. And to whom is everlasting life promised? to them that shallbe damned in hell? john. 6. or else to them that shallbe saved in heaven? HERALD What question is that? for everlasting life is promised to none, but only to those, that shallbe saved. CAT. Then, when everlasting life is promised to none but only to those that shall be saved, and none can be made immortal but by everlasting life, it must needs follow, that none but only those that shallbe saved, can be made and truly called immortal. And therefore why sayest thou, that those bodies shallbe immortal, which shall not have everlasting life, but shall be damned in hell for ever more? and so thereby conclude that because of their passibilitee and penal suffering, immortality and impassibilitee goeth not always together, which is far against both reason and truth. For although those damned bodies shall have a perpetual passibilitee and suffering without end, yet they therein shall not be immortal for all that. HERE. How can those two stand together? CAT. Well enough. For once again, what is meant by this word immortal, but that, which is not mortal? And what is not mortal properly, but that, which liveth beyond and out of the danger of death, and all the stings thereof? for there is nothing immortal but only that. And may we say, that the damned bodies in hell, shallbe in that case? when they shall always remain in death? ye & in that death, ●po. 2.21 which the holy scripture calleth Mors secunda, that is to say, the second death, which may also be called the death of all deaths, when it shall never cease, but be everlasting. HERE. Then yet ye grant, that they shallbe, everlasting. CATH. Ye in death, but not in life. HERE. If they be not in life, they can feel no pain. CATH. That is not so. For the feeling of pain, doth not even properly belong and appertain unto life, but unto death. Even as the seling of pleasure, doth not belong unto death, but unto life. It is proper to death, to come by pain. And proper to life, to acquere pleasure. for the feeling, which perfect and very life hath, is of none other but of pleasure. And the feeling that very death hath, is of none other, but of pain. But this is somewhat straying, because in this world, there is none of them both. That is to say, neither perfect life, nor yet (if I may so call it) perfect death neither. For the life that we have here now is but as it were a course unto death, or a mixture of both together. wherein death in conclusion prevaileth and maketh an end of both. that is to say, of life and itself to. For they both be here transitory and temporal, but afterward, permanent and eternal, not mixed and confounded together, or the one following the other, as they do here. But there, clearly and distinctly separate a sunder, each from other, for ever more. HERE. Yet is it marvel to me, how those in damnation should feel pain, if they be dead, as ye say they be. For there is no dead thing can feel. CATH. Thou that takest one thing for an other. For did I say that they shall remain dead? when I said none otherwise but that they shall remain in death. Deed and in death, are two things. For he that is dead, is past death & without all manner of feeling. But so is not he, that is in death. For he is but at the point of dying, which abiding so, is far worse, then dead in deed. For he feeleth somewhat but what is that? In deed no pleasure, but only pain and that extreme. Wherefore that, or so much as we see of this matter, by daily experience here, giveth to us good occasion of some consideration, how it shallbe there. For although it be finished here in a short time, yet it shallbe there continual for ever. Wherefore, say not, that those which shall remain in perpetual damnation and misery, shallbe therefore immortal. For that word properly, belongeth only to them, that shall remain in pleasure eternal. And therefore as those may, and be truly called immortal, so the other might, if the word were in use, be called invitall. For those two words giveth this much to be understand, that, as the one sort, neither doth nor can die. So the other, neither doth nor properly can live. For they be contraries. HERE. If they in hell neither do, nor can live, it must needs follow, that they have no life. CATH. How can they have life, when they are in everlasting death? HERE. Then that death can not grieve them, if they have no life. For (as I said) without life they can not feel. CATH. That is not so. For what is feeling, but the sensibilitee of well or woe? That is to say, of pleasure or pain, And therefore whereto tendeth, or belongeth the sensibilitee of pain, but unto death, as I told the before? And whereto, tendeth or belongeth the sensibilitee of pleasure, but unto life? And therefore, shall, or may we say, that they have in hell the sensibilttee of pleasure? God forbid. If they have not the sensibilitee of pleasure, they have not that, which appertaineth and belongeth properly unto life. If they have not that which appertaineth and belongeth unto life, how can we truly say, that they do live or have life? HERE. why sir, life is one thing, and pleasure is an other, and pain is a third. Wherefore I take not life of itself, to be other pleasure, or pain other, but only as it were an indifferent receptacle of the other two by course, as they chance unto it. CATH. Ye, that is here in this world, where death hath dominion over it. And where those contraries of pleasure and pain are confounded together for the time. But not so afterward in the world to come, where they shall be divided, with all that properly belongeth unto them. And so to remain a sunder for ever more. And therefore it followeth not, that they have life, because they have the sensibilitee and feeling of extreme pains, which (as I said) belongeth unto death, and not unto life. For how should we truly judge life in those, which we know, it were better for them, that they had never been borne: as of one of them in especial, the Gospel doth say. Bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille. That is to say. It had been good for that man, if he had not been borne. If he had not been borne, he had had no life. Therefore if he have life, and had been better to have had none, than it must follow, that no life, is better than life, which cannot be. HERE. Yes sir in some respect. For although life must needs be better than no life in respect of itself, and in the order of nature, yet no life is better than life, in respect of him, which hath purchased such a state, that no good thing, can do him good. Wherefore because this can not be avoided, but other he hath life, or no life, and clear it is, that he hath not no life, which no life were better for him then life. Therefore if must needs follow, that he hath life, although it be worse for him than no life. CAT. Then I perceive that thou wilt needs have life in them, that shall be damned in hell for ever. HERE. What else? CATH. Therefore sith there is life in heaven, life in earth, and life in hell to, what difference wilt thou put between those three lives? HERE. Very great difference. For in heaven, life is endued with only pleasure and no pain. In earth, with both pleasure and also pain. And in hell, with only pain and no pleasure. CATH. What life callest thou that which is alway endued with only pain and no pleasure? HERE. Such as I grant to be worse to them, than no life at all: but yet it is life for all that. CATH. If it be so, how cometh this to pass, that the holy Scripture doth call it death? ye and giveth it to be understand everlasting, which is far worse. HERE. I shall tell you therein, as I think. because death consisteth in extreme pains, and pains be there, extreme and perpetual, therefore it may well be called death, specially when it hath in it no commodity left, that appertaineth unto life, except it be feeling. CATH. Nay except not that. For feeling is no commodity but conditional, that is to say, if it be of pleasure, whereof they in hell have none at all. HERE. Therefore the life that they have, may be called death. CATH. Ye but the scripture doth not so call it, because it may, but because it is so. And therefore how canst thou truly call them immortal, when they are in a death eternal? they might rather be called mortal, then immortal. How be it properly none of them both. For mortal is that. which shall have a final death. And immortal is that, which shall have none at all, but a perpetual and a pleasant life. for never die, is only in heaven. And ever die, is only in hell, Wherefore sith ever die, and never die, be two direct contraries, this word immortal can never be truly nor properly said of them both: for it doth exclude and utterly forbid the understanding of all death, which hath in hell, no less than a perpetual continuance for ever. Therefore sith it may thus appear, that although those damned bodies shall have their being eternal, and yet are not in deed immortal, because they shall remain in the second death which is perpetual, it must needs follow, that there is no such impediment as thou dost object against the going together of impassibilitee and immortality, but that they may, as they are, and must needs be, always inseparable. Wherefore although by this occasion, thou haste caused me somewhat to dygresse from my purpose, yet to return thereunto again, I say as I said, that as passibilitee and corruptibilitee doth appertain and belong to the state of mortality, so doth their contraries, that is to say, impassibilitee and incorruptibilitee appertain and belong to the state of immortality. And for a general rule, there is nothing that is or may be so understand of Christ's flesh, and his body now immortal, as it is and may be now of other men's flesh and their bodies, or might have been of his, when it was mortal. Cap. 27. HERE. And ye say so, we shall have a goodly conclusion of that, ere we part. For if there be nothing to be understand of Christ's flesh and his body now being immortal, that is or may be understand of other men's flesh and bodies, or might have been of his, when it was mortal, than we may not understand any form, figure, or fashion of his body, nor any membres thereof, as hands, feet, ears, eyes, mouth, nose, and such other, which we do well understand and see, that other men have. Whereof this must needs follow, that other he hath such a monstrous body, as never was seen or hard of, or else no body at all. CATH. Thou handlest me now, even as Frith handleth Saint Austen, and the other holy fathers of the church. And the truth to say, as all ye do (for the most part) handle us all in what so ever we say or write. For commonly, ye do not only mistake our meanings, but also perversely alter, and change our sayings, as thou dost mine here even now. For did I say, there is nothing that is or may be understand of christs flesh & his body now immortal, that is & may be understand of other men's flesh and their bodies, or of his, when it was mortal? what a perversion of a man's tale is this? for my saying was none other, but that there is nothing, that is or may be so understand of Christ's flesh and his body now immortal as it is and may be of other men's flesh and of their bodies, or might have been of his, when it was mortal. Be these two tales like? How be it to Frithe and to thee, it is all one to say, there is nothing to be understand, and to say, there is nothing to be so understand. In deed by this we may understand, of what generation or of what sort of people ye are. But nevertheless, wilt thou understand the figure or form of Christ's immortal body even so, as thou dost, or oughtest to do even now, of mine or thine? when the figure and form of thine and mine, are corruptible? as they must needs be, whilse all the whole body is no less than so? Therefore how canst that understand a body to be immortal, and understand any part of it corruptible? when the corruption of parts tendeth to the whole. And the corruption of the whole, is death or destruction to any thing? HERALD How should I understand it incorruptible, when (as I said of immortality) we have no experience of any such incorruption? CATH. Even as thou dost understand it immortal, so understand it incorruptible. For as near to thy understanding, is the one, as the other, and all one. HERE. We have Saint Paul for our guide in the one. CATH. So thou hast him likewise in the other. For the body saith he. Is sowed in corruption, and it shall rise in incorruption. Cor. 15. That is to say. It is sowed in the state of corruptibilite, but it shall rise again in the state of incorruptibilite. Wherefore the figure and form of Christ's immortal body, may in no wise be so understand, as it is now of our bodies. HERE. That I now parceive must needs be granted, as touching corruptibilite. CATH. Ye and as touching any thing else in our bodies, what so ever it be. HERE. That were straying. For we may understand his immortal body to be sensible, that is to say, visible, palpable, and of a certain stature and quantity as other men's are. CATH. Beware what thou dost. For wilt thou understand the sensibilite of his body, to be subject to the sensis of men, and to the actions of other natural things, as the sensibilite is of our bodies? HERE. How else? CATH. What, when so many displeasures chanceth to men thereof, as we may daily see? dost thou not know, that by our sensibilite we be made subject to passibilite? for what corporal passion or pain could be put unto us, by any man, or other body, if we could not be hard, seen, touched, or felt? or what penal suffering could touch us, but by our senses of hearing, seeing, or feeling? Therefore by our senses or sensibilite, we come to passibilite & suffering, and by passibilite & suffering we come to death and corruption. There is no man I suppose, that hath the stature and quantity of his body so, but that he would, some time, for one cause or other, have it other more, or less, or otherwise then he hath, if he might. If not, yet who doth not know it to be subject to division, which tendeth to corruption, and so to destruction? therefore wilt thou understand the form, figure, stature, quantity, senses, & sensibilite of Christ's body after this sort, & as thou dost & must needs understand them in, & of other men's bodies? if thou so do, without question, thine understanding of it then, is but carnal & after the flesh, And not spiritual and after the spirit, & therefore not according to the scriptures before alleged. For so thine understanding walketh not, but within the compass of sensible experience, which can not reach, to the state of immortality, nor to any thing near it. For so long, as thou understandest any point in that body so, as thou dost and must understand it in ours, without fail thou dost not understand it immortal, but as it were mortal still, although, or what so ever thou dost think, or fancy to the contrary. For what is in our bodies, that is not subject to dissolution, corruption, and mortality? And what is so contrary to immortality as those things are? therefore thou shalt never truly understand Christ's body to be immortal, so long as thou dremist upon any thing to be in it, as it is natural. Because it is not in part, but even whole supernatural altogether. Cap. 28. HERALD I ween ye would make us understand him to have no body at al. CA why sayest thou so. HERALD How should I understand him to have a body, & understand not the form, figure, stature, colour, quantity, and such other accidental qualities thereof, as I do of other men's bodies? CA Because he hath those things now, far otherwise & after an other sort in his body, than other men hath them in theirs. HERALD How is that? CAT. Ye that how, is it, that leadeth you al. But yet so much of that how, as my poor understanding can reach, and thine can bear, I will tell thee. Other men hath their accidental qualities, not subject to their wills, but to the order of nature. And he hath them, not subject to the order of nature, but to his will, which is in a farther liberty, and the farthest that may be. HERE. I do not well understand your meaning therein. CATH. That is this. Thou standing here now presently before me, I do see in thee, all these things that we speak of. That is to say, thy form, favour, colour, stature, quantity, and so forth, by reason whereof it is true, after the common understanding, that I see thee. HERE. I grant no less. CATH. Therefore what if thou wouldest not, that I should see thee now, being thus present before me? couldst thou with draw the visible appearance of these things from my sight, if I lust to behold them in thee? HERE. I could not do so though I would, so long as I stand before you. CATH. Therefore thou hast them not, subject to thy will when thou canst not use them according to thy will. Wherefore by this it appeareth plain, that when thou art seen, and parchance wouldest not be seen, these things in thee then are therein but resysters of thy will, and not followers thereof. And therefore, god forbid that we should understand them to be so, and after that sort, in the blessed body of our saviour Christ. Wherefore, other he hath them not at all, or else he hath them subject to his holy will. And apparel it were to think, that he hath them not at all, because it is so hard to understand, how a very body may have any being without them. And more parill it is to think, that he hath them in his body, as we have them in ours, which are tending to corruption. But no peril at all, to think that he hath them subject, and at the beck of his holy will, to use or not use them after this or that sort, always at his pleasure. That is to say, to show them or not show them, or himself by them, when, where, and as it shall please him. For if it were his glorious pleasure to stand here now between us both, thinkest thou that we should see these things in him, as in like case, we should see them in other, and ask them no leave? or that his very being between us, should let thy seeing of me, or my saying of thee, as an other man's direct being between us should do, whether we or he would or not, except it were his holy pleasure so to do? And therefore, because the altitude of this matter, extendeth so far beyond the common reach of our reason, and understanding, how to avoid every how, that hath, is, or may chance to be hurled against it, but with other like howes of the same sort, it pleased him of his infinite goodness, for the coroboration of the verity of our faith herein, to leave unto us, in his holy scripture, some, ye and sufficient examples thereof. For how did the ponder ofite of his holy body behave itself, john. 6 when he walked upon the water? did it not there, forsake the common order of nature, and submit itself wholly and only to his will? How did the visible form, of his whole body, (wherein all these things were contained) behave itself, john. 8. when the jews would have horled stones at him in the temple, if they had not suddenly lost their sight of it? did not also that, even there then, leave the order of nature, and follow his only will likewise? more plates diverse there be, for the purpose, which shall not need to be recited now: Therefore if he had these accidental qualities of his body, so obedient unto his will, that he might as he did, use them at his pleasure, contrary and against all the rules of nature, (he being then, in a mortal state, and they of themselves in a natural course) how much more now and ever since are they subject to his will, he having his body glorified, and in a state immortal? wherein, they are also changed, from what so ever the state of mortality in them requered. Wherefore, if he hath them (not as we have of necessity) but as the truth is, at his liberty, to use, or not use them (as I said before) when, where, and how so ever therein his holy will and pleasure is and shallbe, where are all your knappyshe and scornful cavillations become, that ye, by the natural course of these things, make against his real and very presence in the holy Sacrament? saying, what? so long and large a body, with hands, feet, arms legs, head, here, back and belly, in so little a room and space, as the Sacrament is of? and yet more over, neither see him nor feel him neither? who would believe this? In deed none of you, which frame your believing, after your sensible seeing and feeling. But nevertheless, what are all these cavillations of yours to the purpose? all these I say, with other, of some of you, more shamefully invented, then of us, conveniently may be recited? Therefore what if thou thyself, hadst the sensible form of thy body, at the liberty of thine own will, to show or not show it, how, when, and where thou list? wouldest thou not some time be so among men, that neither by their saying, nor yet by their feeling, they should beware of thee? And when thou were so among them after that sort, would it follow that thou were not there, because they could not see thee, nor feel thee? Therefore by these your own objections, it appeareth plain, that your cogitations and understandings herein, runneth not, but directly and only after the flesh, and not after the spirit. Ye and that after the fleshly flesh, without any spark or respect, of any spiritual flesh at all. Wherein lieth so much of the matter, as caused the Holy Apostle to say. Although we have known Christ after the flesh, 2. cor. 5. yet we do not so now. That is to say. Not now after as it was, when he walked in it here in yerthe according to the course of nature, and so therein suffered at length. But now after the spirit, and as the spirit had obtained it, when and before he sitting in Emmaus with the two of his disciples, showed himself unto them, first in one form, whereby they knew him not, and immediately after in an other, whereby they knew him in deed, And yet there upon so suddenly vanished away from their sight, that both they and also we, might and may thereby understand and perceive, how very subject and obedient his sensible form, was and is, unto his holy will, to use, this way or that way, at his only pleasure. Therefore it followeth not, that he is not presently and verily in the holy Sacrament, because he suffereth us not, therein sensibly to see him, nor feel him. But this followeth well, that because he suffereth us not, to have any such sensible experience of him therein, we be so much the more bound, therefore to thank him, as all the merit and profit of our faith cometh to, in that holy mystery. Wherein, among all other articles, faith is in none (as I think) more excellent and necessary. Wherefore, this thou haste now hard even more then enough, to perceive how far Frithe was (for all his babbling pretence of the contrary) from the very spiritual understanding of this great mystery. And thorough his lack of that, and of good will together, what blind and damnable falsehood he fell into, both in his understanding of the Scripture, and also of Saint Austen likewise, I think I have declared unto thee so much thereof, that thou canst not with reason, require any more, whereby thou mightest any better know what he was, then by this that I have showed thee all ready. Cap. 29. HERE. Why say you so? for be you well assured he hath yet one other place of Saint Austen for his purpose, which passeth all that we have spoken of hitherto. CATH. I pray thee what is that? HERE. In the 23. and the .24. leaf of his book, he doth upon this saying of Christ. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, bideth in me and I in him. Allege Saint Austen in these words. Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet & ego in illo. Hoc est ergo mandu care illam escam & illum bibere potum, in christo ma near 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 sanguinem, etiamsi tantae rei Sacramentum, ad iuditium sibi manducat & bibit. That is to say. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. This is therefore the eating of that meat, and drinikng of that blood, to abide in christ, and to have him abiding in us. And therefore he that abideth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, without doubt he eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his blood, although he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing unto his damnation. And upon this, Fryth himself hath these words. This one place (saith he) is sufficient to prove my purpose though he said not one word more. For here he doth plainly determine, that he which abideth not in Christ, That is to say, he that is wicked or unfaithful, doth not eat his flesh nor drink his blood, although he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing. And so must it needs follow, that the sacrament is not the very natural body of Christ, for then the unfaithful should eat his flesh, saying he eateth the sacrament of his body. How say you now? CATH. Is this all? HERE. No not so, For although this be enough, yet he hath more. CATH. Let us then have it altogether. HERE. In the same leaf, Fryth goeth farther with these words. This saying (saith he) hath saint Austen in an other place also, where he writeth in this manner. Qui non in me manet, & in quo non ego maneo, non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum, aut bibere sanguinem meum. Non itaque 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 say, or think, that he eateth my body or drinketh my blood. They abide not in Christ, which are not his membres. And they are not his membres, which make themselves the membres of an harlot. And these (saith Frith) are also the very words of Bede. Whereunto he addeth of his own words these. Here is it plain (saith he) proved again by the authority of S. Aust. and Bede, that the wicked and unfaithful (which are not the membres of Christ) do not eat his body nor drink his blood. And yet they do eat the sacrament as well as the other. Wherefore you must needs grant (saith he) that the sacrament is not the natural body of Christ, but a figure, token, or memorial thereof. Now sir, do you mark 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 even as you think: do they not even clean overthrow, the principal purpose of what so ever ye have said before? CA In deed I would grant no less, if they had in them, none other meaning, but this that frith picketh out of his own heretical dreaming. HERALD His heretical dreaming? What mean you by that? CATH. I will tell the so thou wilt first consider his old foolish accustomed conclusion, which he doth here infer and renew again, and that in both these places. HERE. What conclusion is that? CATH. Be not these his words? It must needs follow, and ye must needs grant, that the sacrament is not the natural body of christ. What is this to his purpose, of the not being of Christ's very body in the sacrament? to be, and to be in, is all one with him. Whereof I have told the enough before. And therefore, what findest thou else in any of these two places of Saint Austen, that can make any thing for his purpose? HERE. I wonder that ye will ask me that question, sith they make so much and so clearly for him as they do. For whether you take the sacrament itself, to be the very body of Christ, of Christ's very body to be verily in it, these places maketh directly against you in them both. CATH. How so? HERE. Doth not the first place say (as Frith hath declared) that, to eat Christ's flesh, and drink his blood, is to abide in him, and he in us? and by that, he that abideth not in Christ, nor Christ in him, eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his blood, although he eat and drink the sacrament thereof. Now this being plain enough, yet to confirm the same, doth not the second place say also, let not him say or think, that he eateth my body or drink my blood, which abideth not in me, and in whom I abide not? Therefore they abide not in Christ, which are none of his membres. And they are none of his membres, which maketh themselves the membres of an harlot. And yet clear it is, that such wicked persons, doth often times eat and drink the sacrament. Wherefore, if other the sacrament itself, were Christ'S very body and blood, or his very body and blood were verily in it, it should and would needs follow, that such wicked livers and unfaithful persons, as never abide in Christ, nor he in them, which do daily eat the sacrament, should therein eat his very body, and drink his blood. And that doth Saint Austen in both places utterly deny. Cap. 30. CATH. What doth he deny? HERE. Marry that such wicked persons do eat the very body of Christ, when they eat the sacrament. CAT. And thereof wilt thou infer, that the very body of christ is not in the sacrament? HERALD What else? for that must needs follow. CATH. Saint Austen saith not so. HERALD No, not in those words, but yet he saith as much as that cometh to. For if the very body of Christ were verily in the sacrament, then should those wicked persons, that abideth not in Christ, nor Christ in them, eat his very body, when they eat the sacrament. CATH. And even so they do in deed. HERE. Will you say so, when Saint Austen saith plainly nay? CATH. And so say I to. HERE. What ye and nay? eat and not eat one thing both at once? CAT. Ye why not? HERE. Nay, than it is time, to make an end, and even to bid you farewell, if ye talk after that sort. CATH. If thou so do, thou dost therein but as it is common with such as thou art. For ye will be sure to shake of a matter (if ye may) when ye have most need to hearken well to it. HERE. Who would not shake of such a talk as ye make? for how can the eating and not eating of one thing, both at once, stand together? CATH. Although I have told the before, yet once again I will tell the how, if Fryth (or thou for him) will tell me one thing that I will ask the. HERE. What is that? CATH. I would know what manner of eating this is, that Saint Austen doth mean, and here speak of? HERALD Tush sir, I pray you go not about the bush with any such questions, but go directly to the matter, and there an end. CATH. Callest thou that a going about the bush, to try certainly what a man doth mean, by that he saith? HERE. Ye sir when the words be so plain as needeth it not. For Saint Austen saith, that those persons doth not eat the body nor flesh of Christ, when they eat the sacrament. And what would ye have more plainly spoken then that is? CATH. I grant it to be both plainly spoken, and also truly. But yet neither plainly nor truly nother, as Frith doth take it. For he taketh it not to be spoken, but of the very real eating of it, which in deed is utterly false, and directly against that, which I told thee, of Saint Austin's own saying before. where he saith, Christ for our health, hath given us the same flesh to eat, wherein he walked here in earth, and the same flesh, that he took of the virgin Mary. And where did he (as I said before) give us that flesh to eat, but in the holy sacrament? And therefore who so ever doth eat the sacrament, must needs also therein, eat that flesh, or else that saying of Saint Austen can not be true. Wherefore this is directly against Frithes understanding of these two later places: which thou hast recited. Whereby we may well perceive, that Saint Austen meant not in them, as Frith doth take him. For if he did, he should be in this one place, directly against himself in the other two places. Which in so weighty a matter, god forbid to be thought of S. Austen: whose most excellent wit, learning and holiness, hath reigned and flourished so long in such an honourable estimation, as it hath most worthily done. For herein, if he had so meant as Frith doth take him, then in him there should have been verified this notable saying of the Apostle. Modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit. That is to say. A little leaven corrupteth the hole lump of dough. Therefore, Saint Austen was to wise, to well learned, and to happy, to over shoot himself in this great matter, with any crumb of the leaven of this contradition. Which were enough to deface all his doing herein, and himself to. Wherefore it can not be avoided, but this is enough, whereby thou mayest be sure, that frith doth falsely understand these two places of Saint Austin's, as he doth all the rest before. HERE. I will here more ear I grant so much. For how so ever ye avoid this contradiction in Saint Austen yet I am sure ye can not avoid the contradiction that is herein between him and you. For here he saith plainly that the wicked, which abide not in Christ, nor Christ in them, doth not eat Christ's body nor his flesh, although they eat the sacrament thereof. And you say here as plainly, that they do eat it. And what is this but eating and not eating one thing both at once. And what is that, but plain contradiction, which in no wise can stand together? CAT. Why so? HERALD Who knoweth not why? CATHO. That is even I. For dost not thou know, that in daily common meats, eating is ordained only, to man's commodity and profit, And not to his hurt or hindrance, although they be daily, very much abused? HERE. All that I grant to be true. CAT. And doth it not sometime chance, that the hole man and the sick man, eating of one meat, the one eateth it to his profit, and the other to his hurt? HERE. What of that? CAT. If the sick man's eating, who taketh nothing but hurt and hindrance thereof, should come in question, or be asked whether he doth eat any thing or not, will it not, nor may it not, be rightly answered and said, that he eateth nothing? When he taketh not that therein, which eating is chiefly or only ordained for? In so much that if one will say, he doth eat, will not an other say, what eating call ye that, which doth more hurt then good? ye rather no good at all, but much hurt, when the eater is never the better for it, but the worse: For is that eating worthy, or meet to be called eating, which is not only without all the commodity and profit of eating, but also doth purchase far more hurt and hindrance, than not eating. Therefore although in respect of the thing eaten the sick man doth eat the very same meat, which the hole man doth eat, yet because he doth not eat it, with that inward effect and profit of it, that the hole man doth eat it with all, it may well be said and stand with reason, that he eateth not, because that which he doth, is but in vain. For although eating be commonly taken and understand of the meat and outward manner of receiving thereof, yet it may as well and better be understand of the very inward commodytee and profit thereof, for which profit only, the outward eating is prepared and ordained, as it is plain, when without, that the other doth nothing (as I said) but greatly hurt and hinder, although the fault and cause thereof, be not in the meat taken, but only in the state of the taker. Wherefore, if a man would say, (as right well he might) that the sick man eateth not, meaning in respect of the commodity and profit, that eating is ordained for, yet of that faiing it followeth not, but that he doth eat of the very same meat, that the hole man doth eat, for all that. For the name of eating doth include the understanding, not only of the outward manner of eating, but also and most chiefly, of the inward commodity and fruitful profit thereof, which is the very dew end, whereunto the other is not ordained but only to serve. And therefore of eating, that same due end, doth most worthily bear the name, as it doth sometime, and even specially now in this case, where it is, of no more mente, but even of that alone. So that between these two respects, that is to say, of the outward eating, without profit, and of the inward eating, wherein consisteth all the profit thereof, there is both eating and not eating of one thing, and that both at once. The one by itself alone, evil and hurtful: and the other, good and effectual. Therefore likewise in our case, of this effectual eating it is, that Saint Austen doth here speak of. For doth he not in these two foresaid places, speak only of these eaters. which abide not in Christ, nor Christ in them? HERE. That I grant. CATH. And may we not think, that Christ is our health? HERE. May we not? Nay what ought we more, to think and say, then that? CATH. Therefore if Christ be our health, those that abide not in him, abide not in health. HERE. That is true. CATH. And those that abide not in health, who can say but they be sick? HERE. It followeth plain. CA And those that are sick, although they eat the same meat, that other doth, even really, yet for all that, they eat not the same meat that other doth, effectually and profitably. And that eating only it is, which Saint Austen doth here deny, and none other. and yet not with standing, that he denieth not here but only that eating of Christ's very body, which faileth not in deed, but only in those, that abide not in Christ, nor Christ in them, because they abuse themselves so wickedly, Frith would needs for all that, understand him, as though he had denied that eating thereof, which holdeth and is in all of lawful age, both good and bad even generally. And therefore herein, how false his understanding is, it may well appear by this that Saint Austen maketh here no mention of the whole multitude of eaters thereof in general, but only of one part of them, which are but a certain sort in special. Cap. 31. HERE. Nay then it is time to give over, if ye make so many eatings of Christ's body. CATH Why how many? HERE. Marry sir ye make twain. CATH. I make none, but yet because thou speakest of twain, in deed there be three. HERALD Three? which three be they? CATH. One is only, spiritual. An other is only real. And the third is, both real and spiritual together. HERE. How so? CATH The only spiritual eating, is in them, that having a well purged conscience with a penitent heart and a perfect faith, would fain receive the holy Sacrament and can not. But letted, as perchance in sickness, with the lack of time, or with the feeble weakness of stomach, which some time is not able to keep that it taketh, or letted with any other impediment, whereby they can not, or conveniently may not have it. And the only real eating, is in those, that receiveth the holy Sacrament not abiding in Christ, nor christ in them, because of their paruerse behaviour and wicked state. Of whom only (as I said) and of their not eating, Saint Austen doth here speak, and of none other. Thirdly, the eating both real and spiritual together, is in them that doth receive the holy Sacrament, not only actually, and therefore therein the body of christ really, as the naughty sort doth, but also in a right faith, with a pure conscience, & a contrite heart, spiritually, as the other for lack thereof doth not. Wherefore, of Christ's blessed body, this many manner of eatings there be. HERE. Then I perceive, that ye take, to be at the least, one eating of it spiritual and an other corporal, some time a sunder, & sometime both together. CATH. That word corporal, to be put there, not borrowed, but even properly spoken and understand as it is commonly taken in every condition, I dare not grant. HERALD Why so? CAT. Although it be hard to tell the why, for thynsuffitiencie of our english tongue yet for the best declaration thereof, that I can make, thou shalt understand, that for this latin word Corpus, we have this english word, body. And for this latin word Corporale (which cometh of Corpus) because we have no proper English word for that, we borrow thereof this word corporal, which giveth any thing to be understand, pertaining to a body, according to the order of nature, as accidental qualites doth. And farther more likewise, for this latin word Caro, we have this English word, flesh. But for this latin word carnal (which cometh of caro) because we have no English word for that nother, so proper as is able even aptly and fully to countervail the signification thereof, we therefore borrow of it, this word carnal, as we do of corporale, corporal. Which words, both corporal and carnal, although they be no English words properly, yet by use, they are grown into such acquaintance with many, (although not learned in the latin tongue) that they know, or have a great guess, what they mean and signify. And that in this case, is what so ever (as I said) pertaineth to a body or flesh naturally. Which some doth English with these words, bodily and fleshly, although those be the proper English words, not of corporale and carnal, but of corporaliter and carnaliter. which doth some what differ from corporale and carnal. Therefore when we eat the blessed body of christ in the holy sacrament, we may no more say, that we eat it corporally or bodily (and yet eat it verily). Then, when we eat therein (as we do in deed) his very flesh, we may say thereof, that we eat it carnally or fleshly. For so we eat it, as we ought to understand it. And we ought not to understand it carnally, nor fleshly. For if we do, than we understand it after the flesh, which the doctrine of the holy apostle doth utterly forbid, as I have declared unto thee all ready. And therefore as the flesh, and after the flesh, is two things. So the body, and after the body is to things likewise. And as the understanding of the flesh after the flesh, is none other but to understand it carnally or fleshly, So the understanding of the body after the body, is none other, but to understand it corporally or bodily. Wherefore, as it is proved both by Saint Austen and also by Saint Paul before, that we may not understand Christ's holy flesh after the flesh, that is to say, not carnally nor fleshly, so we may not understand his blessed body, after the body nother, that is to say, not corporally nor bodily. For after one rule, they must be understand both of them, which rule the holy apostle doth give us, where he saith (as before is alleged.) 2. cor. 5, Although we have known christ after the flesh, yet we do not so now. Therefore if we may not know Christ now, after the flesh, we may not now, understand him after the flesh. For we can not know him one way, and understand him an other way. Therefore if we may not understand him after the flesh, than we may not understand him after the body. For that is flesh. Wherefore as it is none other to understand him after the flesh, but to understand him carnally or fleshly, so it is none other (as I said before) to understand him after the body, but to understand him corporally or bodily. And for that cause, as we are by the apostle, forbid the understanding of him after the one, so we are likewise in the same, forbid the understanding of him after the other. And therefore, how wouldest thou have me grant a corporal eating of Christ's body, or to be eaten corporally, when we may not understand it corporally? for we may not eat it after one sort, and understand it after an other, lest we make a discrepance or a variety in the thing, which in the verity of itself, is none other in our eating, then in our understanding, nor in our understanding, then in our eating of it, but all one. For although a body can not be by nature corporally or bodily, except it be verily, yet, by possibility, it may be verily, although it be not corporally or bodily, but as Christ's body in the Sacrament is. For verily, riseth of the substance. And corporally or bodily riseth of the natural qualities thereunto annexed. Which in his blessed body are supernaturally changed. And therefore it is sufficient for us to believe, that (as the truth is) we eat his body in the Sacrament verily, although we eat it not corporally or bodylie. That is to say, not after a corporal or a bodily manner, because to be eaten of us, it neither doth nor yet needeth, to behave itself after that sort. Cap. 32. HERE. Why sir, how is it possible to be true, but that, when it is eaten verily, it must needs be eaten corporally and bodylie? for a very body, must be very bodylie eaten, or else it can not be eaten in deed. CATH. That I grant, when it is eaten after the common course of natural eating, but else not. HERE. If it be verily eaten in deed, it can none otherwise be eaten but even so? CATH. That is not true. HERE. Why, what call you, eaten after the common course of natural eating? CATH. When that which is eaten, is or may be seen, felt, tasted, and eaten sensibly, for then therein, the order of nature hath his course, and bareth rule. HERE. And do not I see feel and taste what I eat, when I eat the Sacrament? CATH. That is an other matter, for I speak 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 truly. HERE. That heard I never before. CATH. I would thou haddest had no need to here it now. HERE. What need so ever I have had, I have alway taken the Sacrament to be a very corporal thing. CATH. And even so it is. HERE. Why, ye say it is not a body. CATH. So I say still. HERE. How can a thing be corporal and be not a body? for a body can not be but corporal, neither any thing be corporal, but a body. CAT. Thy dream runneth not, but always upon the common course of nature. And yet even therein thou art deceived to: for quantity is a corporal thing, but yet not corpus that is to say, not a body for all that, but in, or of a body as a certain thing appertaining unto it. Also colour is a corporal thing to, but yet not corpus, or a body neither. And so likewise of form, figure, and all other sensible objects and qualities what so ever they be. for every one of them is corporal, and yet none of them corpus or a body, but only pertaining or naturally belonging to a body. And therefore they are called corporal qualities. HERE. Then belike, ye call that corpus or a body, where in all those things be. CATH. No not so neither. For we call that, substance, and not a body. HERALD Then what call you a body? CATH. Not substance by itself, nor those accidental quantities and qualities by themselves nother, but substance and they joined naturally together. For than it is corpus, that is to say, a body, or else in the order of nature, no very body indeed. And therefore this word corporal, serveth so indifferently to them that it may be said some time of the one, and some time of the other. That is to say, some time of the substance, and some time of thaccidental quantity and qualites. HERE. And why not of them both or all together? CATH. Because it is then, corpus, or a body, which word commonly, in the course of nature, extendeth in signification properly, to no less than all the whole together, and not to any of the parts particularly by themselves. HERE. Yet than I may say, that the Sacrament itself is at the least a corporal substance, although it be (as you say) not a body. CATH. How canst thou say so, when it lacketh nothing else of a body but only that? For there is none other cause why, that it is not a body, but because it hath not a proper substance, as other quantities and qualities hath, wherein they be. HERE. If it be not a corporal substance, how could I see and feel it as I do? CA As thou seest and feelest all other corporal things. Whereof, any corporal substance, thou never sawest in all thy life. For it is but only the quantities & qualities that thou or any man else, doth or can see of any thing, & not the substance itself, which is always of itself and by itself insensible. HERE. Yet by those quantities and qualities, I do surely know, that there is a substance, wherein they be, when I see them. Cap. 33. CATH. In that thou must except the holy Sacrament. Which is alone, and without the like, among all sensible things that are in our knowledge: Of the which Sacrament, what if I would say this, that the same which we see, is a corporal thing, and not a body. And yet hath in it a body, that is not corporal? HERE. If ye would so say, it were strayngely spoken. How be it, if you would so say in deed, your meaning thereof, I would take to be this. That there, is corporalite without a body. And a body without corporalite. CATH. Take it even so? HERE. Then ye mean the corporallite without a body, to be of the Sacrament in the only respect of itself. And the body without corporalite, to be the thing of the Sacrament, which you say, is the very body of Christ really and presently contained therein. Is it not this that ye mean? CATH. Forth with thy purpose, and then I will tell thee more. HERALD My purpose is this. If Christ's very body in the Sacrament, be without corporalite, being the same body (as you say it is) which is in heaven, it must needs follow that Christ's body in heaven, is of no corporal substance. For without corporalite, there can be no substance corporal. And therefore consequently, if it be of no corporal substance, than it is no body at all. For with out, a corporal substance, no body can be. CATH. First whether thou put the case of his blessed body, in heaven, or else in the holy Sacrament, all that is one to me. For I put no difference between them in the verity thereof, but that it is the very same in the one place, that it is in the other. And therefore if thou put this word corporal to that substance, for to show a distinction or a difference between the substance thereof, and the incorporal substance of an Angel or a spirit, I hold well with all. HERE. And with no cause else but only that? CATH. Yes truly, and that is this. If thou put it also to that substance, and call it corporal, meaning it to be corporal, by reason of a supernartual connection of that substance, and such supernatural quantity and qualities together, as are beyond all therperience and reach of any mortal man's wit, reason, or understanding, I hold so well with that to, that I will here none of you all, what so ever ye would feign or say to the contrary. But if thou mean it corporal, by reason of any such mortal, and corruptible quantity and quality, as there is none other in thy body and mine, or in any other mortal creature living, I deny it utterly to be corporal so, or to have so much as any being, other in the sacrament or in heaven other, after that sort. For your dreaming of such manner of corporalitee in him, is also an other cause why, then I told the of before, that these mad, and heretical fancies hath risen among you, saying and asking, what, Christ's very body presently in the sacrament? what, so great a quantity in so little a space? what, before my face and see it not? what, have it in my hands and feel it not? what, receive it, eat it, and taste it not? what, here and there one body in so many places at once? who would believe this? And so ye conclude with your captain Fryth, where he saith in the .76. leaf of his book, It is no article of our creed (saith he) and therefore let them7 believe it that will. A goodly conclusion and even like not only himself, but also all the rest of his followers. How be it, by this it may well appear, what manner of fruits they be, which ye have gathered out of such corporalitee in Christ, as ye dream always upon in yourselves. And no marvel why, when ye will needs make your deceivable senses (which beguildeth you daily) to be the judges and guides of your faith, in such divine mysteries. Cap. 34. HERE. Why sir, be there not of your sort, and even in the same believe that you be of, that doth both say and writ, that Christ hath even now, a natural body, and that it is of a corporal substance? CATH. I grant no less. But what of that? thinkest thou therefore, that when they call his body a natural body, they mean it such a natural body as ours are, within the compass and common order of nature? or when they call it a corporal substance, that they mean it corporal, by reason of any such corporal quantitees & qualities as our bodies hath, which bodies are yet, by them & with them, subject unto death and corruption? HERALD If they do not so mean, why do they put those words natural and corporal to it, which doth none otherwise signify: and not rather forbid them to be used, when the signification of them, is to their meaning so contrary? CATH. I shall tell the why. first, because there be no proper words for the things that they mean by them, except they should call natural supernatural, and corporal supercorporall. Whereof although supernatural, hath some use 'mong them that be learned, yet is it far, both from the use and also the understanding of them, that be unlearned. But as for this word supercorporall, plain it is, that that was never in use among the unlearned, nor yet among the learned nother, because there is not found any such word of that composition. HERE. Then were they best, to bring both those words into an use, whereby they might express directly what they mean, and not there, to use those other words, which doth signify the contrary or insufficientlie. CATH. No not so. for where they put this word natural, if they should put supernatural, and where they put corporal, if they should put supercorporall, although most of such as be learned, could well away with all, yet the great multitude of the unlearned, should by that, be rather provoked to the mistrust and doubt of the verytee of the thing, then to the firm credence and fast belief thereof, if such straying words, were joined unto it, as they for lack of knowledge were not able to understand, nor could away withal. For those words supernatural and supercorporall, could not be brought among them into such a familiar use, as might lead them any near the understanding or believing of the verity of the thing, than the other words doth, nor so near neither, they being unlearned as they are. Wherefore it were without wisdom, all reason, and discreation, to join such words unto that (which of necessity they ought to believe) as might rather bring them in doubt, and the thing out of credence, then to confirm them in their faith as the truth thereof doth require. And therefore these words natural and corporal, doth much better serve the purpose in that respect, than the other could do among them, if they be well understand, and truly considered, wherefore learned men doth put them there. HERE. Why, wherefore is that? CAT. Not to show or signify the state or manner of the thing, but most certainly to confirm and ratify the verity thereof. For the verytee of Christ's blessed body in the holy sacrament is the thing, that we are bound to believe, And not after what manner or sort it is there, which passeth the reach of all men's wits, but not of his power, which first said the word, and told us so much of the matter, as is clean out of doubt, except it be with them which doth therein mistrust, and not believe him. Wherefore beside all this, if these words natural and corporal, were in this case put clean away, and not used of good and catholic men, to be joined unto it, as they are are, how like is it, that some of you, would soon raise up again, this old very pestilent heresy of the Manicheis, which said that Christ had but a fantastical body, and no very body in deed. For that most wicked error, is not convinced and put away, by any words, more clearly 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 plainly, not to be fantastical, but even very essential. And therefore one of the chief causes why catholic men do use to put those words unto it, is to prevent, & suppress that cursed heresy, from rising any more again. And an other cause is (as I said before) to confirm and stablish the faith of the multitude, in the verity of the thing, And not to declare thereby the manner of being and qualities thereof (which far passeth our knowledge) nor to show any such naturalitee or corporalite, to be in it, as we have in our bodies, subject to the order and course of nature, by reason whereof, we are now and then, compelled even to sustain, divers displeasures. Cap. 35. HERE. Yet sir, how so ever other qualities behaveth themselves in Christ's body, we must needs think, that he hath in it, the very same proper quantity thereof, which he had when he walked here in earth. CA what even so, as we have ours, or he had his then? HERALD Ye how else? CAT. Then tell me this. hast thou not hard of some honest man, that without just cause hath been put in the stocks, irons, or in close prison, when he would have been away, if he might? HERALD Yes that I have. CAT. And what held him there then against his will? HERALD Marry the stocks, irons, or the prison, wherein he was. CAT. It seemeth so. But yet if thou consider it well, thou shalt find it his quantity, and nothing else. For if his quantity had been so subject to his power, as his power was to his quantity, he might have used his quantity then, according to his will. For any man may use what so ever is in his power, as he will & list himself. And therefore if he might have used his quantity according to his will, it was not the stocks, irons, nor the prison neither, that could have holden him therein, when he would have been away. wherefore it was his quantity (not being subject to his power) that kept him there against his will. And therefore wilt thou think that christ hath the quantity of his holy body after that sort? HERALD Why sir, this must needs be true, that of the length, breadth, and depth of it, an inch can be none other, no more, nor less, than an inch. And a foot, none other no more nor less, than a foot. And the hole, none other, no more, nor less than the hole. Nor the least part of it, none other no less nor no more than the least part. And this order of quantity holdeth (as it must needs do) in every man's body likewise. CATH. Thou dost yet dream still (I perceive) upon the common order of nature, and nothing else. According to the which, quantity hath also this property, that always the more, must needs contain the less. And the hole all the parts thereof. But what if the quantity of Christ's blessed body be now of this sort, that the less may contain the more. And every part the hole? HERALD That is impossible. CATH. Not so impossible, as it is for the to believe it, so long as thou dost think it impossible. But nevertheless, thou and I may chance, although not now, yet hereafter, to assay what may be said to the possibilitee thereof. Where as for this time, this may be sufficient, that Christ's blessed body is now without doubt supernatural. And therefore other it is all hole supernatural, or else but in part. If it be supernatural but in part, then is the rest of it, under the yeoke and bondage of nature still, which (I suppose) were wickedness to think. Wherefore of the other side, if it be all hole supernatural, as it is in deed, than there is no part of it, but must needs be supernatural likewise. And therefore if there be no part of it, but supernatural, then must the quantity thereof needs be supernatural to. for that is a certain part of it, except thou wilt say (as I think thou wilt not) that it is without any quantity at all. Wherefore if the quantity thereof be supernatural, as it must needs be, this may well follow, that as the bondage of naturalitee in natural bodies, compelleth the more quantity, to contain the less, and the hole, all the parts, so the liberty of supernaturalite in Christ's supernatural body, doth permit and able the less quantity, to contain the more, and every part the hole. For a difference to be between quantity, natural, and supernatural, thou must needs grant. And as for any other difference between them then this, I suppose thou shalt not be able to find any. HERE. Yes sir that I can. for quantity natural, is of necessity visible, and so is not quantity supernatural. CATH. Although it were even so as thou sayest, yet that could make no proper difference between them. For although some quantity natural, be of necessity visible, yet all is not so. For the natural quantity of the air, neither is nor can be visible, when the hole body of the air itself, is invisible. And therefore how should visibilitee, and invisibilitee make a difference between quantity natural and quantity supernatural, when both may be found in one of them? That is to say, in quantity natural. HERALD Then this may be the difference between them. That quantity supernatural is perpetual, and hath a being for ever. But so hath not quantytee natural. CATHOLICUS. Why sayest thou so? For as the earth is perpetual and shall have a being for ever, so the natural quantity thereof must needs have and be likewise. Wherefore perpetuitee can be no proper difference between them neither, when it is and may be found in each of them, And therefore seek as long as thou wilt, hard it shallbe for thee (as I said) to find any other difference between them, than I have showed the. Or if there be any other, yet they let not, but this may be one for all that. Wherefore if this be one, that the less quantity may contain the more, and every part, the hole, where is your heretical objection become, that ye say so great a quantity as Christ's body is of, can not be in so little a space, as the sacrament doth occupy? as who say, he can therein none otherwise be, or do, than ye can understand. Cap. 36. HERE. Sir, how so ever he can be or do, or we can understand, well I wots, that so great a quantity to be in so little space, is far against reason. CATH. Then if thou wilt not be satisfied, with that I have said already, tell me this. how are all things new in him, if his quantity be old, that is to say, of the old sort, as it was before his resurrection? For doth not the holy apostle, after he had said, 2. cor. 5 Although we have known Christ after the flesh, yet we do not so now. Add unto it and say this. If there be any new creature in Christ, the old things are past and gone. And that he confirmeth with these words. Behold (he saith) all are made new. HERE. Ye sir, all that he speaketh, for as much as pertaineth to the spirit of them, that truly followeth Christ. But not for any thing that pertaineth to the flesh. CATHOLI. Wilt thou say so, when he doth even there make mention of Christ's flesh? wherefore therein, thou sayest not well, For he speaketh it both of Christ, for so much as pertaineth to the newness of him in flesh, and also of them, that truely follow him, for so much as pertaineth to the newness of them in spirit. That is to say, in spirit now, and in flesh then, when they shall rise again and be made all new, not only in spirit, but also in flesh, Where as now they are all new, not in flesh but only in spirit. And therefore the mind of the apostle is there, to declare, that as Christ is now all new in flesh, for so much as pertaineth to the mortal and corruptible state of the quantity and qualities thereof, so must those that truly follow him, be now all new in spirit, that they might here after at the latter day, be likewise all new in flesh, as he is now. Who shall then as the apostle sayeth, Phili. 3, transform the low state of their bodies into the likeness of the glorious state of his body, according to the operation of his power, whereby he is able to make all things obedient unto his will, as it appeareth to the Philippians. Cap. 3. Wherefore if thou say that Christ's holy flesh, hath in it now, such quantity, as it had before his resurrection, Thou sayest none other therein, but that it is old. And therefore if thou say that it is old, than thou deniest it plain to be new. And if thou deny it to be new, than thou art therein directly against the holy Apostle, which doth partly thereof say, as before is alleged. The old things are gone and passed, behold all are made new. Therefore what things are made new in Christ's flesh, but the corruptible quantity and qualities thereof? for when he sayeth. Although we have known christ after the flesh, yet we do not so now. He doth not therein deny him to have flesh, but to be known after the flesh. Therefore what other thing is it, not to know him after the flesh, but not to know him after the former course and old state of the flesh, as it was before his resurrection, which is now altered, changed, and made new, far after an other sort. And therefore when the quantity and qualites of his blessed flesh, in the time of the passibilite, and mortality thereof, were for all that, even then obedient and subject unto his holy will, far beyond and contrary to the common course of nature, as I declared unto thee before, And when they are (furthermore) even now in the time of his glorification, made new, and changed so far into such an other state, as passeth the understanding of any mortal man's wit, why dremyst thou (not withstanding all this) upon any such naturalite and corporalite to be in it, as is in ours, or was in his, before his resurrection, when (the very truth to say) that same naturalite, is now turned into supernaturalite, and that corporalite, into supercorporalite, if I might so call it? Leave therefore thy musinge and beholding of any course of nature in this case, which course of nature hath herein nothing to do. For so long as thou dost weigh the matter after that and seekest none other rule to follow then so, it is not possible for thee to come by the truth and to believe therein, as thou oughtest to do. HERE. Then sir I pray you this, who is able by any reason to understand, how any of them both, that is to say, other the body or the flesh, should or may have any being at all after this sort, that ye speak of? for how is it possible to understand a man's body or flesh to be, without what so ever is corporal or carnal? That is to say, without such quantity and qualites as pertaineth unto them, by the course of nature? specially, when we have no knowledge of them at all, but that it is first gotten, by such manner of things, as belongeth unto them naturally? CATHOLICUS. I doubt not but this question troubleth thy head very much. HERE. It doth in deed. CATH. And why? HERE. I can not tell why, but so it doth. CATHOLI. In very deed for nothing else, but only because thou wouldest fain understand, before thou dost, or wilt believe. But how can that be? when the Scripture sayeth. Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. That is to say, except ye believe, ye shall not understand. Therefore believe well first, that thou mayst be the better able, to understand at the last. Or if thou wilt needs have understanding go before, let not thine under standing leave this behind, but take it for a sure truth that this matter, is not committed unto us, to be understand, but most constantly, and firmly, to be believed. It is a matter of Faith, and not of knowledge or understanding. And therefore it is enough herein, that understanding is able, to refel and overthrow, what so ever any malicious adversary, is able to imagine or say to the contrary. And so to commit the rest unto perfect faith, which worketh by charity. For she is able to bring her servant understanding, to the very contemplation of the thing, when the convenient time thereof shallbe. HERE. And call you understanding a servant to saith? CATH. Ye why not? HERE. Understanding me think is the worthiest of the twain. CATH. Thereof is no doubt, where it hath the higher place, but that (thou must consider) is not yet even now in this case, nor in many other more, nor hereafter shallbe, except it follow faith for the time, and serve her truly, that is (with her help) to defend her boldly, from her great enemies, which seeketh her destruction daily. Cap. 37. HERE. Sir with this talk I perceive, ye would lead me away from my purpose clean. CATH. Why what, is that? HERE. Think you, that I have yet forgotten and clean done, with those two latter places, which (as I have showed you) john Frithe doth allege of Saint Austen? CATH. If thou hast not done with them in deed, I do not a little marvel. For I suppose, thou hast hard of them so much, that thou haste no need of any more. HERE. You think so, but so do not I. For Saint Austen sayeth even plainly, that they which abide not in Christ, nor Christ in them, eat not his body nor his flesh, although they eat the Sacrament of so great a thing. Whereof (as I said before, and as Frithe doth declare) this must follow, that Christ's very body and his very flesh, is not in the Sacrament really and presently. For if it were, they should eat that, when they eat the Sacrament. CAT. And have I not told thee plain enough, that even so they do in deed? HERALD Ye but Saint Austin's words be as plain to the contrary, that they do not. CATH. No, not fruitfully, profitably, and effectually, that is to say, not spiritually. HERE. Tush will ye be there? Saint Austen doth make no mention of fruitfully, profitably, effectually, nor spiritually nother, but sayeth absolutely and directly that they eat it not. CATH. Although he doth so say, and expresseth no farther, yet he meaneth it, of the only spiritual eating, and of none other. HERALD All that is but your saying and your opinion, as mine is to the contrary. And therefore if you can none otherwise prove his meaning then so, I will utterly stick unto his plain saying, which maketh with frith clearly. CATH. What for all this, that we have said and done hitherto? HERE. Ye for all that. CAT. Then if thou wilt needs have me try out herein, Saint Austin's very meaning, how can I better do it, then with his own saying? HERE. I must needs grant, there is none to that. CATH. first therefore to begin with all, when the one of those places, is in Saint Austin's work De Civitate dei Libro. 21. Cap. 25. and the other noted, in Frithes book with this title. Augusti. sermo. circasacra feria pasche, and also when Frithes purpose in both places, lieth upon the understanding of this text of the Gospel. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, bideth in me, and I in him. Tell me why doth Frithe here bring in Saint Austen upon the said text, in those foresaid places, where it was neither Saint Austin's only, nor yet his principal purpose to speak of it, but as it were by the way, took part of the sense thereof, to fortify thereby, an other matter which he had in hand? why doth Frithe (I say) bring in Saint Austin's saying upon the said text in those places, & not in that place, where Saint Austen goeth upon it purposely, and only to show the understanding thereof? is there any other why, but his accustomed falsehood, if a man would mark it well? For who would pass over a man's saying in a matter, where he speaketh purposely & only of it, and take him in an other place, where he by chance toucheth it but partly, & as the case and occasion, which he hath in hand, doth there reqire? who (I say) would so do, and mean truely? HERE. Sir peradventure those words which Frithe. doth here allege of Saint Austen in those foresaid places, be the very same words which Saint Austen hath in that place, that ye speak of. And then, if it be so, it is well enough. CATH. That shall appear straight way. For that place which I speak of, is upon the sixth chapter of Saint john. Where saint austin reciting that same text purposely to declare the meaning thereof, hath these words. Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, & ego in illo, hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, & illum bibere potum, in Christo manner, & illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc, qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet CHRISTUS, procul dubio, nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit eius Sanguinem. That is to say. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, bideth in me and I in him. This is therefore, to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to abide in christ, and to have christ abide in us. And by this, he that abideth not in christ, and in whom christ abideth not, without doubt, he eateth not his flesh spiritually, nor drinketh his blood. How sayest thou now? HERALD Even as I thought at the first. For ye can not say, but these are (so far as they go) even the very same words, which Saint Austen hath in the first of the other two places before. CATH The very same sayest thou? HERE. The very same, all save one word. CATH. Ye, which one is that? HERE. This word, spiritually. CATH. Thou sayest even true. And therefore that same one word spiritually, was the very thing, that caused Frithe to refuse this place of Saint Austen, and to run to those other two places, wherein that word spiritually was not expressed. By reason whereof, Frithe had in them some hope, where as in this, he had none at all. For he perceiving this place to speak precisely, and expressly of one eating that is special, (which giveth an other to be understand, that is general) thought, that if he should make his allegation thereof, it would give an occasion, of a great interruption of all his purpose. And therefore he took the other two places, (which (as he thought) seemed to deny the very eating that is general) to serve his turn far better than this, which doth express the special. Wherein he clearly deceived himself, as it may well appear by this, that Saint Austen doth even here, the very same that he doth there, speak only, (as I said) of one sort of eaters in special, and not of all in general. Wherefore the same eating that S. Austen doth mean there, must needs be understand of this eating, which he doth express here. For indeed they be all one, as the special state and sort of the eaters is, of whom he speaketh in all three places. Cap. 38. HERE. Then I marvel greatly, that Saint Austen would in these two places, so bestow his words and speak them, after such a sort as he doth. CATH. Why dost thou marvel there at? HERALD Because he doth therein, seem rather to mean, as Frithe taketh him, then to mean as you report him. CAT. To whom doth he so seem to mean? HERE. To every man I think. CATH. That is not so, for I, and most men, taketh him to mean therein, far otherwise then Frithe doth. And therefore he seemeth not so to us, as he doth to him. HERE. I can not tell how he seemeth to you, but well I will, he seemeth to me and many other more to mean even as Frithe doth take him. CATH. Ye but wottest thou why? HERE. No not yet. CATH. In very deed because Frithe and such other as he was, were none of these, to whom Saint Austen wrote in those two places, after that sort as he doth. HERE. To whom th●●? CATH. Without sail unto none, but only to men of good will, and that of the learned sort of the catholic faith. To whom Saint Austin's mind, is in those two places, there ●ng●e, and out of all doubt. Therefore only to them (I say) he wrote there, as he doth, and not unto any such heretics as Fryth was, whom no truth can satisfy. For look where so ever Saint Austen wrote any thing unto them, that is to say unto heretics (because they lack both truth and also good will to) he left therefore no part of his mind unexpressed (so far as the matter required, wherein he procured their amendment) but did at large, with such plainness so set it forth unto them, that they themselves could have no doubt of his meaning, although they were never so unwilling to take any profit of his plain saying. This he used always unto them, but not always so unto us. Because in us, there was no such need. For we, by his express and manifest speaking of this matter in some place, do right well know his true secret and silent meaning thereof (although not expressed) in every other place. Wherein we do not as ye would do if ye might. HERE. What is that? CATH. Ye would hide, and overthrow that, which is very certain and manifest, by that, which seemeth uncertain and secret. But we contrariwise, as reason compelleth us, do show and defend that, which seemeth incertain and secret, by that, which is most certain and manifest. For where Saint Austen saith. They that abide not in Christ, nor Christ in them, eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his blood, although they eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing. Because he expresseth not there, even certainly what manner of eating it is that he meaneth (wherefore some, are thereof in doubt) we may and justly do, way that place by this, where he saith. He that abideth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not, without doubt he eateth not his flesh spiritually, nor drinketh his blood. By this place therefore, we way the other, because he excluding all doubt in this, doth plainly express what manner of eating it is, that he doth mean in the other, wherein he doth but leave it to men of good will to be understand, who never faileth to take it right. Therefore when that manner of eating, which he doth mean, is made very certain in the one place and not so in the other. That is to say, plainly expressed in the one place, and not expressed in the other, why did Fryth allege him in that place, where it is not expressed (sith in that manner of eating lieth all the matter) and would not allege him in the other place, where it is expressed, and put clean out of question? what other why (as I said before) can there be found in his so doing, but only falsehood? For who wòulde take a man's tale to witness, where he speaketh but obscurely or incerteinly, and utterly refuse it there, where he speaketh it full, hole, and plainly? any man else, but only Frithe, and such as he was? for the plain place he wilt well, he could neither overthrow, nor yet wring it to any appearance of his purpose. But the obscure and ambiguous place, he thought he might wrest, which way he list, and so to make many believe (as he did in deed) that it sufficiently served his turn. HERE. Yet ye confess that place of Saint Austen which Frith doth allege, to be obscure and ambiguous. CATH. Ye to them, that lacketh good will or knowledge. But not to them, (as I said) which be learned and of the catholic saith. Wherefore, thus mayest thou see, Why Frith alleged that place of Saint Austen and not this, so craftylie as he did. Which was no more but only because, when he saw, there was made therein, no special mention by name of the real eating, which is most common and general, nor yet of the spiritual eating, which is more singular and special, but of eating simply, without any direct or proper distinction, he thought he might understand of them both, which he list, or else take it, as though there had been none other manner of eating thereof, but even very one alone. And thereupon he did take that place to be no less, then enough, and very sufficient to prove his purpose. As I grant it had been in deed, if it had been after that sort to be understand, as he took it. But he looked so much upon this point, that he found there no mention made of any dystynction of eatings (whereby he thought he might take (as I said) which he list or one for all) that he forgot, what mention Saint Austen made there, of the distynctyon (although not of eatings, yet for all that) of eaters, which was enough, to show what manner of eating he mente. For as his manifest speaking was there, of a peculiar sort of eaters, so his very meaning, must needs be understand of a peculiar manner a eating. For it is against all reason and truth, to deny that to some, which is common to all, or to grant that to all, which pertaineth but to some. And therefore, thou mayst well know, that Saint Austen would not do so. For he denied not there, but only that eating, which appertaineth unto some, and not unto all. That is to say, only to them that be good, and not unto them that he nought. Of whom there, he doth make metion, and of none other. For the liberty real of eating pertaineth both to good and bad. But the spiritual eating pertaineth to none but only to them that be good. Cap. 39 HERE. Sir, Saint Austen maketh no such distinction or difference between real and spiritual eating, nor between general and special eating as ye speak of. CATH. Why sayest thou so? for, although he doth it not, even in those manner of words, with such conference of both together as thou wouldest have yet he doth it in deed for all that. as it doth right well appear upon the sixth of Saint john, Tracta. 27. where his words be these. Hoc totum quod dominus de carne & de sanguine suo locutus est. Et quod in eius distributionis gratia vitam nobis promisit aeternam. Et quod hinc voluit intelligi manducatores carnis & sanguinis sui ut in illo maneant, & ipse in illis. Et quod non intellexerunt, qui non crediderunt. Et quod spiritualia carnaliter sapiendo, scandalizati sunt. Et quod eye scandalizatis, & pereuntibus, consolatio domini affuit discipulis qui remanserant, ad quos probandos interrogavit, Nunquid & vos vultis ire, ut responsio permansionis eorum innotseceret & nobis, nam & ille noverat qui manebant. Hocergo totum, ad hoc nobis valet DILECTISSIMI, ut carnem Christi & sanguinem Christi, non edamus tantum in sacramento, quod & multi mali, sed usque ad spiritus perticipationem manducemus & bibamus. Vt in domini corpore tanquam membra maneamus, ut eius spiritu vegetemur, & non scandalizemur, etiamsi multi modo nobiscum manducant & bibunt temporaliter sacramenta, qui habebunt in fine aeterna tormenta. That is to say. All this that our lord spoke, of his flesh and his blood, And that in the grace of distribution thereof, he promised unto us life everlasting, and that thereof he would to be understand, that the eaters and drinkers of his flesh and blood, should abide in him and he in them, And that they did not understand, which did not believe, And that they were offended, by understanding spiritual things carnally, And that they being offended and perylshing, the comfort of our lord was present to the disciples which did abide, unto the probation of whom he asked, will you go away, that the answer of their abiding might be also known to us, for he knew them which did abide. All this therefore, most dearly beloved, availeth unto us for this purpose, that we should not eat the flesh of Christ and the blood of Christ only in the sacrament (which many doth that be nought) but that we should eat and drink it, unto the part taking of the spirit, that we should abide as membres in the body of our Lord, that we might be quickened with his spirit, And that we should not be offended, although many now, doth eat and drink the sacraments with us temporally, which shall have in th'end torments eternal. Now what canst thou wish more plainly spoken, for the real eating and drinking of Christ's most precious flesh and blood in the holy sacrament, then when he saith (as here thou seest) we eat it not only in the sacrament? that same not only in the sacrament, doth most clearly declare it to be therein even verily eaten. for he would not have said, not only in the sacrament, but not in the sacrament. For not in the sacrament, and not only in the sacrament, are two things. Not in the sacrament, denieth it to be eaten therein, but not only in the sacrament, confesseth it to be eaten therein, and also other wise to. Wherefore this very real eating of Christ's blessed flesh and blood in the holy sacrament, must needs be common and general, when (as here S. Austen saith) many doth it, which be nought, whose eating thereof, thou mayest well know cometh not to the participation or partaking of the spirit that quickeneth, when those be they, that abide not in Christ, nor Christ in them. And therefore the participation or partaking of the spirit therein, is and must needs be, the spiritual eating, which is not general, but special and proper only to those, that abide in Christ, and Christ in them. as the naughty and evil sort doth not. And yet they in the sacrament (as Saint Austen doth here plainly say) do eat his flesh, and that must needs be really, because it is to plain, that it can not be spiritually. Wherefore, here thou hast now of Saint Austen plainly expressed, and distinctly touched, both the very real eating, which is common to good and had, and also the spiritual eating, which pertaineth to none, but only to them that be good. HERE. Yet this place of Saint Austen, although ye make the most of it that ye can, nevertheless it doth not so well satisfy me, as you think. CAT. In that thou showest of what sort thou art, And therefore hear him in an other place, where his words be these. Sermo. 1●. de verbis domini 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 judicium sibi manducent & bibant, cum ipsam carnem manducent & ipsum sanguinem bibant? Nunquid & judas magistri venditor & traditor ipsius, quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum Sacramentum carnis & sanguinis eius cum caeteris discipulis, sicut apertius LUCAS EVANGELISTA declarat, manducaret & biberet, mansit in Christo, aut Christus in eo? Multi denique qui vel cord ficto carnem illam manducant & sanguinem bibunt, vel cum manducaverint & biberint Apostatae fiunt, nunquid manent in Christo, aut Christus in eyes? Sed profecto est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem & bibendi illum sanguinem: quo modo, qui manducaverit & biberit, in Christo manet & Christus in eo. Non ergo quocunque modo quisquam manducaverit carnem Christi & biberit sanguinem Christi, manet in Christo, & in illo Christus. Sed certo quodam modo, quem modum utique ipse videbat, quando ista dicebat. which may thus be englished. How shall we understand this which he saith, he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, bideth in me, & I in him? may we take those to be understand here, of whom th'apostle doth say, that they eat & drink their own damnation, when they eat the same flesh, and drink the same blood? Also did judas the wicked traitor and seller of his master, although he did (as Luke the evangelist doth apertly declare) eat and drink with the other disciples the same sacrament of his flesh and blood when it was first made in his own hands, abide in christ and christ in him? furthermore, there be many, that even with a feigned heart, do eat that flesh and drink that blood, or when they have eat and drink it, forsake their faith, abide they in Christ, and Christ in them? but in very deed there is a certain manner of eating that flesh and drinking that blood, whereby, he that eateth it and drinketh it, abideth in christ and Christ in him. Therefore not in what so ever manner, any man eateth the flesh of Christ, and drinketh the blood of Christ, abideth in christ, and christ in him. But in a certain manner which manner he saw, when he spoke these words. If thou be not here now even thoroughly satisfied, both as touching the certeintee and also the difference, of these two eatings and drinkings of Christ's most blessed flesh and blood, that is to say, both of the real eating, and also of the spiritual eating of it, it is not Saint Austen, nor all the other holy fathers beside, that therein can satisfy the. For no man can more plainly express them, than he doth here distinctly divide and show them. Cap. 40. HHER. Ye but sir, Frith by all those words of eating and drinking of Christ's own very flesh and blood, doth understand none other meaning thereof but only spiritual eating and drinking of it in faith, and not very real eating and drinking of it in deed, but after such a sort as he meaneth and speaketh of, in the fourth leaf of his book, where his words be these. Abraham (he saith) did eat his body and drink his blood thorough faith. And in the first leaf he saith also It was not necessary, that the words should so be understand as they sound. That is to say, he would not have it so taken, that these words of eating & drinking, should, as they sound, be understand of the very real eating and drinking of Christ's own flesh and blood in deed, but only of the faith and believing in him, as it appeareth in the .17. leaf of his book where he saith. Who so ever dwelleth in Christ, (that is to say) believeth that he is sent of god to save us from our sins) doth verily eat and drink his body and blood, although he never receive the sacrament. This (sayeth he) is the spiritual eating necessary for all that Shallbe saved. And in the .47. leaf. As for, our faith (he saith) it needeth not to have him present in the bread. For I may (sayeth he) as well eat him and drink him thorough faith, that is to say, believe in him as though he were as presently in the Sacrament as he was hanging on the cross. Now therefore by this, you may perceive that Frithe (as I said) doth understand none other by all those words of eating and drinking of that flesh and blood, but only spiritual eating and drinking of it in faith. That is to say, only believing without any real eating of it at all. CATH. What, in so many places, and so diversly, as our Saviour Christ himself, his holy apostles, and all the other holy fathers of the Catholic church, doth speak of it, in those plain words of eating and drinking? And when none of them all, doth so declare it, nor teach it? as in witness whereof, it doth in the words of S. Austen, last recited before, very clearly appear, if thou remember them well. When therein he sayeth, that those doth eat the same flesh and drink the same blood, of whom the holy Apostle doth say, they eat it and drink it, to their damnation. And plain it is that those, which eat it and drink it to their damnation, doth neither eat it, not drink it spiritually. For if they did, it could not be to their damnation, But to their salvation. Wherefore how so ever Frithe doth take it, sith it is clear by Saint Austen, that those, which doth eat it & drink it to their damnation, doth eat the same flesh and drink the same blood, and yet not spiritually, it must therefore needs follow, that they do eat it & drink it even in very deed really. Except thou wilt say, they eat it not at all, which were directly against Saint Austen and Saint Paul both. furthermore, thou shalt understand, that in Saint Austin's days, there were many, that came and did believe in the name of Christ, which were called Cathecumini, that is to say, hearers or learners. And so called because they were not baptized, for that they believed not some certain mysteries in some of the Sacraments. And therefore where the gospel doth say, that when Christ was at jerusalem in the time of Easter, many did believe in the name of him, for the miracles they saw him do, john. 2. but jesus did not commit himself unto them. Saint Austen upon the same place doth say, that all those be such, which are called cathecumini, that is to say, hearers or learners. For his own words thereof in latin be these. Tales sunt oens Cathecumini. Ipsi iam credunt in nomine Christi Sed jesus non se credit eye. Intendat & intelligat charitas vestra. Si dixerimus cathecumino, credis in Christo? Respondet, credo, et signat se. jam crucem christi portet in front. Et non erubescit in cruce domini sui. Ecce credit in nomine eius. Interrogamus eum, manducas carnem filii hominis & bibis sanguinem filii hominis? Nescit quid dicimus, quia jesus non se credit ei. Which may thus be englished. Cathecumini are all of the same sort. For they believe in the name of christ. But jesus committeth not himself unto them. Let your charity mark and understand. If we shall say to the cathecumini, dost thou believe in christ? he will answer and say, I believe, and blesseth himself. Now he beareth the cross of christ in his forehead. And is not ashamed of the cross of his lord. Behold, he believeth in his name. We ask him again, dost thou eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink the blood of the son of man? he knoweth not what we say, because jesus hath not committed himself unto him. How sayest thou now? what thing is it, which this Cathecuminus doth here not know, when he is asked this plain question of the eating and drinking of Christ's most blessed flesh and blood? The words be plain. And therefore what is there in them, that (as Saint Austen saith of him) he doth not know? HERALD The spiritual understanding of it? CATH. What meanest thou by the spiritual understanding of it? HERE. The spiritual eating and drinking of that flesh and blood. CATH. Ye but what is the spiritual eating and drinking thereof? HERE. It is, as Frithe hath said to believe in Christ. CATH. To believe in Christ? is it that thinkest thou, which Saint Austen doth here mean, that (as he sayeth) this Cathecuminus doth not know, when he himself saith of him, that he believeth in christ? Thou mayst perceive it can not be so. For if S. Austen had meant here none other eating and drinking of it but that, he would not have noted him to be ignorant of his question, when he himself reporteth him to believe in the name of Christ. For that were as much as he requireth, if he had meant nothing else. Therefore if thou perceive it not already, let us look farther what S. Austen doth mean, by his not knowing. any thing else, but his not believing? And what meaneth Saint Austen by his not believing, but that he believeth not according to his asking? And what is it to believe according to his asking, but to believe the very eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood? for that is the very plain question, which he doth ask him. Wherefore that must needs be the thing which the Cathecuminus knoweth not. And that because, he believeth it not. And therefore it is his lack of faith in the real eating and drinking of Christ's holy flesh and blood, that Saint Austen doth here find fault with him for. And not for any other eating and drinking thereof, which as Frithe sayeth is nothing else but only faith and believe in Christ. Which faith (as Saint Austen sayeth) this Cathecuminus hath, and yet christ committeth not himself unto him. Therefore when Saint Austen doth ask him the question of eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of the son of man, it is an other eating and drinking that he doth mean and speak of, than this Cathecuminus doth know or believe, or else he would not réprehende him therein as he doth. It is an other also, then Frith doth believe, when he sayeth a man may use it, although he never receive the Sacrament. And therefore what other is it, but even only the very real eating and drinking of it in the holy Sacrament? Cap. 41. HERE. Why sir, doth not Saint Austen say as Frithe doth allege, in the .17, leaf of his book Why preparest thou teeth and belly? believe and thou hast eaten. CATH. What of that? wilt thou gather thereof, that there is none other eating of it, but only believe? Therefore if there be an other, what doth this make for Firths purpose or thine other? And that there is an other, have I not proved it all ready before, by the manifest words of Saint Austen himself? Wherefore if this be true, (as Frithe doth say it is) that these words of eating and drinking in this matter, mean nothing else but faith and belief, it must needs follow, that Saint Austen doth here unjustly reprehend this Cathecuminus, of whom he doth confess no less himself, but that he hath faith and believeth in the name of christ. And beside that, this must also follow thereof likewise, that when he sayeth. Believe and thou hast eaten. It is no more, nor none other to say, but believe and thou hast believed. What reason is this? or who would think S. Austen to mean so? HERALD Why what should he there, mean else? CATH. Even as he doth, which is this. Believe truly, and thou hast eaten spiritually. For the spiritual eating, cometh not to pass, but thorough the whole truth of believing. And the hole truth of believing, consisteth not in holding some parts of the faith, and denying some other, but in holding them whole, even altogether. Therefore Saint austin doth here (as in many other places more) farther mean than he doth express. For where he doth here (as touching the faith) no farther say, but believe, yet he meaneth these words, wholly, and truly, to be understand with all. For he meaneth no such believe, as is mixed or corrupted with any falsehood, or with the lack of any part of it. Therefore beside this, he meaneth farther than so to. For he meaneth not that same belief neither, although it be never so whole and true which is infected with evil and wicked manners. But he meaneth that, which (as the Apostle doth say) worketh by charity. Wherefore believe so, and I will grant, that thou hast eaten, or else not. For without that manner of believing (which is but according to Saint Austin's meaning) doubtless there can be no spiritual eating at all. And in that manner of believing, there is and must needs be contained, the very belief of the real eating. For the spiritual eating was not ordained for the real eating, but the real eating for the spiritual eating. And therefore without the very belief of the real eating, the spiritual eating can never he had. HERE. Then the spiritual eating, and the real eating must needs go so together, that the one can not be without the other. CATHOLICUS. That is not true, except it be in belief. For therein they must needs go always together. But else, so much they differ, and are some time a sunder, that an infidel may chance to eat it really, but yet for lack of faith, never spiritually. And a good Christian man may eat it spiritually, although, thorough some lawful impediment, he eat it not really. Wherefore by this it is clear, that all the sort of you, which denieth it (as Frithe doth) to be eaten really, without doubt do never eat it spiritually. Where in your tortuous and elvish doctrine, doth most manifestly appear. For ye hold with that, which ye never do. And utterly deny that, which ye daily do. HERE. How so? CATH. Ye grant and hold with the spiritual eating of Christ's holy flesh, which eating without fail, ye never come to. And ye stiffly deny the real eating of it, which eating in deed ye often and commonly do. And therefore when ye do that, which your selves deny, how is it done, but unworthily? and whereto tendeth that, but (as the Apostle sayeth) to your own damnation? but now I let that pass, 1. cor. 11. and to an other place of Saint Austen, where his own words be these. Sicut audivimus, cum sanctum evangelium legeretur, August sermo. 46. de verbis. domini dominus jesus Christus exortatus est promissione vitae aeternae ad manducandam carnem suam & bibendum 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 utrosque dirigitur. Qui iam manducant carnem domini & bibunt sanguinem eius, cogitent quid manducent, & quid bibant, ne (sicut Apostolus dixit) juditium sibi manducent & bibant. Qui autem non dum manducant & non dum bibunt, ad tales epulas invitati festiment. Per istos dies magistratus pascunt. Christus quotidie pascit, mensa ipsius est illa in medio constituta. Quid causae est O audientes, ut mensam videatis, & ad epulas non accedatis? Et forte modo cum evangelium legeretur dixistis in cordibus vestris, putamus quid est quod dicit, Caro mea vere esca est, & sanguis meus vere potus est? Quomodo manducatur caro domini & bibitur sanguis domini? Putamus quid dicit? Quis contra te clausit ut hoc nescias? Velatum est. Sed si volveris, erit revelatum. Accede ad professionem & soluisti quaestionem. Quid enim dixerit dominus JESUS, iam fideles noverunt. Tu autem Cathecuminus diceris, Audience & 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. Which may thus be Englished. When the holy gospel was red as we have herd, our Lord jesus exhorted us to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, with the promise of everlasting life. You, which have heard these things, do not yet all, understand them. For you which are baptised and are faithful, doth know what he said. But those among you, which are yet called Cathecumini or hearers, may be hearers, but therein understanders think you? Therefore our sermon is directed unto both. Now those which doth eat the flesh of our Lord and drink his blood, let them take heed, what they eat, and what they drink, least (as the Apostle sayeth) they eat and drink it to their own damnation. But let them, which doth not yet eat, nor yet drink, being invited, make haste unto such dayntes. For in these days magistrates doth eat. christ doth daily feed, That table of his. is set in the mids. What is the cause, O ye hearers, that ye see the table, and come not to the delicates? perchance now, when the gospel was red, you said in your hearts, perceive we what it is that he saith, my flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink? how is the flesh of the lord eaten, and the blood of the lord drunken? perceive we what he saith? who hath hid it from thee, that thou knowest it not? hid it is. But if thou wilt, it shall be opened. Come to the profession, and thou hast solved the question. For those that be now faithful, knoweth what our lord jesus said. But thou art called an hearer, and yet in hearing thou art deaf. For thou hast the ears of the body open, because thou hearest the words which are spoken. But thou hast the ears of the heart yet shut, because thou understandest not that, which is said. Now, meaneth Saint Austen hear nothing else by all these plain words of eating and drinking of Christ's holy flesh and blood, but only faith and belief? which only Frith doth call the spiritual eating and drinking thereof, saying there is none other but that? Therefore is it only that eating and drinking, whereunto Saint Austen doth here invite those, which he calleth Cathecumini or heres, who hath faith (as he said before) and doth believe in the name of Christ all ready, and beareth his cross in their foreheads? is it also that eating and drinking, that is to say, only faith and belief, Whereunto he doth here invite them, with the name and promise of dainties and delicates, set upon the table? the name of the table deintes or delicates, pretendeth & declareth an other manner of eating and drinking then is only faith and belief, if thou look well upon it? moreover, is only faith and belief, that same eating and drinking, which (as he saith) our saviour Christ doth exhort us unto, with the promise of everlasting life? when the Cathecuminus (as he doth also declare (hath faith and doth believe in the name of Christ, and yet cometh 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 belief, whereof he saith, let them which doth eat the flesh of our lord, and drink his blood take heed what they eat & what they drink, lest (as th'apostle saith) they eat it and drink it to their own damnation? He saith not how they eat & how they drink, but what they eat & what they drink. And what meaneth he by that same what? very bread in a bare signification as Frith doth take it? did not those Cathecumini or hearers take it so, whom S. Austen doth reprehend? wherefore did he blame them? but because they believed therein to be nothing else but only that, wherein they were deceived to? How be it, after Frithes understanding, it is all one to say, let them take heed what they eat, and what they drink, and to say, let them take heed what they believe and what they think. I will not deny, but those warnings be very good, but yet to say they be both one (as Frith doth take them) who would understand it so, but only he, and the blind weiward school which thou art of? Cap. 42. HERRE. Sir ye may say what ye will. But nevertheless, all these words of eating and drinking are not meant literally, but of the eating & drinking of the sacrament, in the only respect of itself, & not in the respect of Christ's own very flesh and blood, which Frith saith is not there in it in deed. CATH. Then sith thou wilt be so foolish as to take it after that sort, tell me what the Sacrament is? HERE. As Frith doth say, a figure, token, or sign of Christ's body and blood, representing his death. CATH. And is there no more in it but that? HERE. No. CATH.. Then why is it damnable to eat it unworthily? HERALD Because it is (as I said) a figure, token, or sign of Christ's body and blood representing his death. CATH. Ye but then, why is the sentence of damnation declared upon the unworthy eating and drinking of it, more than upon the unworthy looking or beholding of it? HERALD Because Paul saith it is so. CATH. Nay Saint Paul doth not say, that the one is any more damnable than the other. For he speaketh but of the one alone. And yet therein, his saying doth not make it damnable neither. For it doth but declare it so to be And therefore I ask of thee, why the other should not be so to? For if I be unworthy to eat it, I am (without question) unworthy to look upon it. For beetwene the act of eating, and the act of looking or beholding, doubtless there is no difference, of any worthiness or unwoorthynesse, more in the one, then in the other. Wherefore, if there be none other cause, why it is damnable to eat it unworthily, but because it is a figure, token or sign of Christ's body and blood representing his death, than it must needs be as damnable to look upon it, or behold it unworthily, because figures, tokens, and signs pertain rather, and more commonly to the sense of the sight, then to any eating or drinking other. And therefore unworthy seeing or beholding of it, can be no less fault, then is the unworthy eating and drinking of it, if there be no more in it, than thou speakest of. Wherefore, let us go farther and consider this, that if it be nothing else, but a figure, token, or sign of Christ's body and blood representing his death, why is the sentence of damnation declared upon the unworthy eating and drinking of that, more than upon the unworthy looking and beholding of the Crucifix or the rood? For that is a figure, token, or sign of Christ's body and blood representing his death to. which it doth much more aptly, much more apparently, much more lively, and therefore much more profitably, than the sacrament doth, if there be no more in the sacrament, than thou sayst there is. For that the rood doth, it doth it most sensibly. But that the sacrament doth, it doth it scant intelligibly. And therefore if there be no more in the sacrament, then is in the rood than is the rood as good and better than the sacrament is. HERE. No sir not so. For I will not deny, but the sacrament hath in it, that the rood hath not. CATH. What is that? HERE. The sacrament hath in it, the ordinance of Christ. And the rood, but the ordinance of man. For Christ did institute and ordain the one, and man the other. CATH. Then thou must needs grant that therein, the ordinance of man, is better than the ordinance of Christ. For every figure, token, or sign, is always ordained to signify. And that sign must needs be best, which doth most aptly and most manifestly represent the thing that it signifieth. But the rood doth much more manifestly represent the thing that it signifieth, than the sacrament doth, wherefore the rood must needs be a better sign than the sacrament is. Therefore if the rood be (as it seemeth by Frith) a better sign than the sacrament is, And the better sign must needs proceed of the better ordinance, (as the better effect, of the better cause) it followeth plain, that the ordinance of man in the rood is better than the ordinance of Christ in the sacrament. HERE. Tush sir, I can not away with that reason. CATH. That is because thou art not able to avoid it, as thou art not in deed, except thou grant a better thing to be in the sacrament, than any figure, token, or sign other. And a better there is none, but only the very thing, that is thereby signified, which is the very body and blood of Christ. For what can be directly better than a sign in that kind of things, but only that, which it doth signify? because there is no mean between them, whereof any comparison is to be made, but only of the one to the other, that is to say, between them two. Therefore other thou must needs grant the blessed body and blood of Christ to be verily and really in the sacrament, (whereby the sacrament is made more and better, then is any other figure, token, or sign) or else thou must needs grant the rood to be a better figure token or sign then the sacrament is. And so the ordinance of man to be better (as I said) in the one, than the ordinance of Christ in the other. Wherefore by this, (which thou darest not grant) thou mayst, if thou have any grace, well perceive the very cause why the sacrament doth in the judgement of all true christian people, so far pass the rood as it doth. For although the rood be a worthy sign and very expedient for us to behold, yet it is not ordained but only to refresh our memory, faith and devotion. Where as the virtue of the sacrament is, to give life, health, and salvation. Whereof the glorious author himself doth say, Iohn. 6. Take, eat, this is my body, which shall be given for you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting, and I will raise him up again in the latter day, for my flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. And why doth he say, it is verily meat and verily drink, but because we should verily eat it, and verily drink it? For what so ever is verily meat, is without doubt, to be verily eaten accordingly. And therefore what can be spoken more literally, as touching the verytee of the thing? Wherefore it was a very mad and a weyward fancy of Fryth to say, or think, that there is none other meaning or understanding of those plain words of eating and drinking of that holy flesh and blood, but only faith and belief. And that (as I said) in so many sundry places, and by such, and so many notable, and most worthy authors, as thát matter is spoker. of, set forth, and by those words expressed. But yet even such is the blindness of heresy, unto the which, because credible seemeth incredible, and intelligible not intelligible, what skilleth it, what Fryth doth say? or what is his saying to that thou haste herd of Saint Austen? whom although he taketh above all men for his defence, yet thou mayest now see, how clearly he maketh against him. In so much, that if I should recite unto thee, all such other places of Saint Austen as maketh no less, but rather more against him likewise, the whole day were to little to serve the purpose. And therefore now content thyself with that I have hitherto said, as thou hast heard already, which is so much, as perchance would seem to some, even to be more then enough. Wherefore with this content thyself, and far well for this time. Cap. 43. HERE. What will ye do sir? will ye now depart, without any farther examination of so large a matter, as Frith hath gathered together, out of all the other holy doctors beside? CATH. Ye why not? for it were but a lost labour to bestow any more time about that, sith he bringeth none of them all, for any other purpose (as I said at the first) but only to confirm that, which he would make us to believe, he gathereth out of Saint Austen. And that apeereth by his own words, which I recited unto the before, and also will now again, to put the in better remembrance thereof. For his words be these. This (saith he) were proof enough, to conclude, that all the old fathers did hold the same opinion. For who would once surmise (saying we have Saint Austen so plain for us, which is the chiefest among them all) who would once surmise (I say) that he dissented, in this great matter, from the other faithful fathers, or they from him? Nevertheless I dare not let him stand post alone, lest ye despise him. And therefore I will show you the mind of certain other also. And first of his master Saint Ambrose. HERE. Ye marry sir, I pray you let us here what Saint Ambrose saith. CATH. What need that? For thou seest it plain, that he bringeth not in Saint Ambrose nor any other beside for any thing else, but only to show thagreement between Saint Austen and them. And therefore look (as I have declared unto thee) how Saint Austen doth make for his purpose, even so doth Saint Ambrose, and all the rest likewise. That is to say, none otherwise in deed, but even dyrectlie against him. HERE. Yet if ye will not recite those words of Saint Ambrose, which Frith doth allege, I will recite them myself. CATH. What need that, when thou knowest them well enough already, or else how couldst thou recite them? HERALD Yet I will do it, to here what ye will say to them. CATH. Although I have therein said enough already. Yet chose the do as thou wilt. HERE. Then ye shall understand, that his allegation of Saint Ambrose is even this. Saint ambrose (saith he) writing upon the epistle of paul to the Corinthians in the xi chapter saith. Quia enim morte domini liberati sumus, huius rei in edendo & potando carnem & sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus, That is to say. Because we be delivered by the death of the lord, in eating and drinking this thing meaning the sacrament, we signify the flesh and blood which were offerered for us. Here doth saint Ambrose say enough (saith he) if men were not sophisters, but would be content with reason. Now by this ye see, that Frithe desireth none other, but that reason might rule, as it ought to do. CAT. In deed this reason I find in it, that thy recital hereof (as I now perceive (chanceth very well for thee, if thou will be so happy, as not to trust falsehood wilfully. For if ever thou foundest a falser harlot, than Frithe shallbe found in this, trust me no more. And that not only in his allegation of Saint Ambrose words, but also in his translating of them into english to. And to th'intent it may the more plainly appear unto thee, I will so truely allege the very same place of Saint Ambrose myself, as thou shalt not fail to find it, word by word, look where it is, when thou wilt. For the very words of Saint 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 delivered by the death of our lord, we mind full thereof do in eating and drinking the flesh and blood which were offered for us, signify. HERE. Ye what do we signify? CATH. Soft let that alone for a while. And let us first confer Frithes allegation and mine, not only in latin but also in English both together, that we may see, how well they do agree. And therefore in his allegation of the latin, what hath he done with this word Memores, which is to say in English mindful. Why did he leave out that, and would not bring it to light? he thought perchance that Saint Ambrose did not well to put it in. Or else he thought to make an exchaing with him, and for that latin word, to give him in recompense, these three or four english words. That is to say, meaning of the Sacrament. For what latin word hath Saint Ambrose here, that may be truely turned in to this English word meaning? Or into this word Sacrament? If he have here none such, (as he hath not in deed) what followeth, but that Frithe of purpose did put them in, to deceive and make the simple English reader believe it to be, the mind of Saint Ambrose when it is but his own false Heretical practice, and nothing else? As it may well appear by this, that under the colour of a translator, he playeth here the false expositor. And why? but as I said to seduce the reader. For where as Saint Ambrose doth join these words (huius rei) and this word (Memores) together, which are to say, mindful of this thing, Frithe putteth away this word, memores, and joineth to huius rei, these words, in edendo & potando. Which being so joined are to say, in eating and drinking of this thing. Now to say, mindful of this thing, as Saint Ambrose sayeth, and to say, in eating and drinking of this thing, as Fryth saith thou mayst perceive, hath a great difference. Whereby doth it not even clearly appear, how false a part he playeth herein? And yet to make us believe, that Saint Ambrose did mean, by this same, huius rei, the Sacrament, he of his own head addeth unto it, for an exposition thereof, these words, meaning of the Sacrament. When Saint Ambrose meaneth by it not so, nor any thing else, but (as it is plain) the very same, that he maketh mention of before, which is the death of Christ, whereby we are delivered, saying. We mindful of this thing, in eating and drinking the flesh and blood, which were offered for us, do signify. HERE. Yet sir ye make thereof no perfect sense. For as I asked of you before, what do we signify? we can not signify except we signify somewhat. And as ye do handle it, there is nothing expressed. Wherefore there must, other be somewhat understand, or else this word signify maketh no sense at all. CATH. There is no doubt, but some thing there is to be understand. And what is that, but the death of christ, which before is expressed? specially when Saint Ambrose, meaning none other, but even the same doth say. We mindful of this thing do signify it, in eating and drinking the flesh and blood which were offered for us? And this is the sense and very meaning of Saint Ambrose words. HERE. Here is a marvelous thing to see, how Frithes Englyshinge of this matter and yours doth differ. For where ye say, the meaning of it is this, that we signify the death of christ, Frith doth say, we signify the flesh and blood, which were offered for us. CATH. If Frithe will needs understand it and take it so, than I ask of him, how and after what manner do we signify them? HERALD In eating and drinking sayeth S. Ambrose. CA Ye, whereof? HERE. Frithe saith, of the sacrament. CA, Ye but there frith lieth. For S. Ambrose saith not so For he saith, of the flesh and blood which were offered for us. In eating and drinking of them (sayeth he) we signify the death of Christ. For he hath not here any such word as the Sacrament is, nor any such meaning as Frithe doth say he meaneth neither. Wherefore by this it may once again, even plainly appear that Frith doth here falsely bely Saint Ambrose, as he doth Saint Austen, and all the other holy fathers beside. And therefore I pray thee tell me one thing, that I will ask thee. HERALD What is that? CATH. Thou seest what a place of Saint Ambrose, Frithe hath pykte out for his purpose, and how he hath handled himself therein. HERE. What of that? Cap. 44. CATH. Why did he not as well allege Saint Ambrose in this place, that is to say, Libro. 4. the Sacrament. & Cap. 4. Where his words are even these. Panis iste panis est ante verba sacramentorum. Vbi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit Caro Christi. That is to say. This bread is bread, before the words of the Sacraments. But when the consecration is cum to it, there is made of the bread, the flesh of Christ. And in the next chapter of the same book, his words be also these. Antequam consecretur panis est. Vbi autem verba christi accesserit, corpus est Christi. Denique 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 bread, before it be consecrat. But when the words of Christ cometh to it, it is the body of christ. And for proof thereof, hearken to him that saith Take and eat of it all you. This is my body. And before the words of Christ, the Chalice is full of wine and water. But when the words of Christ hath wrought, there is made the blood, which redeemed the people. furthermore in the .6. book and the first Chapter of the same work, his words be these. Sicut vaerus est dei filius dominus noster jesus Christus, 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 Lord jesus christ is the very son of God, not as men are by grace, but as the Son of the substance of the father. So is it very flesh, as he saith himself, which we receive. Now therefore tell me why, that Frithe doth not allege these places of Saint Ambrose (among many other like in his words besides) as well as that other place, which he doth allege, and so falsely handle as I have declared unto thee? Is there any other why, but only because he was not able to deface the manifest truth of these places, as he did (so far as in him lay) the truth of the other? Beside this, he doth in the .39. leaf of his book allege also the blessed martyr Saint Cyprian in these words. Cyprian sayeth (sayeth he) that the people is annexed in the sacrament, thorough the mixture of water. Why therefore doth he not as well allege him in that place, where he hath these words. Cipri. Serm. de caena domini Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigy, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi, factus est caro. That is to say. This bread, which our lord gave his disciples, being changed, not in outward form, but in nature, by the almighty power of the word, is made flesh. This place made not for Frithes purpose. And in deed no more did the other nother, as it may well appear by this, that he neither doth, nor yet can frame any manner of proof of his purpose by it. For he doth no more but without cause thereof, fain himself to marvel, that men will not understand and take it, as he doth. For thereupon, his words be these. I marvel me much (sayeth he) that they are so contentions and will not see, that as the water is the people, so the wine is Christ's blood, that is to say, in a mystery, because it representeth Christ's blood, as the water doth the people. Here thou seest, he gathereth of this place, which he doth allege of Saint Cyprian, nothing else, but only a marvel, that we take it not as he would have us. HERE. Yet sir he doth say, that as the water is the people, so the wine is Christ's blood, that is to say, in a mystery, because it representeth Christ's blood as the water doth the people. CATH. True it is, that so he sayeth, but so he doth not prove it for all that. And therefore as he doth but only say it of Christ's blood, even so he doth but only mean the like of Christ'S flesh. Whereof Saint Cyprian doth not say, this bread is made in a mystery, sign, or signification of flesh, but he sayeth it is made flesh, That is to say, flesh indeed for if he had not verelie-beleved, the nature of the bread (which he taketh for the substance thereof) to be as he saith, by the almighty power of the word, converted and changed into the very flesh of Christ in deed, he would never have so said of it, as here thou haste heard he doth. Wherefore now thou seest how well S. Ambrose and Saint Cyprian both, serveth his purpose in Saint Austen. And even so without question, doth all the rest of the old holy Fathers which he doth allege beside. For doubtless of them all, he doth nothing else, but only pike out such places, as he knew well, the unlearned reader should not be able to understand. Specially when he, for his own part doth set them so craftily forth unto him, and handle them so ungraciously as he doth. Whereof a part, I have here now declared unto thee by manifest example of his wicked and false handling, not only of Saint Ambrose, but also of Saint Cipryan to. But as for any such other places, which Saint Ambrose, and the other holy Fathers have so plain, as may easily put the simple reader in surety of the truth, and clean out of doubt, he would in no wise touch, nor bring forth any one of them, but so wink at the matter, as though there were no such in deed. And therefore to know what he was, and what his doings are, what is there else, that thou wouldest have more, than I have told thee? If this to thee be not enough, in very deed there is nothing will serve. HERE. Yes sir something will serve, but yet not all this, I may say to you? CATHOLI. Why so? HERE. Because I do know, why ye would so fain have done, & make such haste to be gone. CATHOLICUS. Why? HERE. Because Frithe hath one saying of a certain Doctor to be answered unto, which I perceive ye be not willing to meddle with all. CATH. What Doctor is that? HERE. Frithe shall tell you that, himself. For in the .76. leaf of his book, his words be these. That there remaineth bread (sayeth he) might be proved by the authority of many doctors, which call it bread and wine, even as christ and his Apostles did. And though some Sophisters would wrest their sayings and expound them after their own fantasy, yet shall I allege them one doctor which was pope, that maketh so plain with us, that they shall never be able to avoid him. For Pope Belasius writeth on this manner. Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christi, divinae res sunt. Propter quod & per eadem divinae efficimur consortes vaturae. 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. surely the sacraments of the body and blood of christ which we receive, are godly things. Therefore thorough them are we made partakers of the godly nature. And yet doth it not cease to be the substance or nature of bread and wine, but they continue in the property of their own nature. And surely the Image and similitude of the body and blood of christ are celebrated in the art of the mysteries. This am I sure (saith he) that no man can avoid it, nor so wrist it, but that all men shall soon espy his folly. And therefore I may conclude, that there remaineth the substance and nature of bread and wine. Here ye may now see, how sure of his purpose Fryth maketh himself, by the plain testimony of this doctor. CATH. Ye but yet I perceive, thou seest not, how sure I make myself, that he for all this, is nevertheless deceived. HERE. That were to straying. For there can be no plainer words for his purpose, than he doth here allege of this doctor. CATH. Thou sayest well, and therefore let us return to Saint Ambrose again. And that not only with good remembrance of what so ever I have alleged of him unto the already, but also with dew consideration of this, that I shall allege of him more unto the now. For in the ninth chapter of his work entitled De his qui misterijs initiantur, where he maketh a comparison between the blessed body of Christ in the sacrament, and the shadows and figures thereof in the old law, he hath even these words. Potior etenim lux quam umbra, veritas quam figura, corpus authoris quam Manna de coelo. Forte dicas. Aliud video. Quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi corpus accipiam? Et hoc nobis adhuc superest, ut probemus. That is to say. Better is the light then the shadow, better is the truth than the figure, better is the body of the maker, than the Manna from heaven. Peradventure thou wouldest say, I see an other thing. How affirmest thou to me, that I receive the body of Christ? That doth yet remain for us to prove. And now therefore take thou good heed, because for his proof thereof, these be part of his words. Probemus hoc non esse quod natura formavit, sed quod Benedictio consecravit. Maioremque vim esse Benedictionis, quam naturae. Quia Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur. That is to say. Let us prove this not to be that, which nature hath form, but that, which benediction hath consecrated. And that the power of benediction, is more than the power of nature. For thorough benediction also nature itself is changed. Which things he proveth by no less than manifest example of holy scripture, saying. Virgam tenebat Moses, proiecit eam & facta est serpens. Rursus apprehendit caudam Serpentis & in virgae naturam revertitur. Vides igitur prophetica gratia, bis mutatam esse naturam & serpentis & virgae. That is to say. Moses' had a rod. He did cast it forth, and it was made a serpent. He took the serpent by the tail, and it was turned into the nature of the rod again. Therefore thou seest the nature, both of the Serpent, and also of the rod, by the prophetical grace, to be twice changed. Now after this example of the scripture and divers other more, he hath also these words. Aduertimus igitur maioris esse virtutis gratiam, quam naturam. Et adhuc tamen propheticae Benedictionis numeramus gratiam, Quod si tantum valuit humana Benedictio ut naturam converteret, Quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione divina, ubi verba ipsa domini salvatoris operantur? Nam sacramentum istud quod accipis, Christi sermone conficitur. Quod si tantum valuit Sermo Heliae, ut ignem de coelo deponeret, Non valebit Christi sermo ut species mutet elementorum? De totius Mundi operibus legisti. quia ipse dixit & facta sunt, Ipse mandavit & creatasunt. Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, Non potest ea quae sunt, in id mutare quod non erant? Non enim minus est, novas, rebus dare, quam mutare naturas. That is to say. Therefore we perceive grace to be of more power than nature. And yet hitherto we reckon the grace of the prophetical benediction. wherein, if man's benediction was so strong, that it did change nature, what say we of the divine consecration itself, where the self same words of our Lord and Saviour doth work? For this sacrament which thou dost receive, is made by the word of Christ. For if the word of Helias was so strong, that it brought down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ be so strong, that it may change kinds of elements? Thou haste red of the works of the whole world, that he spoke the word, and they were made, he commanded, and they were create. Therefore can not the word of Christ, which was able to make that of nothing, which was not, change those things that are, into that which they were not? For it is not less, to give new natures to things, than it is to change them. Here thou hast now herd, what Saint Ambrose saith. And therefore I would fain know of Frith, how he would join that saying of Gelasius, and these of Saint Ambrose together? HERALD How can they be joined together, when they be clean contrary? for gelasius both say. That it seizeth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine, but they continue in the property of their own nature. And Saint ambrose doth say. That thorough benediction the nature is changed. And thorough cansecration, there is made of the bread, the flesh of Christ. And thorough the operation of Christ's words, there is made of the wine and water, the blood which redeemed the people. And so after him, there remaineth no substance nor nature of bread and wine at all. But after Gelasius there remaineth both. Wherefore these two doctors be directly one against another. CATH. And dost thou believe, that they be so in deed? HERE. It is so plain, I can not choose. CATH. Then is Frith not only therein against thee, but also against himself to. For thou knowest (as I told the before) that he doth in these words ask this question. Who would once surmise that Saint Austen dissented in this great matter from the other faithful fathers, or they from him? As who say no man would so surmise. And therefore if none of them, in this great matter, dissented from S. Austen, nor he from them, It followeth thereof, that none of them, dissented from other. If none of them dissented from other, and Gelasius one of them in deed, as Frith himself doth take him to be, then doth Saint Ambrose and Gelasius by Frithes own saying agree together well enough. Therefore if Saint Ambrose and Gelasius do agree together well enough, why doth not Frith in this great matter, believe them both, that is to say as well saint ambrose in these places which I have recited, as he doth gelasius in that place, which he doth recite? HERE. It were but reason, if they did agree together in deed, but plain it is they do not so. CAT. Then Frith doth lie. For by his own saying they do agree for all that. CATH. If they do not, how come this to pass, that none of them both, in all this long time, from their days hitherto, hath been touched with any slander or note of heresy? Frith scaped not so, but was quickly taken for an heretic, as he was most worthy. 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 been an heretic in deed, and could not have scaped away withal, thus long in the Church of Christ, without the worthy infamy and note thereof. HERE. Yes sir well enough. For in this case, there is no matter of heresy at all. For Frith saith, there is no man bound to believe it under pain of damnation. CATH. Although I told the enough of that saying of his, even yester day, yet now therein, mark his lack, of wit, learning, or grace, or else rather of all three. For here thou hast herd, how he calleth it, and confesseth it to be a great matter. HERE. That is true. CATH. And I told the yester day, how and where, he calleth it an article of our faith. HERALD Ye but none of our creed, he saith. CATH. Yet an article of our faith he confesseth it to be for all that. And therefore when he doth confess it to be, not only an article, but also a great matter, what other thing therein doth he, but (although unwares to himself) confess it to be a great article of our faith. For the article can not be small, and the matter thereof great. And therefore if it be a great article of our faith (as it is in deed) wherein doth heresy consist, if it be not, in the not believing thereof? And who denieth it to be a damnable faut, not to believe a great article of our faith, but such a great heretic, or the very same that Frith was in deed? when the not believing, of the least article thereof, is enough to make an heretic with all. Wherefore this mayst thou see what wit, learning, or grace was in Firths head, that would say they do agree, and descent not one from an other (as they do not in deed) and yet hold not so much with the one, as he doth directly against the other, that is to say, not so much with Gelasius, as against holy Saint Ambrose. Cap. 45. HERE. Sir I pray you let that pass. And to this, that (as I perceive) you do take these two doctors, S. Ambrose and Gelasius, not to dissent one from an other, but very well to agree together, whereat I marvel, their words being so contrary as they are. CAT. Of their agreement I have no doubt. But whether they be the very words of Gelasius which Frith doth here allege of him or no, I have some doubt of that, because he doth not show, nor note in what place of Gelasius works, we may find them. But let us grant him the most he can ask, that they be the very words of Gelasius in deed. And therefore let me see what he can get by that? HERALD No more but even as the very words of Gelasius doth declare, which are plain, that It doth not cease to be the substance or nature of bread and wine, but they continue in the property of their own nature. Therefore what doubt can there be, in the meaning of these so plain words? CATH. Some perchance in this, that he saith, it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. He saith not the substance and nature, but the substance or nature, As doubting which of them both he might best say. And therefore it is incertain to Frith, which of them both he meant. HERE. That is not so. For there is no doubt, but Gelasius meant as well the one as the other, and referreth to us, the liberty of understanding or taking of which we list, because although they be two words, yet they are both of one signification. CATH. They are some time confounded (thou mayst say) and taken one for an other, But yet not both of one proper signifycacyens for all that. For substance pertaineth properly to the principal being of a body, making it to be the same that it is. And nature, although it be some time taken more generally or largely for the whole thing, yet commonly it pertaineth but to the accidental qualities, and properties thereof, declaring it to be rather such as it is, than what it is. Therefore if Fryth say, that Gelasius meant both substance and nature, that I may well deny, because his words be disiunctivelie spoken, of the one, or the other. HERALD Yet may we then choose, and take which of them we will. CAT. Which shall that be? HERALD Substance. CATH. Nay not so. For thereof Gelasius maketh a restraint himself, if thou mark it well. For when he doth say, They continue in the property of their nature, he saith not, in the property of their substance. Which had been as much to say, as in the property of their chief and principal being, For of the substance every thing that is a body, (as bread and also wine is) hath his nomination. Therefore he saith not in the property of their substance. But in the property of their nature, as of a less being then of substance. And yet even therein, this is also to be noted to, that he saith not in their nature, but in the property of their nature. For nature and the property of nature, is not without a difference, as it is well proved by this, that the one proceedeth and is said of the other. For the property of nature, is but the operation of it according to the same. Whereof nature is some time letted by one occasion or other. And yet then, although it be so put or let from the proper operation thereof, it is nevertheless nature still for all that. And therefore Gelasius, to amend or qualyfye, his words of substance or nature, and to avoid all sinister understanding thereof, doth add unto them and say, They continue in the property of their nature. As he might say, I do not mean the very substance or nature itself, but the natural quantitees, qualities, and properties thereof. Wherefore, if he had meant (as Frith doth take him to mean) the very substance or nature itself of bread and wine still to remain in deed, it had been superfluous and to no purpose, but rather a very folly to tell us, (as he doth) that they continue in the property of their nature. For who doth not know, that all substantial and natural things, for the time of their being, do continue in the property of their nature? Therefore, Gelasius was to wise, and to well learned, to teach us that, for a special or a necessary lesson, which every man knoweth already. HERE. Why every man doth know, that they continue in the property of their nature. CATH. Ye but every man doth not know that they so do, without their own proper substance. And that is the cause, why Gelasius doth so say thereof as he doth. For else he should speak it without cause or any need at all. And that he would not do. For if he had thought or meant, that the very substance or nature itself, of bread and wine, had therein continued still, he would not have said they continue in the property of their nature, which every man knoweth, but he would have said they continue in the verytee of their substance, because the contrary thereof, is well and truly believed. For therein lieth all the doubt or question if any be. In so much, that when it is heard, that the substance or nature of a thing doth cease to be, it is thought, by and by, that the propertee thereof doth cease withal, because in the common course of things, it doth so in deed. This same thought therefore, did Gelasius intend to help, when he saith, they continue in the property of their nature. As who say, although their proper substance and nature be changed yet they continue in the property of their nature for all that, and in nothing else, as the truth is, they do not in deed. Again of the other side, when it is heard, that the propertee of nature in any thing, doth hold and continue, it is thought straight way, that the substance and nature of the thing, doth also continue likewise. Wherefore that same thought, did Saint Ambrose purpose to help, when and where he doth say, that. Thorough benediction the nature is changed. And thorough the consecration, their 〈◊〉 made of the bread, the flesh of Christ. And thorough the operation of Christ's words, there is made of the wine and water, the blood which redeemed the people. And as our Lord jesus christ is the very son of God, so it is very flesh (as he saith himself) which we receive. Here thou mayst plainly perceive, according to the agreement of these two doctors, how the one defendeth the other. For who so ever would take and gather of S. Ambrose, that there doth not remain the natural property of bread and wine, because he speaketh so plain of the alteration and change of the substance or nature thereof, Gelasius doth directly for him answer and say, they continue in the popertee of their nature. That is to say, the property of their nature doth continue still, although the substance or nature itself be changed. And who so ever would, for this saying, take and gather of Gelasius (as Fryth doth) that there remaineth the very substance or nature of bread and wine still, because he speaketh so plain, of the continuance of the natural propertee thereof, Saint Ambrose doth in that behalf, directly answer and say, that. Thorough benediction the nature is changed. And by consecration there is made of the bread, the flesh of Christ, and so forth. Wherefore, by this it doth most clearly appear, that Frithe was not deceived in that he sayeth, these faithful fathers dyssented not one from an other, but well and truely agreed together. But how therefore, doth he agree with himself, in this that he so sayeth, and yet alloweth not so much the saying of the one, as he doth utterly deny the saying of the other? when dyrectelie against Saint Ambrose he doth say, there remaineth the substance and nature of bread and wine. Who can be more against him, than he is herein against himself? He holdeth with the saying of Gelasius, but not with the saying of Saint Ambrose. And yet doth hold, that they descent not one from an other. Haste thou heard of any man, that ever framed his things together after this sort? HERALD Why say you that he holdeth not with Saint ambrose? If he held not with him, he would not allege him so often as he doth. CATHOLI. Thou sayest well. For even so he holdeth with Saint Ambrose, as he doth (for all his saying) with Gelasius. That is to say, with none of them both. For it is two things for him, to hold with them, and to hold with his own false understanding of them, as he, thou, and many other doth. For if he sought in them any thing else but that, he would not (as he did) pike out only such places, as be to the simple reader dark and obscure, but would have set forth as well such other places, as are clear and out of all question, and not omit or rather hied them (as I told thee before) even purposely to deceive. HERE. How should he set forth such plain places of them, as ye speak of, when parchance he never saw them? CATH. Nay thou shalt not excuse him so. For in the .81. leaf of his book, his words are these. Of this (sayeth he) springeth the manner of speakings, that the old fathers do sometime use. which at the first sight, might seem contrary to our sentence. But if they be well pondered, it may soon be seen, how they should be taken. Now tell me, how could he (as here he doth) make mention of that manner of their speakings, which (as he confesseth) mought seem contrary to his sentence, if he had not seen them? And having seen them, what is the cause, that he bringeth forth none of them, to let us see, how they do but seem contrary to his sentence, and may be otherwise taken? Is there any cause why, but that he knew, they would make clean against him, sith his own words declare no less, but at the least, they seem so to do? Therefore in avoiding of all doubt, why doth he not bring forth some of them, that we might see, how they seem, and how he would prove that they do no more but so? HERE. Marry sir he doth even immediately following show ye how, and that in these words. Many times (sayeth he) when they speak of the Sacrament and outward eating, they apply unto the Sacrament and outward eating, the fruit and conditions of the inward eating and thing itself. Because, that in a faithful man, they are so jointly joined, that the one is never without the other. Lo here he doth tell, how that manner of speakings and sayings of the old fathers, are in those places, to be taken and understand. CATH. In what places? HERE. In those, where their sayings might seem (as he sayeth) to be contrary to his sentence. CATH. What be those sayings? HERE. That shall not skill, for here he hath showed you how they should be taken. CATH. Hast thou heard of any man so mad, so foolish, or rather so false, that would make an exposition, upon no special recital of any saying? where are the words of those old fathers? where shall we find that manner of their speakings? where or which are the places wherein they make this application that he speaketh of? He telleth us not that. But maketh us an exposition, we see not whereof. He sendeth us forth, and will not tell us wether. How shall we try his saying, or herein make him answer? HERE. That is no matter, for be requireth none. CATH. Thou sayest even true. For so that his saying might be allowed, he would ask no more. But full well did he know, that if he had alleged those plain places or any of them, this false gloze of his, could have done him no service. And therefore he thought it better for his purpose, to report them as he list, then with any just recital of their own words, to let them report themselves. Wherefore if thou wilt thyself, thou mayest now, easily perceive, the cause why he bringeth not forth, those manifest and plain places of the old Fathers, as he doth the other obscure, which he doth so falsely handle, as I have declared unto thee. Cap. 46. HERE. Sir ye can lay no such handling of Gelasius words unto his charge. For he maketh no manner of exposition of them, but doth take them even as he findeth them. CATH. Even as he findeth them? What is that to the purpose? for if thou go to finding, why did he not take the Catholic faith, even as he found it? For once he found that well enough, if he would have kept it. And because he would not keep it, therefore he lost it. And not only that, but also the true understanding of them, which did most parfitlie teach it. For how might he understand the very teathers of truth, when he himself, was so earnestly bend as he was, against the truth? And for a more clear knowledge thereof, thou must consider, that truth is denied two manner of ways. One, in the bare word itself, an other, in the meaning thereof. And therefore whether the truth of the word and the truth of the meaning go both together, or else a sunder, (as some time they do, and some time not) yet Frithe thou shalt find unable to be defended in any of them both. As when Saint Ambrose doth say. Thorough benediction the nature is changed. Truth is there, both in the word, and also in the meaning. Which Frithe (as well in the one as in the other) doth utterly deny. Where he sayeth. There remaineth the substance & nature of bread & wine. And again when Gelasius doth say. It ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. Truth is there also, in the meaning, but not in the word, as Frithe doth take it. For he taketh substance there, as the logition doth take it. And as it is one of the ten predicaments, where it is always taken in corporal things, to signify that, which sustaineth, and is as a receptacle of natural quantity, & qualities, as heat, told, colour, order, form, figure, or such other. For that, wherein those accidental quamtites and qualities are contained, is (as it ought to be) after the logition, called the substance of the thing. And in that sense, doth Frithe take it, wherein he was utterly deceived, or willing to deceive. For here, it ought not so to be taken. And therefore after that sense, truth is not here in the word, but yet in the meaning for all that. For if the word had here been put in that sense, there had been no truth in any of them both. That is to say, neither in the word, nor yet in the meaning neither. HERE. Why sir, did Frithe amiss to take the meaning of Gelasius, according to the word? CATH. Why dost thou ask of me that question, sith indeed, he took it not so? for when the word hath diverse and many meanings, how could Frith be sure to take the meaning according to the word, before he had made it certain, in which of those meanynges the word is put? For substance, is a word of such a sort, as by that, is mente some time one thing and some time an other. In so much, that some time it is taken for wordly goods, by reason whereof, we say of a rich man, that he is a man of great substance. Some time, when we behold a goodly new building, we say that it is substantially done. There, substance is applied partly to the strength of the thing to continue, and partly to the cunning of the artificer. Also it is some time taken for a certain quantytee of stuff, and some qualytee of workmanship. As when a man cometh to a Draper's shop, to high him a Cloak or a gown cloth, and hath an endee of the peace turned out unto him to look upon, he desireth at length to see the other end of it, and when he hath felt that in his hand, ye marry sayeth he, here is an other manner of substance in this end, then is in the other, cut me therefore that I shall have, out of this end. Therefore what meaneth he, by that other manner of substance, but a more quantity of stuff, and some quality of better making in that end, then in the other. For the very substance of both the ends, and also of the whole cloth, after the Logition, is all one. But not so after the common use of speaking. Again it is also taken sometime, for the pith or principal part of a tale. As when we hear a man long about the uttering thereof, we bid him go quickly to the substance of the matter. Substance is not there, taken after the logition neither, but after the common speech. Beside this, it is some time taken for nature itself, as nature is also taken for it, and that as though there were no difference between them. And so doth Gelasius put it here, when he sayeth. It ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. Meaning indeed none of them both after the logition. But yet in that he doth say, substance or nature, he putteth no difference between them, but (as thou saidest before) take which we list, it is all one to him. For if they had not been to him as both one in this case, he would not have put as he did, the one or the other. As who say I care not which ye take, but he would have put the one and the other, (as two distinct) or the one and not the other, (wherein had been no question) or else neither of them both. Therefore sith it was all one to him, to take of them, which we list, it followeth well, that he did not put the one, but for the other. And which for other, that was, his own order of words doth well declare. Which is not, nature or substance, but substance or nature. He putteth substance before, for that which he putteth after, as an exposition thereof. That is to say, nature. Therefore he saith substance or nature, as who say by substance I mean nothing else but nature. For if he had put nature for substance, as he doth substance for nature, he would not have joined unto them these words, saying, they continue in the property of their nature, but he would have said, they continue in the property of their substance. How be it, he would not say so, because it had been directly against his purpose. Wherefore even as he doth put substance for nature, so in very deed, he doth put nature for the propertee of nature. And therefore as a plain exposition of his mind therein he doth say, they continue in the property of their nature. As who say therein is all the being they have. For if he had thought them to have any other, or more being then that, it had been but a vain saying of him, to say that they continue in the property of their nature, when it had been far better, more certain, and plainer, to say they continue in their very substance, or very nature itself, which toucheth there whole being, where as the property of their nature, toucheth but a part of it. For the proper nature of bread and wine itself, and the property of their nature, is two things. And therefore Gelasius saith not, that they continue in their proper nature, but in the property of their nature, which is less. And so much of bread and wine, we grant to remain in the holy sacrament, as well after the consecration as before. And yet not afterward, and substance or nature of bread and wine for all that, except thou take nature, for the only accidental quantitees, qualities, and properties thereof, as it is oft times used to be taken. Ye and sometime for the conditions and behaviour of men, both good and bad. As when we see a man of a customable gentle behaviour, we say, he is a man of a gentle nature. Again when we see a man of the contrary sort, and always intractable, we say he is a a man of a straying nature, or a man of an evil nature. And as some will say, I never saw man of that nature. And yet all men are but of one nature, as nature is some way taken. Therefore when substance and nature both, may and daily are, so diversly used and taken, as they are in deed, what can Frith (for all his craakes) get of gelasius, by those words? he should first have tried and made it certain, how or in what sense gelasius did put them and what he meaneth by them. And then so to allege them with their due exposition accordingly. But that, because he never used to do with S. aust. nor S. ambrose, he thought it to late to begin it with Gelasius· For he did better like the first sound of those words after his own mind, than he did the very meaning of them, after gelasius mind. Wherefore this mayst thou see how very nothing Gelasius maketh for him, although they were the very words of Gelasius in deed. Therefore what if they be not his words? how then? HERE. Then some where, I must needs grant a fault, if it were so. Now be it, I can not believe that ever Frith would allege them in Gelasius name, if they were not Gelasius words in deed. Cap. 47. CATH. Then for a farther trial thereof, I would wish the to take so much pain (which were not great) as to read over that notable and worthy book, entitled, (the assertion and defence of the sacrament of the altar) made by master doctor Smith of Oxford a man well known to be of great and famous learning. Wherein among other his good and perfect solutions, to a great sort of Frithes heretical objections, thou shalt find one solution concerning this matter, in the .148. leaf of the said book, where part of the words be these. For an answer here unto (meaning Frithes allegation of Gelasius) ye shall understand (saith he) that this saying ascribed unto Gelasius, being of this sort as it is, is neither found in any of the works reputed and taken for the true and undoubted works of Gelasius, nor yet it is so red in the said book, entitled, Antidotum contra heresies, as here in this objection it is deduced, like as it shall manifestly appear unto the reader thereof, conferring them both together. And undoubtedly amongs learned catholic men, it is constantly believed, that this saying of Gelasius, as it is here deduced, is falsely ascribed unto gelasius, and counterfeit by the lutherians, who (for the maintenance of their false error and naughty opinion or heresy, being that with the very true body and blood of Christ, there remaineth material bread and material wine) have so contrived the matter, that where in all Gelasius works, there can not be found any one saying after this sort, they have yet iobbed it in, in an other book. Ye and to avoid suspicion of falsehood, and to get them the better credit, they have put it in the said book, having an honest name, being entituled a treacle or remedy against heresies, thinking that in such a book, having such a title no man will think that any heresies are planted at all, to be maintained in any wise, But that in such a book all verities and catholic assertions are set forth to be allowed. And that this is very like te be as I do say, it appeareth in manner notoriously of itself, as well for that the said saying, as here it is deduced, is not (as I said) amongs the other sayings of Gelasius in his known and approved works, as also for that no writer (in the said Gelasius time) did either hold this opinion, so ascribed to gelasius, nor yet any thing speaketh in or for the confutation thereof, which undoubtedly they would have done, in case the thing had been so in deed, as it is deduced and purposed for true, semblably as they did the like, against all other error and heresies, which then did spring and were sown abroad, especially being of such importance and weight as this is of. Moreover this thing by the way (good reader) may be noted to the great confusion and shame of these falsifyers and corrupters of books (as Fryth is and other also of that sort) that the saying of Gelasius is so here rehearsed, that a plain man would think that Gelasius had so said, as Fryth doth here bring him in, and looking upon the book entitled ANTIDOTUM, out of which, the saying of Gelasius is extracted, there shall ye find far otherwise. Ye and moreover, the thing which ye shall find there, in the foresaid book, it is so corrupted, that ye can not (as it is there) make any sentence of it. etc. Now these words of this great learned man's setting forth, with the rest that follow in the same place, if thou wouldest thoroughly read, peruse, and well way them with indifferent judgement, thou shouldest easily perceive, whether there be so much as any likelihood that those pretended words of Gelasius be Gelasius words in deed, or no. Therefore if they be not what doth Fryth get by them? Of the other side, if they were his words as Fryth doth say they be, yet well and truly, weighed, considered and with reason understand, thou shouldest find (as it doth now already appear) that they make not only nothing for him, but also rather, even clean against him. Wherefore, sith (as I told the at the first) that all frithes purpose in the old holy doctors, was no more but only to get some colour of, or by such certain sayings of theirs, as he could & did pike out, to make it (as it were by them) seem that his understanding of those places of scripture, which he doth meddle with all, could not be but true, pretending that they were to be taken in the same only sense that he did put them for. And again sith it is now proved, that the chief of all those places of the holy fathers, which he did so pike out, and most trusted upon, he did but falsely understand after his own blind fancy, and not after their minds, but far otherwise and clean contrary to their meanings, as it hath most plainly appeared, even by the testimony of their own sayings, which I have truly recited unto thee, what followeth hereof but this? if his understanding of those places of scripture be true, thers is false. if theirs be true, his is false. And which shall we take? for both, we can not they be so contrary. Therefore because their understanding thereof, is well known to be so true, that even he himself neither did nor durst deny it, and his understanding so false, that all the colour and craft he could set upon it, is not able to defend nor hide it, who is so blind, wayward, and wilful, as, notwithstanding all this, will yet trust or believe him? any other but such, as passeth not much, whether they go to god or the devil? wherefore, if the due consideration hereof, be not enough to a certain thee, that he was but a false and a wicked teacher of error and Heresy, it shallbe enough to a certain me, that thou art but a man intractable, and full of insatiabilite. And therefore more of me now, thou gettest not at this time. HERE. Yes sir a little, I pray you. For what say you to his natural reasons, which ye have reported to be nothing worth, and promised to prove the same? Therefore I would fain here, what ye would say to some of them ear we part. CATH. I marvel that ever thou wilt require, look after, or regard any reasons of his, whom thou haste seen proved so false and foolish as he was. For thou hast now heard to many good reasons against him, to think that any of his, can make with him. For very reason thou mayest well know, can never be against itself. Nor any one of that sort against an other, be they never so many. And therefore the manifest truth of those reasons, which thou haste heard against him all ready, might make thee sure, that none of his can hold, although they seem never so much to the contrary. HERE. Ye but sir, ye must answer them otherwise then so, or else can not I be content. For his reasons, I may say to you, worketh more in my head, than all that ever he sayeth beside. CATH. Then must thou take a new day, for I will tarry no longer about that matter now. HERE. Then what say you to this, that ye have lost a great piece of the labour, which ye have taken at this time already. CATH. Although in thee, I fear the same, yet I would have thee tell me, how or wherein. HERE. In that ye have so spiced your talk, with such obscure words and straying terms at many times, that I cannot tell what ye mean by them. CATH. Why didst thou not tell me so then, when I did speak them and was in hand with them? HERE. I thought I would not let your purpose so much, but would and did rather hearken, whereupon ye would rest in the end. CATH. Then, why findest thou more fault with any obscurity or strayngenesse of my words, than thou dost with any of Frithes words? for he useth as straying words as I do, and more straying to. For in the .42. leaf of his book, thus he sayeth. What need he (meaning Saint Austen) to make these, words and Antithesies, but because. etc. Now what understandest thou by this word antithesies? Canst thou tell what it meaneth? And again in the .52. leaf, where also he sayeth. It must be, Ratione porositatis ut in igne & ferro, nam penetrationem dimentionum nunquam probabit. This, he doth not so much, as express, or turn into english. how be it that was perchance because his ignorant disciples should think him the greater clerk. for some there be, that, the less they understand of what so ever they hear, the better learned judge they him, which is the speaker. But notwithstanding, if he had put forth the very english of it, as it had been his part to do, sith he writeth in English, yet how much shouldest thou have been the wiser for that? HERALD Even so much as the understanding of that cometh to. For than I should have known what he meaneth by it. CAT. that will I see straight way. For the english of it is this. It must be (sayeth he) by reason of porsfite, as in fyet and iron, for penetration of dimensions he shall never prove. Now tell me what he meaneth by it? HERE. That could I soon do, if it were not for a word or two. CATHOLI. why for that word or two, but because thou dost not understand them? And why dost thou not understand them, but because they be to thee, obscure and straying as every thing is to him that knoweth it not. And therefore sith he useth words and terms, more obscure and straying than I do, how come this to pass, that thou cannest not as well away with the obscurity and strayngenesse of my talk full of truth, as thou cannest with the abscurite and straygenes of his talk, full of error and falsehood? Wherein this augmenteth my marvel greatly, that ever thou wouldest be so light and so rash as to change thy faith in so weighty a matter as this is, being not able (as thou art not, by thine own saying) to understand such convenient and necessary talk thereof, as it requireth upon such occasion, as Frith and other Heretics hath given unto it. Wherefore in those points, which thou art ignorant of, trust neither thyself, nor yet those, which are as blind as thou art, or as false as Frithe was. But consult with such as can skill, and be of good will, for at their hands thou shalt be sure of nothing but truth. And now get thee hence I pray thee, for I have some what else to do. HERE. Then sir, when shall I come unto you again to here what ye can say to Firths reasons? CATHOLICUS. Come to me when thou wilt. HERE. To morrow by eight of the cloak? CATH. Content. HERE. Then I will say no more at this time, but God be with you. CATH. Farewell. FINIS. Faults escaped in the pryntinge. leaf. side. line. Faults. Corrected. .3. .2. 24. and also of and first of .3. .2. 30. other the the other .11. .2. 30. he doth mean he doth not mean .16. .1. 21. this word bread this word eat .16. .2. 1. follow the other follow of the other .24. .2. 3. adoraveri adoraverit ,32. .1. 23. ye he would not yet he would not .39. .1. 1. for this as for as this. .46. .1. 27. thou that takest thou takest .61. .1. 1. supernartuall supernatural .62. .21. 27. for he would for else he would .70. .1. 34. is it not also is it also .76. .2. 5. Membres Memores. .81. .1. 18. accesserit accesserint .82. .2 27. the words. these words .83. .1. 23. in his words in his works. IMPRINTED AT LONDON IN FLEETSTREET BY THOMAS powel. Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum. ANNO. M. D. LVII.