the woordes of Christes supper he addeth vnto it these woordes For sith he called it saith Frith a foule and a wicked thing to eate his fleshe then may you soone perceiue that he thought it as foule and as wicked a thinge to eate his body seyng his bodie is fleshe And then consequently it shall folow that other this woord eate where Christe saide take this and eate it must be taken spiritually or els that this saiyng of Christe This is my body muste be figuratiuely spoken But this woorde eate is taken after the letter for they did in deede eate the bread therfore it must needes folow that this sentence This is my body must be figuratiuely spoken Now haue you hearde what he saieth and gathereth of it him selfe CATH Than saiyst trew And therfore shall I neede to byd thee marke his false lye that he maketh here agayne of Saint Austen For doth Saint Austen call it a fowle and a wicked thynge as this lyar sayth he doothe when he sayth no more but that the scripture therin seemeth to commaunde an euyll or a wicked thyng Saint Austen nother calleth it so him selfe nor yet doth say that the scripture calleth it or commaundeth it so nother He saith the scripture so mech to commaunde suche a thynge And doth not say the scripture doth commaunde it But in deede to commaunde and seme to commaunde to call and seme to cal or to be seeme to be is all one with Frith As who say there is nothing otherwyse then it semeth to be nor any thyng semeth to be otherwise then it is HE. Sir ye can not auoyde his argument so CATH His argument what is that HERE Ye haue harde how he dooeth say that Either this word eate which Christ said take this rate it must be taken spiritually or els that this saiynge of Christ This is my bodi must be figuratiuely spoken But this woorde â—ate saith he is taken after the letter for they did he saieth eate the bread therfore it must needes folow that this sentence This is my body must be fyguratiuely spoken CATHOLICVS I meruayle where Frythe learned this kynde of argumente whiche can brynge forth such a woorthy conclusion For dooth it not properly folow that this sentence This is my body muste be figuratiuely taken because as he saith this woorde eate is taken after the letter And this he doothe but say without any proofe at all HERE That is not so For he dooth proue that this woorde Eate is taken after the letter CATH That is but a parte of it and yet for all thy saiyng he proueth not that nother HERE Yes he proueth it by this that as he saith they did eate the bread CATH Ye but that I denye For without question they dyd eate that which they were byd to eate whereof it was to them sayde Take eate This is my body whiche shalbe geuen for you And that was not breade except thou wilt say that bread was geuen for their redempcion And therfore where he saith that this woorde bread is taken after the letter And therof would haue it folow that this sentence This is my body muste be figuratiuely spoken I aske him why figuratiuely more then lytterally or why fyguratiuelie and not rather litterally For if the woorde of eatynge he taken after the letter dooth it not thereof muche better folowe that the woordes of that whiche is eaten shulde be taken after the latter likewise To take the woord of eatynge in a litteral sence and therfore the woordes of the thyng eaten is a figuratiue sence is more strange then I can skil of Yet the one saieth he must needes folow the other But by what reason although no man can tell yet to such as will needes beleue him it is good enough although it be neuer so false and foolishe to any man els And therefore sith it appereth in the .47 leafe of his booke that he taketh not the eatynge of Christes body but onely for the beleuynge in him I aske him why may not this woord Eate be taken spiritually as well as this text This is my body be spoken figuratiuely or why may not the same text be taked litterally as wel as this woorde Eate be taken after the letter sith thes be so ioyned together HERE Because there is a great difference betwene them CATH Ye that is as Frith woulde haue vs take them but not as our sauiour Christe in the vnitee of sence and sentence together doth ioyne them For there is no doubte but the meanynge of this woorde Eate and also the meanynge of this same saiynge of Christe This is my bodye are bothe together of him so inseperably kint and conteyned in this one sentence Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drynke his blood ye shall not haue life in you That they both maketh one perfit sentence and sence whether thou take it to be litterall or spirituall And therfore by this one lesson aforesayde it maye well appere that they can not so differ in sence but that they muste other be bothe spirituall and not literall or bothe litterall and not spirituall or els bothe not onely spirituall but also lytterall Wherefore Frythe can not saye that they be bothe spirituall and not litterall because he sayeth â—he an◠〈◊〉 them that is to saie this woorde Eate is taken after the letter Againe he can not say that they are both litterall and not spirituall because he dothe both holde and say that the other which is This is my body must be taken figuratiuely that is to say spiritually And therfore it must needes folow that they be bothe not only spirituall but also litterall Cap. 11. HHERE. Syr that can not be For as I was about to tell you before Frithe bringeth Saynt Austen playne agaynst it CATH How so HERE Looke you in the .23 leafe of hys booke and there shall ye finde how he dothe alledge Saynt Austen bothe in Latin and also in Englishe in these wordes Quando loquebatur dominus noster Iesus Christus de corpore suo Nisi Inquit quis manducauerit 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 viuificat That is to say When our Lorde Iesus Christe spake of his body excepte quod he a man eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud he shall haue no life in him false For my fleshe is very meat and my bloud is very drinke The spiritual vnderstanding saueth him that beleueth for the letter killeth but the spirit quickeneth Here you see playne that Saynt Austen is clearly agaynst the litterall sence CATH Whether he be or not it is Frithes minde therein whiche I require HE. That shall ye haue for his owne wordes vpon the same place be these Here maye you playnelie
spirituall eatinge and the reall eatynge must needes go so together that the one can not be wythout the other CATHOLICVS That is not trew excepte it be in beleefe For therein they must needes go alway together But els so muche they dyffer and are some tyme a sonder that an infidele may chaunce to eate it really but yet for lacke of faythe neuer spiritually And a good Christen man may eate it spiritually althoughe thorow some lawfull impediment he eate it not reallie Wherefore by thys it is cleare that all the sort of you whyche denieth it as Frithe doeth to be eaten really without doubt do neuer eate it spiritually Wher in your tortuous and eluishe doctrine doeth most manifestly appere For ye holde wyth that whiche ye neuer do And vtterly deny that whiche ye dayly do HERE How so CATH Ye graunt and holde with the spirituall eatinge of Christes holy fleshe which eatinge without fayle ye neuer come to And ye stifly deny the reall eatinge of it which eatinge in deede ye often and commonly do And therfore when ye do that whiche your selues denie how is it done but vnworthyly and wherto tendeth that but as the Apostle sayeth to your owne dampnation but now I let that passe and to an other place of Saynt Austen where hys owne wordes be these Sicut audiuimus cum sanctum euangelium legeretur dominus Iesus 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 vtrosque dirigitur Qui iam manducant carnem domini bibunt sanguinem eius cogitent quid manducent quid bibant ne sicut Apostolus dixit Iuditium sibi manducent bibant Qui autem non dum manducant non dum bibunt ad tales epulas inuitati festiment Per istos dies magistratus pascunt Christus quotidie pascit mensa ipsius est illa in medio constituta Quid causae est O audientes vt mensam videatis ad epulas non accedatis Et forte modo cum euangelium 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 vt hoc nescias Velatum est Sed si volueris erit reuelatum Accede ad professionem soluisti quaestionem Quid enim dixerit dominus IESVS iam fideles nouerunt Tu autem Cathecuminus diceris Audiens surdus es Aures enim corporis patentes habes quia verba quae dicta sunt au dis Sed aures cordis adhuc clausas habes quia quod dictum est non intelligis Whiche may thus be Englished When the holy gospell was red as wee haue herde our Lorde Iesus exhorted vs to the eatinge of his fleshe and drinkinge of hys bloud with the promyse of euerlasting lyfe You whyche haue hearde these thynges do not yet all vnderstande them For you whiche are baptized and are faythfull doeth knowe what he sayde But those amonge you whiche are yet called Cathecumini or hearers may be hearers but therein vnderstanders thynke you Therefore our sermon is directed vnto bothe Nowe those whyche doeth eate the fleshe of our Lorde and drynke hys bloud lette them take heede what they eate and what they drynke leaste as the Apostle sayeth they eate and drinke it to theyr owne dampnation But let them whiche doeth not yet eate nor yet drynke beynge inuited make haste vnto suche dayntes For in these dayes magistrates doeth eate Chryst doeth dayly feede That table of his is set in the middes What is the cause O ye herers that ye see the table and come not to the delicates perchaunce now when the gospell was redde you sayde in your hartes perceiue wee what it is that he saith my fleshe is verely meate and my blood is verily drynke how is the fleshe of the lorde eaten and the blood of the lorde dronken perceiue we what he saith who hath hid it from the that thou knowest it not hid it is But if thou wilt it shall be opened Come to the profession and thou hast solued the question For those that be now faithfull knowth what our lord Iesus sayd But thou art called an herer and yet in heryng thou arte deaffe For thou hast the eares of the body open because thou herest the woordes whiche are spoken But thou hast the eares of the hart yet shut because thou vnderstandest not that whiche is said Now meaneth Saint Austen here nothyng els by all these playne words of eatyng and drynkyng of Christes holy fleshe and blood but onely faith and beleefe which only Frith doth call the spirituall eatyng and drynking thereof saiyng there is none other but that Therfore is it onely that eatyng and drinkyng whereunto Saint Austen doth here inuite those which he calleth Cathecumini or heres who hath feith as he sayd before and doth beleue in the name of Christe all ready and beareth his crosse in their forheades is it also that eatyng and drynkyng that is to say onely faith and beleefe Wherevnto he doth here inuite them with the name and promise of deinties and delicates set vpon the table the name of the table deintes or delicates pretēdeth declareth an other maner of eatynge and drynkynge then is onely feith and beleefe if thou loke well vpon it moreouer is only faith and belefe that same eating and drinking which as he saith our sauiour Christe doth exhort vs vnto with the promise of euerlastyng lyfe when the Cathecuminus as he doth also declare hath faith and doth beleue in the name of Christ and yet cummeth not to this eating and drinking that Saint Austen speaketh of Is it not also that eating and drinking that is to say only faith and belefe wherof he saith let them whiche doth eate the fleshe of our lord and drinke his blood take hede what they eate what they drinke lest as thapostle saith they eate it and drinke it to their own damnacion He saith not how they eate how they drinke but what they eate what they drinke And what meaneth he by that same what very bread in a bare significacion as Frith doth take it did not those Cathecumini or herers take it so whom S. Austen doth reprehēd wherfore did he blame them but because they beleued therin to be nothing els but only that wherin they were deceiued to How be it after Frithes vnderstandyng it is all one to say let them take bede what they eate and what they drynke and to say let them take
other why as I sayde before can there be found in his so doinge but onely falshed For who wòulde take a mannes tale to witnesse where he speaketh but obscurely or incerteinly and vtterly refuse it there where he speaketh it full hole and plainly any man els but onely Frithe and such as he was for the plaine place he wilt well he could nother ouerthrow nor yet wrynge it to anye apparence of his purpose But the obscure and ambiguous place he thought he might wrest whiche waie he liste and so to make many beleue as he did in deede that it sufficientlye serued his turne HERE Yet ye confesse that place of Saint Austen whiche Frythe dooth alledge to be obscure and ambiguous CATH Ye to them that lacketh good wyll or knowledge But not to them as I sayde whiche be learned and of the catholyke sayth Wherefore thus maiest thou see Why Frith alledged that place of Saint Austen and not this so craftylie as he dyd Whiche was no more but onely because when he saw there was made therein no speciall mencion by name of the reall eatynge whiche is moste common and generall nor yet of the spyrytuall eatynge whiche is more singuler and specyall but of eatynge symplie without anie dyrecte or proper distinction he thought he myght vnderstande of them bothe whiche he lyst or els take it as thoughe there had bene none other maner of eatynge thereof but euen verie one alone And thereuppon he did take that place to be no lesse then enoughe and very sufficient to proue his purpose As I graunt it had beene in deede if it had beene after that sorte to be vnderstande as he tooke it But he looked so muche vpon this poynte that he founde there no mencion made of anie dystynction of eatynges whereby he thought he myght take as I sayde whyche he lyste or one for all that he forgat what mencion Saynt Austen made there of the distynctyon although not of eatynges yet for all that of eaters whiche was enoughe to show what maner of eatynge he mente For as his manifest speakynge was there of a peculiar sorte of eaters so his very meanynge muste needes be vnderstande of a peculiar maner a eatynge For it is agaynst all reason and trewthe to denye that to some whiche is common to all or to graunte that to all which perteyneth but to some And therfore thou maist well know that Saint Austen wolde not do so For he denyed not there but onely that eatynge whiche apperteyneth vnto some and not vnto all That is to say only to them that be good and not vnto them that he nought Of whom there he dooth make mecion and of none other For the libertee real of eating perteyneth both to good and bad But the spirituall eatyng perteyneth to none but onely to them that be good Cap. 39. HERE Sir Saint Austen maketh no suche distinction or difference betwene reall and spiritual eatyng nor betwene generall and speciall eating as ye speake of CATH Why saiest thou so for although he doth it not euen in those maner of woordes with suche conference of both together as thou woldest haue yet he doth it in deede for all that as it doth right well appere vpon the syxt of Saint Iohn Tracta 27. where his woordes be these Hoc totum quod dominus de carne de sanguine suo loquutus est Et quod in eius distributionis gratia vitam nobis promisit aeternam Et quod hinc voluit intelligi manducatores carnis sanguinis sui vt in illo maneant ipse in illis Et quod non intellexerunt qui non crediderunt Et quod spiritualia carnaliter sapiendo scandalizati sunt Et quod eis scandalizatis pereuntibus consolatio domini affuit discipulis qui remanserant ad quos probandos interrogauit Nunquid vos vultis ire vt responsio permāsionis eorum innotseceret nobis nam ille nouerat qui manebant Hocergo totum ad hoc nobis valet DILECTISSIMI vt carnem Christi sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in sacramento quod multi mali sed vsque ad spiritus perticipationem manducemus bibamus Vt in domini corpore tanquam membra maneamus vt 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 lorde spake of his fleshe and his blood And that in the grace of distribucion therof he promised vnto vs lyfe euerlastynge and that therof he wolde to be vnderstande that the eaters and drinkers of his fleshe and blood should abyde in him and he in them And that they did not vnderstande whiche did not beleue And that they were offended by vnderstandynge spirituall thinges carnally And that they beyng offended and perylshynge the comforte of our lorde was present to the disciples which did abide vnto the probacion of whom he asked wil you go away that the answere of their abiding might be also knowen to vs for he knew them whiche did abide All this therefore most deerely beloued auayleth vnto vs for this purpose that we shoulde not eate the fleshe of Christe and the blood of Christe onely in the sacramente whiche many doth that be nought but that we shoulde eate and drynke it vnto the part taking of the spirite that wee shoulde abyde as membres in the body of our Lorde that we might be quickned with his spirite And that we should not be offended although many now dooth eate and drynke the sacramentes with vs temporally whiche shall haue in thende tormentes eternall Now what canst thou wishe more plainely spoken for the reall eatynge and drynkynge of Christes most precious fleshe and blood in the holy sacramente then when he sayth as here thou seest we eate it not onely in the sacrament that same not onely in the sacramente dooth moste cleerely declare it to be therin euen verely eaten for he wolde not haue said not onely in the sacrament but not in the sacrament For not in the sacrament and not onely in the sacrament are two thinges Not in the sacrament denyeth it to bee eaten therein but not onely in the sacrament confesseth it to bee eaten therein and also other wise to Wherefore this very reall eatinge of Christes blessed flesh and blood in the holy sacrament must nedes be common and generall when as here S. Austen saith many doth it which be nought whose eating therof thou maiest well know commeth not to the perticipacion or partaking of the spirite that quickneth when those be they that abyde not in Christe nor Christe in them And therefore the participacion or partakynge of the spirite therin is and must needes be the spirituall eatynge whiche is not generall but speciall and proper onely to those that abyde in Christ and Christ in them as the noughty and euill sorte dooth not And
accidentall qualitees and propertees thereof declarynge it to bee rather suche as it is then what it is Therefore if Fryth saye that Gelasius ment both substance and nature that I maie well denie because his woordes be disiunctiuelie spoken of the one or the other HER. Yet maie we then choose and take which of them we will CAT. Which shall that be HER. Substaunce CATH Nay not so For thereof Gelasius maketh a restraynt him selfe if thou marke it well For when he dooth say They continew in the propertee of their nature he sayth not in the propertee of their substaunce Whiche had bene as much to saye as in the propertee of their chiefe and principall beynge For of the substaunce euery thynge that is a body as breadde and also wyne is hath his nominacion Therfore he saith not in the propertee of their substaunce But in the propertee of their nature as of a lesse beynge then of substaunce And yet euen therein this is also to be noted to that he sayth not in their nature but in the propertee of their nature For nature and the propertee of nature is not without a difference as it is well proued by this that the one procedeth and is sayde of the other For the propertee of nature is but the operacion of it accordynge to the same Whereof nature is some tyme letted by one occasion or other And yet then althoughe it be so put or let from the proper operacion thereof it is neuerthelesse nature styll for all that And therefore Gelasius to amende or qualyfye his woordes of substaunce or nature and to auoyde all synyster vnderstandynge therof doth adde vnto them and saye They continew in the propertee of their nature As he mighte saie I do not meane the verye substaunce or nature it selfe but the naturall quantitees qualitees and propertees thereof Wherefore if he had ment as Frith dooth take him to meane the very substaunce or nature it selfe of breadde and wyne styll to remayne in deede it had beene superfluous and to no purpose but rather a very folly to tell vs as he dooth that they continew in the propertee of their nature For who doeth not know that all substanciall and naturall thinges for the tyme of their beyng do contynew in the propertee of theyr nature Therefore Gelasius was to wyse and to well learned to teache vs that for a speciall or a necessary lesson whych euery man knoweth alredy HERE Why euery man doeth know that they contynew in the properte of theyr nature CATH Ye but euery man doeth not knowe that they so do wythout their owne proper substance And that is the cause why Gelasius doeth so say therof as he doeth For els he should speake it wythout cause or any neede at all And that he wolde not do For yf he had thought or ment that the very substance or nature it selfe of breade and wyne had therin contynued styll he wolde not haue sayde they contynew in the propertee of theyr nature whiche euery man knoweth but he wolde haue sayde they contynew in the verytee of theyr substance because the contrary therof is wel and trewly beleued For therin lyeth all the doubt or question if anie be In so muche that when it is hearde that the substance or nature of a thynge doeth cease to be it is thought by and by that the propertee thereof doeth cease wythall because in the common course of thinges it doeth so in deed This same thought therfore did Gelasius intende to helpe when he sayth they contynew in the propertie of their nature As who saye althoughe theyr proper substance and nature be chaynged yet they continew in the propertee of theyr nature for al that and in nothing els as the trewth is they do not in deede Agayne of the other syde when it is hearde that the propertee of nature in any thynge doeth holde and contynew it is thought streyght way that the substaunce and nature of the thynge doeth also contynew likewise Wherefore that same thought dyd Saynt Ambrose purpose to helpe when and where he doeth say that Thorow benediction the nature is chaynged And thorow the consecration ther 〈◊〉 made of the breade the fleshe of Christe And thorow the operation of Christes wordes there is made of the wyne and water the bloud whyche redemed the people And as our Lorde Iesus Chryste is the very sonne of God so it is very fleshe as he sayth him selfe whiche we receaue Here thou mayst playnlie perceyue according to the agrement of these two doctours how the one defendeth the other For who so euer wolde take and gather of S. Ambrose that there doeth not remayne the naturall propertee of breade and wyne because he speaketh so playne of the alteration and chaynge of the substance or nature therof Gelasius doeth directly for hym answer and say they contynew in the popertee of theyr nature That is to say the propertee of theyr nature doeth contynew styll althoughe the substance or nature it selfe be chaynged And who so euer wolde for this sayinge take and gather of Gelasius as Fryth doth that there remayneth the very substance or nature of breade and wyne styll because he speaketh so playne of the continewance of the naturall propertee thereof Saynt Ambrose doeth in that behalfe directlie answer and say that Thorow benediction the nature is chaynged And by consecration there is made of the breade the fleshe of Christ and so foorth Wherfore by thys it doeth moste clerely appere that Frithe was not deceaued in that he sayeth these faythfull fathers dyssented not one from an other but well and trewlie agreed together But how therefore doeth he agree with him selfe in this that he so sayeth and yet aloweth not so muche the sayinge of the one as he dooeth vtterlye deny the sayinge of the other when dyrectelie agaynst Saynt Ambrose he doeth say there remayneth the substaunce and nature of bread and wyne Who can be more agaynst hym then he is herein agaynst hym selfe He holdeth wyth the saying of Gelasius but not with the saying of Saynt Ambrose And yet doeth holde that they dissent not one from an other Haste thou hearde of any man that euer framed hys thynges together after this sorte HER. Why say you that he holdeth not with Saynt ambrose If he helde not with hym he wolde not alledge him so often as he doeth CATHOLI Thou sayest well For euen so he holdeth wyth Saynt Ambrose as he doeth for all hys sayinge wyth Gelasius That is to say wyth none of them boeth For it is two thinges for hym to holde with them and to holde wyth his owne false vnderstandinge of them as he thou and manie other doeth For yf he sought in them anie thinge els but that he wolde not as he did pyke out onlie suche places as be to the simple reader darke and obscure but wolde haue set foorthe as well suche other places as are cleare and out of all question and not omitte
both litterally and spiritually Here we may fyrst aske of hym how he wyll proue that some text must be vnderstande bothe literally and spiritually if it haue in it as he sayth it hath but only one veritee for onlie one veritee in one text to haue two sundry vnderstandynges and bothe trew is verye straynge and that more strainge then may well agree wyth reason or trewth other Agayne we maye aske of hym also why should any one text haue any mo vnderstandinges in it then any other hathe if it haue in it but only one verite as those other hathe which he sayth are onlie to be vnderstande after the letter or only spirituallye very repugnant it is to say as he dothe that in euery texte is but only one veritee for whiche it was spoken and to say some text must be vndestande both litterally and spiritually wherof the one vnderstanding or the other can not be trew if the text haue in it but onlie one veritee as he saythe it hath Neuerthelesse vpon this phantasy of his euen there dothe he conclude with these wordes And I say sayeth he that this text of scripture This is my bodie is only spiritually to be vnderstand not litterally How sayest thou to this doest thou perceyue what he saieth HERE Ye very well Cap. 5. CATHOLICVS Then how wyll he proue that this text This is my body is onely spiritually to be vnderstand and not litterally HERE Marrie syr euen by Saynt Austen For euen there immediatlie folowing he addeth vnto it these wordes And that doth saynt Austen sayeth he also confirme whiche writeth vnto Adamantus and sayeth These sentenses of Scripture Christ was the stone the bloud is the soule and thys is my bodie are figuratiuely to be vnderstande that is to say spiritually or by the way of an allegory and thus haue I Saynt Austen wholie of my syde whiche thynge shall yet herafter more playnly appere How say ye now CATH I say this that Frithe doth herin but reporte Saynt Austen thys to saye And dothe not alledge where nor yet perchance recite Saint Austens owne wordes in such order and forme as he dothe speake them him selfe nother Wherfore Frith is herein to be rather mistrusted then beleeued And besyde that these words which he hym selfe doth here reporte of Saynt Austen dothe leaue this text This is my body so muche at large as to be vnderstande litterallie as well as figuratiuely And doth not dryue it to this narrow streyght of only figuratiuely as Frithe wolde wraste and wringe it vnto for figuratyuely and only figuratiuely doth very muche differ Because with the one there may stande an other but with the other no more but it selfe alone It is two thinges to say that our Sauiour christ is a man and to say that he is only a man For the one is sayd trewly and the other is a damnable heresy Wherefore as he that sayth Christe is to be vnderstande a very man and yet taketh him not therin to be only a man nor denieth him to be very god Euen so S. Austen whiche doth say that this text This is my body is to be vnderstande figuratiuely dothe not therin say or meane it to be vnderstande only figuratyuely Nor denieth it to be vnderstande litterally For althoughe a thinge be trewly sayde to be so or so Yet that draweth not with it this consequence to be only so But Frith dothe reason the matter after this sorte as if he should heere a man reported to be learned in Astronomie he will streyght conclude that the man can no skyll of Phisike nor Geometry but only of Astronomy When for al that report he may be as diuerse ar lerned some in two and some in all three Therfore of this kinde of conclusions I hope thou seest enoughe Wherefore how can Saynt Austen whome Frithe hym selfe doth here report to say none otherwise of this texte This is my boddy but that it is to be vnderstande figuratiuely make any thinge for him in this that he sayth it is to be vnderstande only figuratiuely and not litterally when the wordes reported of Saint Austen maketh no farther mention but of the one and not of the other And yet without putting any difference betwene fyguratyuely and only figuratiuely or bringing for hym any dew allegation of Saynt Austens owne words where or in what order he spake them him selfe the blinde arrogant foole is not here a shamed to boste and say that he hath herein Saynt Austen wholy of his side Who doth here nothing touche any parte of hys purpose Cap. 6. HERETICVS Sir me thinke ye do vse him with very vngoodly termes CATH Not so vngoodly as he is woorthy And that shall well apere ere we parte HERE Yet where ye say that he doeth not perchaunce herin alledge saynt Austens woordes in such order as he doth speake them him selfe in deede although he dothe it not here where you impute vnto him that faute yet he dooeth it afterwarde in an other place bothe in latyne and also in englishe CATH Where is that HERE In the 30 leafe of his booke his woordes be these Saynt Austen sayth saith he Non enim dominus dubitauit dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum 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 Lorde doubted not to saie this is my body when he gaue a signe of his bodie And after in the same chapiter he expoundeth it For trewly so the bloode is soule as Christe was the stone And yet the apostle saith not the stone dyd sygnifie Christe but he saieth the stone was Christe CATH Is this his allegacion of Saint Austens words HERE Yea sir CATH Properly done For betwene these woordes of Saint Austens The lorde doubted not to saie This is my bodie when he gaue a signe of his bodie And these woordes So the blood is the soule as the stone is Christe There runneth as many woordes mo of Saint Austens besyde as I dare saie occupieth nere hande in some booke and hundred lynes And betweene these woordes So the blood is the soule as the stone was Christe And these woordes Yet the Apostle saieth not the stone did signifie Christ but he saieth the stone was Christe There runneth also an other number of woordes and sentenses likewyse so that it is not possible for any man to vnderstande or perceiue for what purpose Saynt Austene dooth speake any of those sentenses beyng thus put foorth as frithe dothe here châ—iâ—e them feintly together omittynge that as he doth whiche goeth immediately before and after And besyde this thou maist also perceiue that these woordes which he ioyneth withall Saiyng And after in the same chapiter he expoundeth it Avenone of S. Austens woordes but Frithes owne woordes craftely put in to allure vs to beleue that
S. Austen dothe expounde that whiche goeth before with that that Fryth ioyneth vnto it after whiche is this For treuly so the blood is the soule as christ was the stone Therfore that we maie the better perceiue howe well this saiyng doth expound the other before as he saith it doth let vs consyder them bothe together to see how well they dooe agree The fyrst is this The lorde doubted not to saie This is my bodie whan he gaue a signe of his bodie This as frithe doth say Saint Austen dooth expounde in the same chaptre with these woordes For trewly so the blood is the soule as Christe was the stone How saiest thou now greeth not these two saiynges well together do they not well depende one of an other yet Frith doth say that S. Austen expoundeth the one by the other Moreouer what is al this is to his purpose of this text This is my body to be vnderstand only spiritually and not literally as he saieth it is Farthermore I wolde fayne know what he him selfe doothe farther gather of Saint Austen in this place HERE It apereth immediatly folowynge in the same leafe CATH What is that HE. His woordes be these Here saith he Saint Austen saith plainly that Christ called the signe of his bodie his body And in this chapter doeth compare these thre textes of Scripture This is my boddy The blood is the soule And Christ was the stone declareth them to be on phrase and to be expounded after one fashion Now haue you harde what Frith gathereth of this place of S. Austen and therfore what say you to it CATH I say that S. Austen saith not here so plainly that Christ called the signe of his body his body as Frith doth here plainly belie him in so reportyng of him For S. Austen hath here no such woords as can be wrested vnto that sense For is it all one to say that the lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue a signe of his body And to say that he called the signe of his body his body As if I ley my hand flat vpoÌ„ an heape of fyne sande saiyng this is my hande will it followe thereof that I call the signe of my hande my hande which signe I make in the sande by layinge my hande therupon how be it this consequence is not so strainge as it is common with frith Therfore as he lyeth falsly vpon S. Austen in this so he dothe likewise in the rest for Saint Austen maketh no suche comparison there of those three texts together nor declareth them so to be one phrase nor to be expounded after one fasshion as Frith doth here speake of and wolde haue vs take it And therfore to thenâ—â—â— he wold not haue vs come by the triall of his falshed herein he fearing least it should be sought out and spied at length prouoketh vs by the maner of his allegacioÌ„ to serche for it there where he knew right well we might so longe loke after it that we shuld he willinge rather to let it passe then to labour any further for it HERE Why say you so CATH Because it is so For diddest thou not thy selfe recite vnto me right now that Frith saieth Saint Austen doothe wryte to Adamantus this same that he nowe gathereth herein for his defence HERE That is trew CAT. Then if Saint Austen wrote it as Fryth sayth he doth vnto Adamantus that wrytinge is to be founde other amonge Saint Austens epistles where I dare say it is not or els in some booke of his dedicat or intituled to Adamantus by name where as in deede there is no such nother Therfore why may I not say that herin he prouoketh vs to serche labour in vayne to the intente we shoulde not fynde wherby his falshed might be brought to light HERE Sir ye take him wrong for euen there where S. Austens woordes in latine before alledged doth stande in Frithes booke in the margent of the fame place is noted these woordes Augustinus contra Adamantum Wherof the english ye know well enough CATH That is no more to saie but Austen against Adamantus HERE Ye say trewth CATH Then how frameth these two together that this is put in the margeÌ„t Austen against AdamaÌ„tus and frith saith in the letter Saint Austen wrot to Adamantus for although to Adamantus and against Adamantus maie stande together in some respecte yet so can they not do here For S. Austen wryteth not to Adamantus but onely of him and against him Therfore if Frith him selfe did make that note in the 〈◊〉 then he greeth not with himselfe in the letter If the printer did note it in the margent to mende Frythes lye therof in the letter why did none of them doth amend this which Frith doth say And in the same chapiter he expoundeth it and telleth vs not whiche chapiter nor yet maketh any mention therof before nother Had it beene any great matter for Frythe if he had ment well to haue sayd Saynte Austen in the â—â— chapter of his booke written against Adamantus hath these and these woordes and so forth thinkest thou that Frith refused this to do for no cause it were not harde to fynde more cause then I speake of now if a man woulde wast so muche tyme aboute it as nedeth not For thou hast hard enough al ready to perceiue herein part of his false wily â—eâ—hes wherin he trusted not so to be sene as now he is and more shalbe ere we parte Cap. 7. HERE I wysshe that ye wolde here his conclusion hereof before we go any farther And then will I tell you more CATH what conclusion is that HERE Immediately after those woordes of his whiche I last recited vnto you before he addeth vnto them these Now is there no man saieth he so mad as to say that Christ was a naturall stone except he be a natural foole whose iudgement we neede not greatly to regarde Therfore we may well conclude that the saâ—rament is not hys naturall body but is called his body for a similitude that it hath wherin it signifieth representeth his body And that the Sacrament of so great a thinge is called euen with the name of the very thinge it selfe CATH Is this his conclusion HERE Ye trewly CATH Thou sayest well for those he his wordes in deede And therefore who is he that wolde denie hym this conclusion beinge rightly vnderstande No man I thinke of any learned iudgement But what is it to hys purpose of improuynge or disprouinge the reall presence of Christes very body in the holy Sacrament or wherof doth this conclusion folow of this that he sayth there is no man so mad as to say that Christe was a naturall stone is he so mad as wolde haue it follow thereof HERE No not so CATH Wherof then HERE He doth meane that as Christ was called a stone and was not a naturall stone indeede so the Sacrament is called
that they beleued not some certayn mysteries in some of the Sacramentes And therfore where the gospell doeth say that when Christ was at Ierusalem in the tyme of Easter many did beleue in the name of hym for the myracles they saw him do but Iesus did not commit hym selfe vnto them Saynt Austen vpon the same place doth say that all those be suche whiche are called cathecumini that is to say herers or learners For his owne wordes thereof in latin be these Tales sūt oēs Cathecumini Ipsi iā credunt in nomine Christi Sed Iesus non se credit eis Intendat intelligat charitas vestra Si dixerimus cathecumino credis in Christo Respondet credo et signat se Iam crucem christi portet in fronte Et non erubescit in cruce domini sui Ecce credit in nomine eius Interrogamus eum manducas carnem filii hominis bibis sanguinē filii hominis Nescit quid dicimus quia Iesus non se credit ei Which may thus be englished Cathecumini are al of the same sort For they beleue in the name of christ But Iesus cōmitteth not him self vnto thē Let your charite marke and vnderstande If we shall say to the cathecumini doest thou beleue in Chryste he wyll answer and say I beleue and blesseth him self Now he beareth the crosse of Chryst in hys forehead And is not ashamed of the crosse of hys lorde Beholde he beleueth in hys name We aske hym agayn doest thou eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke the bloud of the sonne of man he knoweth not what we say because Iesus hathe not committed hym selfe vnto hym How sayest thou now what thinge is it whiche thys Cathecuminus doeth here not know when he is asked this playne question of the eating and drinking of Christes most blessed fleshe and bloud The wordes be playn And therefore what is there in them that as Saynt Austen saieth of him he doeth not know HER. The spirituall vnderstanding of it CATH What meanest thou by the spirituall vnderstandinge of it HERE The spyrituall eatinge and drinkinge of that flesh and bloud CATH Ye but what is the spirituall eatinge and drinkinge therof HERE It is as Frithe hath sayd to beleue in Christe CATH To beleue in Christe is it that thinkest thou whiche Saynt Austen doeth here meane that as he sayeth this Cathecuminus doeth not know when he hym selfe sayth of him that he beleueth in christe Thou mayst perceyue it can not be so For yf S. Austen had ment here none other eatinge and drinkynge of it but that he wolde not haue noted him to be ignorant of his question when he him selfe reporteth him to beleue in the name of Christe For that were as muche as he requireth if he had ment nothinge els Therfore if thou perceyue it not alredy let vs looke farther what S. Austen doeth meane by hys not knowinge Anie thinge els but his not beleuinge And what meaneth Saynt Austen by his not beleuing but that he beleueth not accordinge to his askyng And what is it to beleue accordinge to his askinge but to beleue the very eatinge and drinkinge of Christes fleshe and bloud for that is the verie playne question whiche he doeth aske him Wherfore that must needes be the thinge which the Cathecuminus knoweth not And that because he beleueth it not And therfore it is hys lacke of faithe in the reall eatinge and drinkinge of Christes holy fleshe and bloud that Saynt Austen doeth here finde faute wyth him for And not for anie other eatinge and drinkinge therof which as Frithe sayeth is nothinge els but onely faythe and beleue in Christ Whiche fayth as Saynt Austen sayeth this Cathecuminus hath and yet christ committeth not him selfe vnto hym Therefore when Saynt Austen doeth aske him the question of eatinge and drynkinge of the fleshe and bloud of the sonne of man it is an other eatinge and drinking that he doeth meane and speake of then this Cathecuminus doeth knowe or beleue or els he wolde not réprehende hym therein as he doeth It is an other also then Frith doeth beleue when he sayeth a man may vse it althoughe he neuer receyue the Sacrament And therfore what other is it but euen only the very reall eatinge and drinking of it in the holy Sacrament Cap. 41. HERE Why syr doeth not Saynt Austen say as Frithe doeth alledge in the .17 leafe of hys booke Why preparest thou teethe and belly beleue and thou hast eaten CATH What of that wilt thou gather thereof that there is none other eating of it but only beleue Therefore if there be an other what doeth this make for Frythes purpose or thine other And that there is an other haue I not proued it all reddie before by the manifest wordes of Saynt Austen hym selfe Wherefore if thys be trew as Frithe doeth say it is that these wordes of eatinge and drinking in this matter meane nothing els but faythe and beleefe it must needes folow that Saynt Austen doeth here vniustlye reprehende this Cathecuminus of whome he doeth confesse no lesse hym selfe but that he hath faith and beleueth in the name of christ And beside that this must also folow thereof likewyse that when he sayeth Beleue and thou hast eaten It is no more nor none other to say but beleue and thou hast beleued What reason is this or who wolde thinke S. Austen to meane so HER. Why what should he there meane els CATH Euen as he dothe which is this Beleue trewly and thou hast eaten spiritually For the spiritual eating commeth not to passe but thorow the whole trewth of beleuing And the hoole trewth of beleuinge consisteth not in holding some partes of the fayth and denyinge some other but in holdinge them whole euen altogether Therefore Saynt austen doeth here as in many other places moe farther mean then he doeth expresse For where he doeth here as touching the fayth no farther say but beleue yet he meaneth these wordes wholy and trewly to be vnderstande with all For he meaneth no suche beleue as is mixed or corrupted with any falshed or with the lacke of any parte of it Therefore besyde thys he meaneth farther then so to For he meaneth not that same beleefe nother althoughe it be neuer so whole and trew whiche is infected with euyll and wycked maners But he meaneth that whiche as the Apostle doeth say worketh by charite Wherfore beleue so and I wyll graunte that thou hast eaten or els not For withoute that maner of beleuynge whiche is but accordinge to Saynt Austens meaninge doubtles there can be no spirituall eatinge at all And in that maner of beleuinge there is and must needes be contayned the verye beleefe of the reall eatinge For the spyrytuall eatinge was not ordeyned for the reall eatynge but the reall eatynge for the spirituall eatynge And therfore without the very beleefe of the reall eatinge the spirituall eatynge can neuer he had HERE Then the
drinking the fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs do signifie HERE Yet syr ye make thereof no parfyt sense For as I asked of you before what doo we sygnifie we can not sygnifie except we sygnifie somewhat And as ye doo handle it there is nothing expressed Wherefore there must other be somewhat vnderstande or els thys worde signifie maketh no sense at all CATH There is no doubte but some thynge there is to be vnderstande And what is that but the deathe of Chryste whyche before is expressed specially when Saynt Ambrose meanynge none other but euen the same doeth say We myndefull of this thinge do signifie it in eatinge and drynkinge the fleshe and bloud whyche were offered for vs And this is the sense and very meaninge of Saynt Ambrose wordes HERE Here is a maruaylous thinge to see how Frithes Englyshinge of thys matter and yours doeth dyffer For where ye say the meanynge of it is thys that we sygnifie the death of christe Frythe doeth say we sygnifie the fleshe and bloud whiche were offred for vs. CATH If Frithe wyll needes vnderstande it and take it so then I aske of him how and after what maner do we sygnify them HER. In eatynge and drynkinge sayeth S. Ambrose CA. Ye wherof HERE Frithe sayth of the sacrament CA Ye but there frith lieth For S. Ambrose saith not so For he sayth of the fleshe and bloud whyche were offred for vs. In eatinge and drinkinge of them sayeth he we signifie the deathe of Christ For he hath not here any such worde as the Sacrament is nor any suche meaninge as Frithe doeth say he meaneth nother Wherfore by thys it may once agayne euen playnly appere that Frythe doeth here falselie belie Saynt Ambrose as he doeth Saynt Austen and all the other holy fathers besyde And therefore I pray thee tell me one thinge that I will aske thee HER. What is that CATH Thou seest what a place of Saynt Ambrose Frithe hath pykte out for his purpose and how he hath handled hym selfe therein HERE What of that Cap. 44. CATH Why did he not as well alledge Saynt Ambrose in this place that is to say Libro 4. de Sacrament Cap. 4. Where hys wordes are euen these Panis iste panis est ante verba sacramentorum Vbi accesserit consecratio de pane fit Caro Christi That is to say This bread is breade before the woordes of the Sacramentes But when the consecration is cum to it there is made of the breade the fleshe of Christe And in the next chapiter of the same booke his wordes 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 breade before it be consecrat But when the wordes of Christe commeth to it it is the body of Chryste And for proufe therof herken to him that sayth Take and eate of it all you This is my body And before the wordes of Christ the Chalice is full of wyne and water But when the wordes of Christe hath wrought there is made the bloud whyche redemed the people Farthermore in the .6 booke and the fyrst Chapiter of the same worke his wordes be these Sicut vaerus est dei filius dominus noster Iesus 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 Lorde Iesus chryste is the verye sonne of God not as men are by grace but as the Sonne of the substance of the father So is it very fleshe as he sayth him selfe whiche we receyue Now therefore tell me why that Frithe doeth not alledge these places of Saynt Ambrose amonge many other lyke in hys wordes besydes as well as that other place whiche he doeth alledge and so falsely handle as I haue declared vnto thee Is there any other why but only because he was not able to deface the manifest trewth of these places as he did so farre as in hym lay the trewth of the other Besyde thys he doeth in the .39 leafe of his booke alledge also the blessed martyr Saynt Cyprian in these wordes Cyprian sayeth sayeth he that the people is annexed in the sacrament thorow the myxture of water Why therfore doeth he not as well alledge hym in that place where he hath these wordes Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro That is to say This breade whiche our lorde gaue hys disciples beynge chaynged not in outward forme but in nature by the almighty power of the worde is made fleshe This place made not for Frithes purpose And in deede no more did the other nother as it may well appere by this that he nother doth nor yet can frame any maner of proufe of hys purpose by it For he doeth no more but without cause therof fayne hym selfe to maruell that men will not vnderstande and take it as he doeth For therevpon his wordes be these I maruell me muche sayeth he that they are so contentions and wyll not see that as the water is the people so the wyne is christes bloud that is to say in a mistery because it representeth Christes bloud as the water doeth the people Here thou seest he gathereth of this place whiche he doeth alledge of Saynt Cyprian nothing els but only a maruell that we take it not as he wolde haue vs. HERE Yet syr he doeth saye that as the water is the people so the wyne is Christes bloud that is to say in a mistery because it representeth Christes bloud as the water doeth the people CATH Trew it is that so he sayeth but so he doeth not proue it for all that And therefore as he doeth but only say it of Christes bloud euen so he doeth but only meane the lyke of Chrystes fleshe Wherof Saynt Cyprian doeth not say this bread is made in a mistery sygne or signification of fleshe but he sayeth it is made fleshe That is to say fleshe indeede for if he had not verelie-beleued the nature of the bread whiche he taketh for the substance thereof to be as he sayth by the almighty power of the word conuerted and chaynged into the very fleshe of Christe in deede he wolde neuer haue so sayde of it as here thou haste hearde he doeth Wherfore now thou seest how well S. Ambrose and Saynt Cyprian bothe serueth hys purpose in Saynt Austen And euen so wythout question doeth all the rest of the olde holy Fathers which he doeth alledge besyde For doubtlesse of them all he doth nothynge els but onelie