be a sacrament then is it an article of our feith as bothe the one and the other Frithe him selfe dooeth confesse and graunte Therfore if it be an article of our feith Then the trewth that is in it must needes be of Christe for what so euer hath not in it a trewth of Christ without faile can be no article or part of his feith Now because a thing can not be beleued or not beleued but that the trewth therof muste needes therin go withall Marke what foloweth This article he saieth we are not bound to beleue And the trewth of this article is the trewth of Christe Wherfore we are not bounde to beleue the trewth of Christe if we beleue Frithe For to beleue or not beleue this article without the trewth therof or the trewth therof without the article is not possible because they be inseperable and can not be beleued or not beleued but bothe together Beside this if there bee any one of the sacramentes more excellent then other doubtles this sacrament of the blessed bodie and bloud of our sauiour Christ must nedes be the cheefe And therfore if we be not bound to beleue this sacrament plaine it is that we are not bound to beleue any for bound to any and bounde to the chiefe of the other side not bounde to the cheife and bounde to none Therfore what muste folow but after this doctours mynde we maie bee bolde without any parill to shake hands with them al and bidde them cleane farre well As they but late went very nere it which reteined but euen bare two of them And that was perchance but euen for a while nother Wherfore thus thou hast now a sufficiente profe of the firste stone that this blynde builder hath layd in his foundacion whiche is so euell fauordly and vntrewly wrought that it can not couch or well lie of any side but so sotteringe and farre out of square that it can neuer be able to beare any good piece of worke as euen nowe it maie and here after shall muche more largely apere For if a stone well wrought and euill laide can not make but a shrwed peece of worke what doeth a stone euill lated and wors wrought but marre all together Therfore how Frithe laied this stone beside his wronge working therof thou maiest perceiue was after this sorte It is a sacrament he saieth and an article of our feith and yet we nede not beleue it would any man thinke that it coulde be laied any wors then so yet to see whether it will lie any better an other waie let vs turne it vpset downe HERE As how CATH Euen thus If we nede not beleue it it is none article of our feithe nor yet no sacramente nother And therfore how likest thou the leiynge of it nowe HERE It lieth wors this way then it did before CATH That is long of the workemanshipppe For Frithe wrought bothe that is to saie as well the one side as the other and of the two euill he laide the worste vnderneth out of sight wherby it might the more easly and sooner deceiue HERE How so euer Frithe laied it yet am I sure that he neuer so wrought it as you haue nowe laied it CATH How knowest thou that HERE Because he nother saieth we nede not beleue it nor that it is none article of our feith nor no sacrament as ye laie now all three to his charge but he dooeth saie the contrary and that in plaine wordes directly And therfore the laiyng of it as ye laie it now is of your owne head and not of his Cap. 5. CATH Because thou goest so farre in the matter doeth he not saie in plaine wordes that we are not bound to beleue it vnder peine of damnacion And of that haue I not proued vnto the that he meaneth vnder no peyne at all and therby consequently that we are not bound Therfore all this remembred what other thing is it to say that we are not bound to beleue it Then to saie we nede not beleue it for we nede not to dooe that we are not bound to and what other thing is it to saie that we nede not beleue it then to saie it is none article of our feith for if it be an article of our feith we are bounde to beleue it or els we are not bound to the beliefe of the whole feith when there is nothing els that maketh an heretike but the lacke of some part of it Wherfore if we be bound to the beliefe of the whole feith we must nedes be bound to the beliefe of this article whiche is a parte of it by Frithes owne saiynge Of the other side if we be not bound to the beliefe of this article as he dooeth saie we are not then it is none article of the feith at all If it be none article of the feith then it is no sacrament nother For all though euery article of our feith be not a sacrament yet for all that euery holy sacrament is an article Therfore why is it called an article of our feith but because our feith ought so to receiue it If our feith ought so to receiue it why dooth Frith saie we are not bound to beleue it if we be not bound to beleue it why dooeth he say that it is an article of our feith which he dooeth cleane cutte away againe in that he saieth we are not bound to beleue it Therfore say not as thou saidst that I lay this of mine owne head for I laie herein nothing els but onely the same that was in effecte wrought and conceiued in Frithes head as it is now proued by an ineuitable consequence of his owne woordê before recited wherin whether he dooe now apere more foolishe then false or more false then foolishe iudge thou if thou canst for crew it is that I can not Cap. 6. HERE Well sir yet I pray you here farder of his mynde and then will I tell you more of mine CATH With a good will HERE In the seconde leafe of his booke his wordes be these The foundacion he saieth of that little treatise was that it is none article of our feith necessary to be beleued vnder peine of damnacion that the sacrament shuld be the naturall body of Christ which thing is proued on this maner CATH Softe stay there awhile for it is mete and conueniente that before we entre into the profe of a matter we shulde first perpende weigh and consider the matter it selfe and be certaine therof lesse otherwise we should goe about to proue we can not tell what Therfore the matter as I take it is this that he saith it is none article of our feithe necessarie to bee beleued vnder peine of damnacion that the sacrament shulde be the naturall bodie of Christe HERE The same is it CATH And this he calleth his foundacion HERE All that is trewe CATH Then hath he leid two foundacions For this and the other before whiche
the olde fathers neuer beleued it and yet did eate Christ in feith both before thei had the māna and more expresly through the manna And with no lesse fruite after the manna was ceased And albe it the manna was to them as the sacrament is to vs and they eate euen the same spirituall meate that we dooe yet were they neuer so madde as to beleue that the manna was chaunged into Christes owne natural bodie but vnderstode it spiritually that as the outward man did eate the material manna which comforted the bodie so did the inwarde man through feith eate the bodie of Christ beleuynge that as manna came downe from heauen and comforted their bodies so shulde their sauiour Christ which was promised them of god the father come downe from heauen and strength their soules in euerlasting life redemynge them from their synne by his death and resurrection And likewise dooe we eate Christe in feith both before we come to the sacrament and more expresly through the sacrament And with no lesse fruite after we haue receiued the sacramente and neede no more to make it his naturall body then the manna was but might muche better vnderstande it spiritually that as the outwarde man dooeth eate the natural breade whiche comforteth the bodie so dooeth the inwarde man through feith eate the bodie of Christ beleuing that as the bread is broken so was Christes bodie broken on the crosse for our synnes whiche comforteth our soules vnto life euerlastinge And as that feith did saue them without beleueing that manna was altered into his body euen so dooeth this feith saue vs although we beleue not that the substance of breadde is turned into his naturall bodie For the same feith shall saue vs whiche saued them And we are bound to beleue no more vnder peine of damnacion then they were bounde to beleue Now sir this is part of his minde CA. Thou saiest euen trewth And therfore if thou marke it well somewhat after his owne wordes thou maiest of this place plainly perceiue not onely by the presence of this worde not onely but also by the absence of this worde but also that he at the first intended to shewe vs two thinges The one of the whiche noted with this worde not onely he hath here as thou seest declared all redy But the other depending therupon and ought to be noted with this worde but also he dooth vtterly passe ouer and let it cleane goe For he renneth so wonderous faste and can not tell whither that he forgetteth the one ende of his tale while he telleth vs the other or els he doth purposely reserue and kepe it in store till he speake with vs hym selfe to shew vs that and more HERE Tushe sir ye doe but mocke him now CATH Why countreiman what woldest thou haue me do For to pitee him thou knowest wel it is to late To praise him there is in dede no cause To holde my peace in this matter were to farre ageinst conscience And what remayneth but alwaie to speake as he dooeth minister occasion Therfore where he saieth that the old fathers were neuer so madde as to beleue that the manna was changed into Christes owne naturall body for what purpose doth he tel vs that when euery man koweth it as wel as he CA. I shal tel you for what purpose he wold haue vs take the bread as the fathers tooke the manna And as they were neuer so madde as to beleue that the manna was changed in to Christes owne naturall bodie so he wold not haue vs so madde as to beleue that the substance of bread is changed into Christes naturall body nother For the same feith he saith shal saue vs which saued thē Cap. 22. CATH Thou saiest well for that is his purpose in dede And therfore as touching his principle of the same feith I haue told the enough before And as concerning this changeing he speaketh of thou and I will talke therof at large when we come to the place conuenient Therfore now to this that he doth here accompte all those which beleue that the substance of the bread by the operacion of the holy ghost in the holy consecracion is changed into the very body of Christ to be mad in so doing who be thei but al Englishmen Welshmen Irishmē Frenchmen Scottes Danes Douchmen Spaniardes Portingales Italiās with al other trew Christen nacions for doubtles al those dooe so beleue HERE Nay sir not all For all can not be said of Englishmen only nor yet of diuers other perticular nacions beside For some among them beleue otherwise CA. And pretely spoken For is it said amisse that such and such feldes are all corne because they are not eache of them without some and to much darnell in and amonge them what if there be founde such to many as Frith was among Englishmen and other trew Christen nacions beside doth that let the trewth of this that all those nacions beleue otherwise then he did that is to say that the very substance of the breade through the operacion of the holy ghoste in the holy consecracion is turned into the very blessed body of Christ al those multitudes Frith thou seest doth recken therin to be madde He dooeth not except al or any trew christen princes about whom there lacketh not men in wit grauitee and lernyng of the beste sorte that maie be had which seme not of al men to be lightly deceiued wherof in this matter specially thei are vtterly most lothe Therfore dooth the sadnes of Frithe shewe vs madnesse in all christen princes in all their prudent and wise councellours and in all their multitudes of peoples innumerable vnder them or els doth not the sadnesse of all those shewe vs the wonderfull madnesse of hym I require no answere of this but consider it well with thy selfe And therfore what is there more in all his woordes whiche thou hast here rehersed but onely his owne swasions and foolish continuall daunsing about this same woorde the same wherwith thou seest he wolde conclude confirme what so euer he babled before Neuerthelesse yet forthe he goeth shewing vs in the syxt lefe of his booke after his fantasie how the olde fathers did beleue saiyng There is no poynte in our Creede but thei beleued it as well as we dooe and those articles onely are necessarie vnto saluacion Who hath herde suche an other teacher For of this it must nedes folowe that it is not necessary vnto saluacion to beleue that Christe is equall with the father For whiche of the .xii. articles is that Those .xii. onely he saith are necessary vnto saluacion And this that Christe is equall with the father is none of the .xii. Wherfore the belefe therof is not necessarie vnto saluacion Also it is not necessarie vnto saluacion to beleue it a damnable thynge to peruerte and deprauate the harde saiynges of saint Paule and other scriptures although saint Peter doth saie the contrarie because it is none of
is not the very naturall bodie of Christ as it is cōmunely called yet he doth well to make a profe of the trewthe therof for the vnlerned sake to whom it is otherwise or not so well knowne Capitulo 8. CATH Then yet thirdly we must all acknowlage once againe that it is harde to saie whether he be herein more foolishe or false For plaine it is that here he doothe promise one thynge and clene omittyng the same gothe aboute to performe an other HERE How so CATH Dooest thou not see it plaine that he dooeth here promise to proue that the sacrament is not the naturall bodie of Christe And for the performance therof doost thou not see againe that he goeth a bowte to proue that the naturall bodie of Christe is not in the sacrament As though it were all one to saie that the sacrament is not the naturall bodie of Christe and to saie that the naturall bodie of Christe is not in the sacrament Euen as I might saie thy sowle is not thy bodie and for to make the beleue the same goe aboute to proue that thy sowle is not in thy bodie as though to be and to be in were all one that is to saie as though to be the howse and to be in the howse were without any difference Therfore because Frith in diuers places of his booke doubtyng of mens sightes dooth saie in the fourthe lefe this might expounde our matter if men had eies to see other he him selfe had eies to see this muche as I saie or els he had not If he had not but spake blyndly he wiste nere what how foolishe dooth he apere If he had and saw what he did how plaine false dooth he shewe hym selfe whiche is farre wors wherfore sith his posicion and his probacion are here of such a degeneracion that thei are without all possibilitee of any agrement to gether let vs therfore helpe hym to change his posicion and frame it somewhat acordyng to the pretence of his probacion to see what it will proue then because it is nothyng to the purpose now HERE How shall we dooe that CATH Thou seest his posicion in effect is this that the sacrament is not the naturall bodie of Christe And his pretēded probacion rēneth not vpon that but vpon this that Christes naturall bodie is not in the sacrament Therfore let his posicion be euen so to see whether his pretended probacion will reache vnto that or no. HE. Yes I doubt not therof CA. Whether thou do or not yet we must all acknowlage once againe as it dooth plainly apere that he hath in this pretended probacion brought for him none authoritee of holy scripture none of olde holy doctors nor yet so muche as any one sparke of reson or truth other For all his great pretence of defēdyng him selfe by those three authoritees as it apereth in the thirde and fourtenth lefe of his booke if thou markeit well HERE Yes syr very good reason he bringeth here for he saith If I shoulde beleue that his very naturall bodie bothe fleshe and blude were naturally in the bread and wyne that shuld not saue me seeynge many beleue that and receiue it to ther damnacion How saie ye nowe CATH If thou call this good reason thou haste but a little witte For beside that he doothe here call it breade and wyne of a spite against the contrarie as though it were breade and wyne in dede whiche is most false as hereafter it shall well apere And beside his foolishe speakynge in this that he saithe If I shulde beleue that his very naturall bodie were naturally therin as who saie because we doe beleue that Christes very lyuely bodie is presently and verely in the sacrament we beleue it to bee therin naturally when we dooe not beleue it to be so in heauen And yet we beleue it to bee verely there in dede for all that But this man dooeth speake as though it were alwaie a generall rule that where so euer any thynge is presently it wer there also naturally As who saie when an arowe is shotte vp in to the aire it were there naturally or a bladder blowen full of aire and conueied by violence downe to the botome of the water it were there naturally Or as who saie when god toke Helias from the societee and companie of mortall men and did lifte hym vp into heauen he passyng through the aire was there aboue naturally Besyde I saie all this very false foolishe and nothyng to the purpose what is there in it els whiche doothe proue it none article of our feith that we are bownde to beleue For there aboute he goeth HERE That many beleue it he saith and receiue it to their damnacion CATH What meaneth he by that are we not bounde to beleue it because thei beleue it HERE Naie not therfore ▪ CATH What then Because thei receiue it HERE No nother CATH Then is it because thei beleue it and receiue it to HERE He meaneth not so nother CATH How then HERE As Paule saieth He that eateth and drynketh it vnworthily doothe eate and drynke his owne damnacion CATH A then he groundeth hym selfe herein vpon saynt Paule HERE What els CATH In dede it were els but euen his own dreame as I wene we shall fynde it neuertheles Therfore if the cause why that we are not bounde to beleue it be nother because thei beleue it Nor because thei receiue it nor yet because thei beleue it and receiue it bothe but because of that whiche foloweth that is to saie to their damnacion Then why is it to their damnacion HERE For their vnworthinesse CATH Therfore when Frithes reason is either nothyng or els this that we are not bounde to beleue it because many receiue it to their damnacion And thei receiue it not to their damnacion but because of their vnworthinesse how clerely doothe it folowe that their vnworthines is the cause why by his reason that we are not bound to beleue it And how madde a witte hath he whiche will thynke that any other mennes vnworthines can set vs of or on with the bonde of our belefe in any poynte of our feithe Capitulo 9. HERE Sir yet ye take him wronge still For he doth not mene that their beleuing or vnworthy receiuing of it to their damnacion is the cause why that we are not bounde to beleue it CA. How then HERE He dooth mene no more but that it dooeth shewe that we are not bound to beleue it CATH Aha then it is come from a prouing to a shewing and that full wise for that they dooe beleue it doeth rather shewe that we be bounde to dooe so to rather then the contrarie HERE What when they receiue it to their damnacion CATH Yea for all that for why dooe they receyue it to their damnacion because they beleue it HERE Nay that is not his minde nother for then he wolde not haue saied we are not bounde to beleue it
maketh god a lier And therfore of an obstinate minde not to beleue his woorde maie bee an occasion of damnacion How saiest thou dost thou not see what a foolishe phantasticall obiection he hath here feigned of our behalfe as though we wold hold and obiecte that the absence out of the bread as he calleth it were a trewth when that is his parte not ours For he plaieth that parte him selfe so do not we but the contrarie And againe as though we wold obiect that we are bounde so to beleue it that by gods worde but where or which of gods wordes that is he telleth vs not Wherfore this propre obiectioÌ„ of his madde phantasticall feignyng I will passe ouer leste I shuld with more talke rather hied then disclose the foolishnes of it And therfore beholde it well thy selfe for I leue it vnto thee euen as it is because it appereth more foolish of it selfe then I can declare with all I can saie And yet because his solucion therof dooth answere it so well as though thobiectioÌ„ it selfe had neuer bene imagined thou shalt here it to thintent thou maiest perceiue what a colour he dooth caste vpon the matter vnder the onely pretence of an answere and nothyng els To this we maie answere he saith that we beleue gods woorde and knowlage that it is trewe but in this we dissent whether it be trewe in the sense that we take it in or in the sence that ye take it in and we saie agayne that though ye haue as it appereth vnto you the euident woordes of Christe And therfore consiste in the barke of the letter yet are we compelled by the conferryng of the scriptures to gether within the letter to serche out the minde of our sauiour which spake the woordes And we saie thirdly that we doe it not of an obstinate minde For he that defendeth a cause obstinately whether it be trew or false is euer to be reprehended But we doe it to satisfie our consciences whiche are compelled by other places of scripture reasons and doctours so to iudge of it And euen so ought you to iudge of your partie and to defende your sentence not of obstinacie but by the reason of scriptures whiche cause you so to take it and so oughte neither partie to dispise other For eche seketh the glorie of god and trewe vnderstandynge of the scripture I doubt not but here thou seest a wonderfull charitee in this man whiche swadeth so sore to suche a concorde to be had betwene trewth and falshed that he wolde haue neither partie despise other for eche he saith seketh the glorie of god the trew vnderstandyng of the scripture And therfore I woulde yet knowe of hym when or where that partie should finde the glorie of god and the trewe vnderstandyng of the scripture whiche seeketh it in falshed HERE what speake you of that when Frith meaneth no suche partie CATH Wilt thou saie so is not that one of the parties that Frith speaketh of which holdeth with Christê bodily presence in the sacrament and that to be beleued vnder peine of damnacion and the other which holdeth directly the contrarie And therfore if the one be trew the other must nedes be false yet eache he saieth seketh the glorie of god and the trew vnderstandynge of the scripture And I saie then the one in trewthe and the other in falshed speede as they can for so it is when they be in two directe contraries But where our sauiour Christ saieth vnto vs Querite inuenietis that is to saie seeke and ye shall find although he ment therin none other thing then apperteigneth to the glorie of god and the trew vnderstandynge of the scripture yet because he did not there apoynt vs dirâ—â—â—… with apert and speciall wordes wherin we shulde seeke it Frith perchaunte toke hym to meane it indifferently as well in falshead as in trewth And that maie well bee the cause why that he for his part sought the glory of god the trew vnderstandinge of the scripture in falshed And lefte vs to seeke it in trewth where withall he would not meddle how be it litle nede he had so to dooe for therin found we it longe before And that is the cause he liked vs so muche the wors And therfore yet marke the wilie Raynard wher about he goeth HERE where about CATH Euen to bring both the parties to suche an indifferencie that neither shuld despise other while his parte might haue a quiet leisure to creepe in and cleane thrust out the tother for well he wost for all his false dissimulation that thei coude not continew together Therfore as touthing all the rest of his answere beside weigh his obiection and that well together And as in folly and falshed thou shalt not fynd them a sonder Euen so in any point els thou shalt not bring them together wherfore now because we haue hitherto spent some more tyme then neded in an errour so plaine and yet not halfe so much as the foolishe falshed therof wold require if it shuld be fully declared looke if he haue ought els that semeth to the any thing more to mainteine or make for his euill purpose then this bringe it forth and thou shalt here what I will say to it Cap. 11. HERE Me thinke sir he hath for all this in a certeyne place such a strong reason for his purpose herein as all the world can not auoyde CATH what so euer it be thou maiest yet by this that is passe bee sure of one of these two that either it is not trew in dede or els although it be yet it maketh nothing for hym HE. By that reason it can make nothinge for him whether it by trew or false CATH That can be no lie for there is no trewth that can trewly make with falshed HERE Yet ye shall here what it is CATH With a good will HERE In the .iii. leafe of his boke euen these be his wordes And first that it is he saieth none article of our feith necessary to be beleued vnder peine of damnacion maie thus be farther confirmed The same feith shall saue vs which saued the olde fathers before Christes incarnacion But they were not bound vnder peine of damnacion to beleue this poynt Therfore it shall folow that we are not bound therto vnder peine of damnacion The first part of mine argument is proued by saint Austen ad DardanuÌ„ And I dare boldly say almost in an hundreth places For there is I thinke no proposicion whiche he dothmore often inculcat then this that the same feith shall saue vs which saued our fathers The second part is so manifest that it nedeth no probacion for how could they beleue that thing which was neuer said nor done and without the worde they could haue no feith vpon the treuth of these two partê must the conclusioÌ„ nedê folow Now sir how say ye to this gere CATH Countreiman as thou saiest
if we bee not bownde to beleue it because the same feithe shall saue vs whiche saued theim and thei were not bownde to beleue it because thei neuer herde of it it muste also by the same reason folowe that thei were not bownd to beleue any of those thynges whiche our sauiour Christe and all his disciples did preache and teache more then was saide before their commynge in those fathers daies so that in all the gospels and the epistles that is to saie in all the newe testament there is nothyng saide necessarie for our saluacion more then was saide herde and vnderstande before the incarnacion of Christe in the fathers tyme or els if there be seeynge after this doctours mynde the fathers were neuer bownde to beleue it because it was neuer saide in their tyme and without the woorde he saith thei coulde haue no feithe we nede not beleue it nother because the same feithe shall saue vs whiche saued theim is not this a goodly reason Farder more how dooth this doctrine agree with the woordes of our sauiour Christe him selfe where to his disciples he saith Blessed are your eares because thei dooe heare those thynges whiche many prophettes and iuste men greatly desyred to heare and yet herde them not Therfore what were those thynges that made the eares of the apostles so happie and blessed in the hearyng of them but the saiynges of Christe And why were those prophettes and iuste men desyrous to here them and herde them not but because thei were neuer saide in their tyme Therfore thei were not bownde to beleue them and consequently no more are we nother because the same feithe shall saue vs whiche saued them Take good hede for this doctour will make thee a good christen man if thou marke and herken well to him For if our sauiour Christe spake any thynges of more worthinesse and profite then other doubtles those prophettes and iuste men were moste desyrous to here them and yet herde them not But the cause why was this that thei were neuer saide in their time Wherfore thei were not bounde to beleue the moste worthie and profitable thynges that euer Christe spake and no more are we nother because the same feithe shall saue vs whiche saued them Also the chiefe thynges that euer Christe taught are the chiefe thynges that apperteine to the helth of mans sowle But those thynges were thei that made the eares of his apostles blessed in their herynge of them And those thynges were thei that many prophets and iuste men desyred to here and herde them not Wherfore those prophets and iuste men were not bownde to beleue the chiefe thynges that euer Christe taught for the helthe of mans sowle Because thei were neuer said in their time And therfore no more are we bownde to beleue them nother because the same feith shall saue vs whiche saued them Cap. 17. HERE Syr ye make me thinke more adoe of the matter then nedeth CA. Naie then tell me how much tyme shuld I speÌ„de if I shuld not refrain til I had shewed thee all suche abhominable inconueniences as muste nedes folowe of these firste two partes of his sophisticall argumente Wherfore of the thirde parte whiche is the conclusion thou nedest not doubte what it is And therfore because thou hast sufficiently herde how well he hath proued the partes therof Beholde nowe the whole together after the same forme and maner as he doth put it And see how it will appere in an other article or two ¶ The same feithe he saith shall saue vs whiche saued the olde fathers before Christes incarnacion But thei were not bownde vnder peine of damnacion to beleue that the sacrament of baptisme is a sacrament Therfore it shall folowe that we are not bownde therto vnder the peine of damnacion The first parte of myne argument is proued by saint Austen after Frithes vnderstandyng Ad dardanum c. The seconde parte is so manifeste that it nedeth no probacion For how coulde thei beleue that thyng whiche was neuer saide nor doone And without the woorde thei could haue no feithe Vpon the trewth of these two partê muste the conclusion needes folow whiche is this That we are not bounde to beleue that the sacramente of baptisme is a sacrament And euen by the same argument that the blessed sacrament of y e aulter is not so much as a sacrameÌ„t nother as of his own wordê I proued vnto thee before so that although we are as euery man knoweth bownde all vnder peine of damnacion to receiue the sacrament of baptism yet we be not bouÌ„de to beleue it that is to saie we are not bounde to beleue the same thynge whiche we are bounde to receiue when the iuste rule is this y t loke of what necessitee the thing is to be had of the same necessitee it is to be beleued But thou maist see what a feith this mans argument techeth vs so new and strange as I dare wel saie neuer trew christeÌ„ man was aqueinted withal or the lyke And yet let vs beholde the patterne therof once againe in an other case and so blisse vs cleane from it for euer The same feith shall saue vs whiche saued the olde fathers before Christê incarnation But the Iewes dispersed now in Christendom as in Roome Venice and in other places haue the same feithe whiche the olde fathers had before Christes incarnacion Therfore it shall folowe that the same feithe shall saue vs whiche the Iewes hath nowe The firste parte of myne argument after Frithes vnderstandynge is proued by saint Austen ad dardanuÌ„ c. The seconde parte is so manifeste that it nedeth no probacion for the credence of so many no light persons but of sobre wittes and good lernyng bothe as hath come from Roome Venice and other places where many of the Iewes be nowe abidyng and hath made reporte here amonge vs not onely of their feith to be of the olde testament whiche was the olde fathers feith but also of their excedyng diligence wherwith thei cesse not to kepe and obserue the same and the ceremonies therof so muche as thei maie instructyng teachyng and bringynge vp their children in such maner therin that thei be thought more prompte readie and perfecte in the letter of the olde testament at .xvi. or .xviii. yeres of age then the moste parte of our studentes be at thirtie The credence I saie of those so many graue and sad persons commyng from where those Iewes bee and reportyng these thynges of them with muche and many other moe concernyng the same dooth shew an argument ineuitable that thei haue nowe the same feithe whiche the olde fathers had before Christes incarnation specially when in their faste holdynge and kepynge therof dooth consiste all their great hope and whole truste of pleasynge god to their saluacion Wherfore vpon the trewthe of these two partes muste the conclusion nedes folowe whiche is euen this that the same feith which the Iewes hath now shall
spirituall and not corporall or els bothe corporall and spirituall is my question HERE What if he saie it bee onely corporall and not spirituall CATH Then is he directly againste saint Paule in his firste epistle and xv chapiter to the corinthians HERE What if he saie it be onely spirituall and not corporall CATH Then he is directly against the veritee of Christes bodie And therfore I wolde wit what he wolde saie to my question HERE He wolde saie it was spirituall in the olde fathers daies before thincarnacion And now corporall CATH What onely spirituall then and onely corporall nowe HERE Naie onely spiritual then and both spirituall and corporall nowe CATH Then he can not denie but that same meate is both so and otherwise nowe then it was then when it was then but onely spirituall and now both spirituall and corporall HERE That I graunte CATH Therfore sith it is both so and also otherwise nowe than it was then why shulde it not be so and otherwise eaten now than it was eaten then For it was not then the same it is nowe really in dede And yet is it nowe the same it was then virtually in effecte Wherfore there muste be a corespondence betwene the very present state of the meate and the very eatyng therof euen nowe as there was then And therfore when saint Austen after the minde of the apostle speaketh here only of that eatyng whiche is accordynge to the meate as it was then virtually in effecte and not of that eatynge whiche is accordynge to the meate as it is nowe really in dede what maketh he for Frithes purpose HERE It maketh for hym this That as thei did eate the same spirituall meate whiche we dooe nowe and were saued by the belefe and feithe therof as well as we are so Frith wolde haue it folow that we are not bounde to beleue any other maner of eatyng of the same meate beside the outwarde apparence than thei were then because the same feithe he saith saueth vs whiche saued them CATH As touchynge the same feithe thou haste herde enough alredie of his foolishe and false vnderstandynge therof And therfore to the reste Trewe thou saiest that he wolde haue it so folowe in dede but by what rule by what congreuence by what reason is there any rule or reason other to leade vs to this consequence that because thei did eate the same spirituall meate that we dooe we shulde not therfore bee bownde to the belefe of any other vsage maner or difference of eatynge that holy meate now then thei were then before Christes incarnacion when the blessed meate in it selfe is farre otherwise nowe than it was then and when we haue also nowe an other maner of doctrine taught vs of Christe him selfe concernyng the same than euer thei had then how farre were this against reason HERE Yet was it the same meate then that it is nowe And therfore the same nowe that it was then CATH Trewe it is And yet saie I it was not then as it is nowe nor is not now as it was then HERE How can that be CA. Very well For as I tolde thee before it was then onely spirituall and not corporall but so it is not now For now it is both spirituall and corporall and so was it not then wherfore as it maie bee saide and was then the same and not the same that it is now So it may be saide and is now the same and not the same that it was then whiche is to bee vnderstande in the diuersitee of the respectes that is to saie of the spiritualitee and the corporalitee wherof saint Austen touchyng here but the one Frith with the same wolde deceiue vs in bothe For els he wold or shulde haue made it first certaine whether saint Austen did here meane the same spirituall meate really in dede or els the same but virtually in effecte before he had attempted any conclusion therupon And therfore because he doth now here againe leue the certaintee of the meanyng of this fame woorde the same so doubtfull and indefined as he did before the whole pith of his purpose consistyng therin clere it is that nothyng therof can iustly folowe nor be certainly proued therby as thou thy selfe haste sufficiently seene and herde alredy How be it the certaintee of a grownde to reason vpon is no matter with Frith For he will first conclude what so euer he doth intende And with an incertaine principle so make vp the ende As though euen where in very dede doth lie no lesse then all There were euen vtterly to be founde no matter at all And while there be fewe of whom this falshed is perceiued Small wonder it is though many be therwith deceiued He asketh no more of al his diligent readers But that thei shoulde be well waie of all those same sophisters wdich will make theÌ„ perceiue him one of those same warrears That are of all other the chiefe spirituall murderars Be ware of sophistrie and sophisters beware crieth he Yet any one man that vseth it more didst thou neuer see And therfore euen now of hym what a sophister finde we But one of the very worste that is possible to be Cap. 20. HERE What sir me thinke your talke reÌ„neth now in rime CA. That is no matter so longe as it renneth not against reason HE. Whether it doe or no yet it pleaseth not my phantasie CA. Why so HERE What nedeth any ryme when reason maie well be without it CA. Canst thou not tell what nede HE. No not yet CA. Then thou meruelst at me why I doe put them to gether HE. And euen so I do in dede CATH Therfore why dooest thou not muche more maruell at Frith whiche refuseth to meddell with any of them both In so muche that rime thou knowest he vsed none And as for reason how farre it is from him maie well apere by his manifest falshed an lacke of trewth Wherfore excepte thou wilt saie that reason maie bee in falshed and where trewth is absent thou shalt surely finde in him as it is somtime saide of an other that all his talke renneth cleane without rime or reason And therfore where as I might haue somwhat els to saie as touchyng y e maner of his allegacion of saint Austen in these two later places yet because he hath no reason to lay to the contrary but y t thei make no lesse theÌ„ far froÌ„ his purpose I wil passe theÌ„ ouer with y t I haue said alredie go to that which he briÌ„geth in of S. Beda whose few wordê in latine are these Videte autem fide manente signa variata This turned into english is none other to sai but beholde Cap. 21. HERE Sir that shall ye dooe For consequently in the same v. leafe of his boke these be his wordes Of those places he saieth you may plainly perceiue not onely that it is none article necessarie to be beleued vnder peine of damnacion seyng
we do not so beleue Those .xii. onely be necessarie saith he This veritee thou seest is none of them although as all other it maie bee reduced vnto them whiche he will none of in any case lest that whiche he laboureth to ouerthrowe shoulde so by that meanes bee brought in likewise after his minde therfore without this we maie be saued That is to wit without the belefe that the commaundementê of god be good or ought to be obserued kepte who will not see that this were enough to declare what a teacher he is or who hath so dull a wit that he can not perceiue how diuelish his purpose is and it were but only by this that he can finde no waie to come to it but only by such damnable pathes as this is Beholde how faine he wold proue it no nede so to beleue in the blessed sacrament of the alter as all trew Christen people beleueth In very dede so faine that to bryng it to passe with al he sticketh not here as thou seest thy selfe to leue vs clene without the nede of any and of all the veritees of holy scripture mo then bare .xii. for in those .xii. veritees of our Crede he thought surely that this veritee of the blessed sacrament could not be founde And therfore he dooth saie that thei onely are necessarie vnto saluacion to thintent he might vtterly therby exclude the nede of this whiche he wolde so cleane put awaie that euen for that cause he excludeth no lesse then all the reste saiynge The other pointes conteined in scripture although thei be vndoubted veritees yet maie I bee saued without them And this he declareth in euery condicion that is to saie whether he beleue them or not whether he vnderstande them or not and whether he misconstrew them or not All these I saie saith he maie be doone without any ieoperdie of damnacion Cap. 23. HERE Ye but sir ye must take his conclusion with all CATH What is that HERE Marie this Therfore we beleue he saith these articles of our Crede in the other is no perill so that we haue a probable reason to dissent from them CATH Doubtles a conclusion euen like hym selfe How be it I muse not so muche therat nor yet at hym nother as I dooe euen at thee HERE At me why so CATH Without faile because thou dooest no more wonder at his blynde madnesse or madde blyndenesse choose thee whether How bee it I dooe partely consider the cause For surely if thou thy selfe were not by hym somewhat combred with the same clowde of darkenesse wherin he was inuolued and wrapped hym selfe thou shouldest easely besyde his wily wickednesse perceiue hym tumbled into the greattest foolishnesse that euer thou sawest any man For wheÌ„ he saith in the other is no perill so that we haue a probable reason to dissent from theÌ„ maie not I sai O folish Frith what if we haue none nor none can haue how then how is it possible to haue any probable reson to dissent froÌ„ any veritees most special aboue al froÌ„ any veritees of holy scripture For what reason is there probable in dede but onely that whiche is trewe in dede and can any one trewth be against an other Therfore if thou marke this matter well thou shalt finde that by these wordes he setteth vs euen at as muche libertee with our feith in all the .xii. veritees of our Crede as he doth in all the other For in them is no perill nother so that we haue a probable reason to dissent from them HERE Why sir we maie not dissent from them in no wise CATH What not with a probable reason what thynge is there that a probable reason dooth not bynde me to dooe For what is a probable reason but that whiche maie iustly be proued to be trewe And shall not trewth leade me trewly to and fro in euery condiâ—ion HERE Ye but there can be no suche probable reason to leade as from those veritees of our Crede CATH Why not from them as well as from the other veritees of scripture beside bee thei more trewe then any of the other are How be it thow speakest this of thine own head For Frith saith no more but that we maie dissent from all the veritees of scripture saue .xii. so that we haue a probable reason therto And I saie the same by that reason of those xii also if we haue a probable reason therto For what ought I to refraine whiche a probable reason will leade me vnto am I not alwaie bownde vnto trewth and what other thing is a probable reason Therfore it must nedes folow by his reason that in these veritees of our Crede is no perill so that we haue a probable reason to dissent from them Thus taketh he from vs the nede of all the veritees of scripture saue .xii. so that by the same reason he taketh awaie the nede of them to And therfore he semeth to except them in woordes but not in dede HERE Yes sir for els he wold not saie this Those articles are onely necessarie vnto saluacion For them am I bound to beleue and am damned without excuse if I beleue them not CATH What of this thou thinkest by reason of these wordes that he goth about to make vs beleue that we be bounde to the veritees of our Creede HERE what els For what purpose shoulde he speake it but for that or to shew vs how he doth beleue them him selfe CA. I thought euen as much when he intendeth none of them both For his purpose is not to make vs beleue them but onely to make vs to beleue no moe For to go about to make vs beleue so much is one thinge and to go about to make vs beleue no more is an other thing Therfore his intent is as who saie there to stoppe in our feith that it shulde goe no farther and not to bringe it thether nor there to vpholde it For although his blindnesse be so great and manifest that euen the very same which he laboureth to improue and ouerthrow he confesseth to be a veritee of scripture or els wolde he neuer cal it an article of our feith as in the .xvi. lefe of his booke he dooth in deede saiyng these wordes For though it be an article of our feith yet it is not an article of our Creede in the .xii. articles whiche are sufficient for our saluacion Although his blindnesse I say be so great that he him selfe dooeth confesse this a veritee of scripture which he laboreth so sore to improue yet because he thought it coulde not be found among the .xii. veritees of our Crede euen therfore wolde the catchpoule as it were in a pinfolde pyn vp therin our feith from all the veritees of scripture beside and all to thintent it shulde not come at this veritee of the holy sacrament and that for the speciall hatred he beareth vnto it Howe bee it in so saiyng I confesse my selfe somewhat
to large For why shoulde I saie that he beareth a speciall hatred againste this blessed veritee when he serueth them all a lyke yet am I therin somewhat to rasshe to For why shoulde I saie that he serueth them al a lyke when he wold sleie al those for this and not this for them but this for it selfe not muche vnlyke vnto hym whiche for the malice he bare against one innocent slew an whole multitude But as that Herode missed his purpose of that one whoÌ„ he principally intented and to his owne perdicion was but a meane of bringing al the residew to a farre more clerer light then they had before Euen so I doubt not of this Herode likewise but that he shall misse his purpose of this one veritee which to destroy he doth chefly intend And also in the multitude of other beside although to his own perditioÌ„ be but a meane of bringing theÌ„ to a more clere light of knowlage in many one theÌ„ euer they had before That Herode this although persecutors both and both of Christ wherin they gree Yet in the maner of their persecution somwhat they differ For that Herode did persecute him directly and apertly but this Herode consequently occultly vnder with the pretence of the coÌ„trary That Herode sent men to find him where he was not but this Herod seÌ„deth men to lese him where he is Also that Herod laboured to make him be takeÌ„ but this Herode laboured to make him forsakeÌ„ He with manifest cursednesse this with false feigned holinesse He with cruel tyrannie this with wicked heresie Therfore what so euer this yong Herode doth saie as towching the veritees of our Crede neuer thinke that he speaketh it to make vs beleue it nor yet to shew that he beleueth it him selfe For that he saieth is onely to make vs beleue no more for lesse he thought he coulde not And therfore he supposing that if he might stoppe our feith therin from goyng any farther he might then bring his wicked purpose to passe well enough And to be suer therof he wolde by suche a rule discharge vs of our feith in all the veritees of scripture saue onely these .xii. of our Crede as wolde leade vs euen likewise from the feith of them to when he saieth In the other is no perill so that we haue a probable reason ' to dissent from them ' This probable reason as I haue tolde thee is able to discharge vs of all maner of thinges none except wherin so euer it maie be had And therfore as well of all the veritees of our Crede as of any other veritees of scripture beside Cap 24. HERE Sir I do now perceiue that al this while ye take one probable reason for an other and not that probable reason which Frith speaketh of CATH Hah what saist thou I pray the tel me that agein HE. Mary sir I say the probable reason that Frith speaketh of is not the same that ye take it for CATH Trowest thou so HERE No trewly CA. What is it then HE. Ye know well enough that there be two maner of probable reasons of the which the one hath in it a trewth ineuitable And therfore it is or maie be called a probable reason existent The other hath in it no trewth in dede yet is it so like to be trew that it is very hard to auoid or to be otherwise perceiued or taked but for trew in dede And therfore it is or maie bee called a probable reason apparent but not existent CATH I can thee thanke countreyman it is euen very well saide And therfore doest thou thinke that it is this probable reason which is but aparent that Frith speaketh of HERE Yea trewly that I dooe CATH Why so HERE For it can not stande with any reason that it shuld be the other probable reason whiche is trew because as I now perceiue my selfe one trewth can neuer leade vs to dissent from an other but rather binde vs vnto it CATH Doubtles therin thou hittest the nayle euen vpon the head And therfore by that iust and good reason it dooeth well apere that when frith speaking of charticles of our Creede doth saie In the other is no perill so we haue a probable reason to dissent from them It is not that probable reason which hath in it the very trewthe in deede But it is that probable reason which is but only apparent and doth but onely seeme to be trew nothing els â–ª therfore what so euer doth but only seme to be trew without fayle is not trew in dede And what so euer is not trew in dede and yet semeth to be trew is vtterly nothing els but euen a meane to deceiue And therfore the very conclusion is this That wher he saith In the other veritees of scripture is no perill so we haue a probable reason to dissent from them It is no more to say but in the other veritees of scripture is no perill so we haue a deceitfull meane to dissent from them when a probable reason without trewth is none other but as I said a meane to deceiue in dede HERE Nay sir I can not yet for all this beleue that he ment so CATH No not when his owne wordê compelleth vs to take it so For he can not speake of a probable reason and meane it to bee nother trew nor false except thou wilt saie as of many a one it is when he speaketh he wotteh nere what that his wit is not his owne Therfore he meÌ„t it to be either trew or false If he ment it to be trew then is it as much to saie as in the other veritees of scripture is no perill so we haue suche a probable reason to dissent from them as is not possible to be had For it is not possible to haue trewth against trewth Wherfore how foolishe at the leaste is he to suggest vnto vs any such case Therfore of the other side if he ment a probable reason but aparent and not trew in dede Then is it no more to saie but this In the other veritees of scripture is no perill so we haue that probable reason to dissent from them which is so redie and easie to be had that al we ought to blisse vs from it HERE Blisse vs from it what nede that CATH Nedeth it not to blisse vs from that probable reason which might leade vs to dissent from ani veritee of scripture For what is the scripture but godê worde therfore what is any verite of scripture but the verite of godes word And what probable reasoÌ„ is that which ledeth one to dissent froÌ„ any veritee of godê word but only y e falsitee of y e diuels worde Yet herein saith Frith there is no peril This thou seest he moueth vs vnto For with a probable reasoÌ„ he saith we may without any peril dissent froÌ„ all the veritees of scripture saue .xii. and I saie by that
rule from them to Therfore while Frith doth here in plaine wordes shew vs a way to dissent from the veritees of holy scripture whiche is the worde of god what other thing therin doth he els but vtterly shew vs the waie of the diuell How be it herein he teacheth vs but a poynt of his owne facultee For by this probable reason founde he the meanes to dissent and come awaie from the veritees of holy scripture him selfe For els without fayle he had bid in them still By this probable reason also riseth the first heretike of euery secte And by this probable reason deceiueth he an other By this probable reason gender they mo and mo By this probable reason grow they sometyme to a multitude And by this probable reason they continew to the disquietnesse of the faithfull flocke of Christ Also by this probable reason which is but apparent which semeth iuste and is not which promiseth trewth and paieth not which beareth in hand to dooe that it can not By this probable reason I say heretikes are enticed perswaded and led from the veritees of scripture from the veritees of godê woorde and from the veritees of euerlasting life And by this probable reason they are prouoked and set a woorke to crie to the people and say beware of deceiuers beware of false teachers beware of subtill Sophisters And what other thing therin do they els but ignoraÌ„tly and euen directly against their owne purpose moue the audience to be ware of them of no men els For such and the same are thei in dede none other Therfore let vs now returne to his third case againe brefly to see what we left therin behind he saith Or be it in case that I here them and vnderstand them and yet by the reasoÌ„ of an other text misconstrew them Here he driueth me to such a streit that I can not tel whether I maie more wonder at him or at his case For tell me if euer thou herdst of any such braine How is it possible for any man to misconstrew the same which he doth vnderstand Is it one thing to vnderstand and an other to know Is any man therfore able to take a thing otherwise then he knoweth it is Doth not the knowlage or vnderstanding of a thinge cleane put away the miscoÌ„struing therof For whereof commeth misconstruing but of misunderstanding neuerthelesse Be it in case he saith that I vnderstande them and yet by the reason of an other text misconstrew them Here thou seest plaine that he putteth vnderstanding and misconstruing both together in one respect and one case and that by the reason he saieth of an other text Therfore whether he meaneth the veritee of that other text to be vnderstanded or not vnderstanded let vs trie what foloweth of each of them and theÌ„ we shal be sure to come to his meaning at the least in one of them Therfore if he meane it vnderstanded then this must folowe that the vnderstanding of the veritee of that same one other text maie put away the vnderstanding of all the veritees of scripture .xii. except when it may bring the vnderstander to the misconstruction of them as by his words it may when of them al he saith Or be it in case that I here them and vnderstand them ' and yet by the reason of an other text misconstrew them ' So that the trew vnderstanding of that same other text is but a meane to make the veritees of all the rest to be misconstrued and that of him that vnderstandeth them And what is that to say but this that the trewe vnderstanding of one text maie bringe a man from the trewe vnderstanding of of an other when it bringeth him to the misconstrewyng therof And therfore doest thou not see what good reason and trewth he teacheth in this case hast thou heard of this same lesson before that the trew vnderstanding of one text shuld plucke away the trew vnderstanding of an other from him that hath it I haue herde that the trew vnderstanding of one text might induce and bring to light the trew vnderstanding of an other But I neuer herd a fore now that the trew vnderstanding of one might misconstrew so put away the trew vnderstaÌ„ding of an other when trewth as I tolde the before is a meane to come by trewth not a meane to misconstrew put awai trewth for so were trewth against trewth and vnderstanding against vnderstanding And therfore Frith doth here to saue al vpright make miscoÌ„struction which is the great enemy of them both to be as a stickeler betwene them wherfore of the other side if he meane y t the verite of this other text which may make this misconstruction is not vnderstanded then must this folow that the ignorance and not vnderstanding of the trewth of one text may put away the knowlage and vnderstanding of the trewth of an other text as it must nedes dooe if it maie make it misconstrued as Frith dooeth hold it maie And so shall blinde ignorance be more mighty and able to expell and put away clere and perfite knowlage from him that hath it then persite knowlage is able to expell and put away it as though the ignorance of one thing were the driuer away of the knowlage of an other whiche is an ouerthwart rule contrary to all reason and trewth For it is the naturall propertee and strengthe of knowlage where so euer it commeth to subdew and expell ignorance and not of ignorance to ouerthrow and expell knowlage How be it I will not say but ignorance maie and commonly doth in many cases kepe trewth from knowlage and vnderstandinge but yet when and wherin so euer knowlage and vnderstanding doth once get the victorie and obteineth it in dede ignorance then goeth streight to wrake and is vtterly put to flight for any thing therin it can dooe more Wher fore the trewth of one text vnderstanded or not vnderstanded can neuer driue the trewth of an other out of vnderstanding as it might doe if it might driue it to misconstruction as it can not because there shulde be then as I said trewth against trewth and vnderstanding against vnderstaÌ„ding which can not be Therfore whether the trewth of this other text y t Frith speaketh of be vnderstaÌ„d or not vnderstaÌ„d yet false is this his saiyng therof that it may cause the trew vnderstanding of an other text or veritee of scripture to be misconstrued of him that hath it and so put awaie when it is not possible for the trew vnderstandynge of a thynge and the misconstruynge of the same to stande to gether excepte Frith wyll saie that he can ioigne them together this waie as when he vnderstandeth a veritee neuer so wel yet he can purposely misconstrewe the same neuerthelesse to beguilde and deceiue his neghbour withall and beare him in hande it is otherwise ment then he hym selfe dooeth knowe it is HERE What sir ye dooe but taunte hym
therin as God shall instill in euery mans mynde HERE So he sayth but what of that CATH Soest thou not see it plaine in those wordes that he imputeth to God the instilling of that into euery mans mynde whiche he meaneth by this worde therin And againe that he meaneth by this worde therin none other but to gether each part both his and ours wherof he speaketh and those partes of his and ours are so contrary that the one must nedes be trew and the other false wherfore he doth I say impute vnto god thinstilling of these two partes in euery mans minde as well the one as the other so that he will haue God thinstillar as well of falshed as of trewth HERE Tushe sir this is to farre wyde CATH Wherfore HERE Because it nother doth nor yet can folow so for the sence of his wordes is this I leue it he saieth as a thing indifferent to thinke therin that is to say in eache parte as god shall instill in euery mans mynde that is to say as God shall reuele vnto them which parte hath the trewth and which hath not CATH Thou saiest much for hym and as much as may be saide But yet it will not holde for with his indifferencie he hath prouided to muche to the contrary As it maie somewhat apere by these wordes that he saith As god shall instill in euery mans minde ' He saith not in some mens mindes But he saieth ineuery mans minde And the trewth of this matter as he holdeth him selfe God dooth not instill in euery mans minde wherfore his meaning must nedes be of that instilling which dooth reach and extende farder then trewth or els it muste nedes come short of euery mans minde wherfore he doth here impute vnto god the instilling of more then trewth whiche can be none other but falshed HERE Sir I dooe meruaile to here you speake for Frith doth not here meane euery man generally as ye take him but he meaneth euery man specially as in whom god shall instill the trewth of this matter and no farther CATH He is much behoulding vnto the for he could say no better for him selfe But yet it will not helpe for the very same that he calleth here indifferent is nother more nor lesse but euen the same that he leaueth to gods instilling in euery mans minde And that is plaine to be both the partê of his beliefe and ours in this article of the holy sacramente wherof the one is trew and the other false And those two partê doth he so glew together with indifferencie to the intent they shuld so go and be taken together inseperably that he wold not say I leue them as thinges indifferent but saith I leaue it as a thing indifferent putting them both together in the singular numore as one And so referreth it to gods instilling in euery mans minde not the one or the other disiunctiuely but euen ioyntly both together according to his owne saiyng indifferently Wherfore why may I not say as I said that he doth referre vnto God thinstillinge as well of falshed as of trewth in euery mans minde when therin he doth so knit and wrappe â–ª them both together with his indifferencie and that in the singular numbre that we can not by his owne wordes deuide or plucke them asonder HERE I daresay for all this ye do not thinke your selfe that euer he ment god to be thinstiller of any falshed in any mans mind CATH How shulde we know his meaning but by his saiyng his saiyng doth shew and leade vs to this meaninge And therfore what woldest thou haue more HERE Yet I will not beleue that he ment to referre thinstilling of trewth and falshed both vnto god with any suche indifferencie as ye speake of CATH Then thou muste needes graunt that he ment it rather of the one then of the other or els onely of the one and not of the other HERE What els CATH If we vnderstande him to referre vnto god thinstilling rather of the one then of the other or onely of the one and not of the other Then because the one parte is his and the other is ours We must therfore nedê vnderstand him to referre vnto god the instillinge rather of his parte then of ours or els onely of his parte and not of ours because he leaning to his owne parte and not to ours wolde nedes preferre his owne before ours Wherfore because his parte hath the falshed and so hath not ours whiche hath the trewth and so hath not his it must needes folowe that he referreth vnto god thinstilling rather of falshed then of trewth or els only of the falshed and not of the trewth Therfore he leaueth and referreth vnto god thinstilling other of both partes according to his owne saiyng indifferently or els rather of the one parte then of the other leaning not euen eaqually or els only of his owne parte and not of the other euen wholl percially for one of the three it must nedê be yet take of them which thou wilt this hast thou sene what foloweth therof HE. Sir I see that folowe therof which is to badde to be gathered of any mans meaning CATH Whether it be or no yet it doth and must nedes procede of his saiyng And therfore thou maiest well perceiue that it is not so badde but he was as madde to take vpon him to play the parte of suche an indifferent stickler betwene trewth and falshed as wolde nedes perswade suche a brotherly loue to be had betwene them as neither of them shulde condemne other but reserue he saith each others infirmitee to god wherin also it appereth plaine that he wold haue here the infirmitee of falshed which is of thone side reserued to god Therfore what he meaneth by that or how it soundeth in thine eare I say no more but this is he which vnder pretence of his dewtie to beleue the .xii. veritees of the Crede doth denie his dewty of belefe in al the veritees of the whole scripture beside Also this is he that pretendeth to beare with vs in the trewth of our belefe to thintent he wolde haue vs beare as much with him in the falshed of his belefe moreouer this is he which doth say we may beleue that whiche he him selfe doth say is false and yet he him selfe wil not beleue that which both he we do say is trew for we say it is an article of our feith and euen so saith he how be it he holdeth it indifferent to beleue or not beleue but so do not we And therfore he wil not beleue it one whit till we do both agree which he hath brought so nere the point that now it wil neuer be Cap. 29. HERE Well sir ye do but dally with me now how be it if he were liuyng as he is not and might answere for him selfe he wold perchance answere ye otherwise and farre better then I can CA. He wolde if he could but
with Frithe is in his probacion and not in the thynge which he goeth aboute to proue For ye knowe right well that a man maie misse in the probacion of a trew thynge sometyme and yet is not the thynge false because the probacion is not trewe CATH So maiest thou excuse euery falshed whiche any false harlot goeth aboute to proue trewe for soone maiest thou saie that although he faile in his probacion yet is the thynge that he wolde proue trewe enough for all that because a man maie be deceiued in the probacion of a trew thynge When in dede the faulsitee of a thynge is ofte times more then halfe disclosed by the falsitee of the probacion And therfore although the manifeste falshed of Frithes probacions dooe not euen very apertly proue the falshed of his opinion Yet dooth it make at the least an ineuitable coniecture therof And therfore euen as much for the trewth of our side for what shall or maie we gather of this that all the reasons whiche he hath brought for his purpose doth not only not proue his intent but also draw after them suche odible consequences as euery good christen eare must nedes abhorre to here what shall we gather I say of this but that the mighty and inuincible trewth of the contrary part will in no case suffre it selfe to be ouerthrowne Furthermore what wilt thou say if Frith doe sufficiently proue our parte him selfe HERE That can not be for all his whole purpose is vtterly to the contrary CATH I graunt the same and yet marke him well For he intendinge in dede to proue the contrary maketh neuer a reason but that as I haue declared vnto the it renneth vtterly euen as much against the necessitee of other necessary articles beside as it doth against this for which he did purpose it and that were not possible but because the like or the very same necessitee of beliefe is as wel in this as in them and all one for how shuld his reasons purposed only against the necessary beliefe of this article touch the necessary beliefe of any other likewise more theÌ„ they touch the light of the sonne the heat of the fire and other like being no more purposed against those other necessary articles then against these thinges but vtterly because those articles and this be all of one sort and of like necessitee to be beleued and eache of these thinges that is to say the light of the sonne and the heat of the fire cleane of an other sort For what reason so euer be brought against any thing so farre it doth alway renne as the communitee of the thing against which it is brought doth extende and no farther As be it in case that one were so madde as to deny the immortalitee of thy soule and wolde goe aboute to disproue the same Yet what so euer reasons he shuld make against it without faile must nedes renne likewise euen as well against the immortalitee of all other mens soules beside as against thine and that could not be but because that same immortalitee is commune and doth apperteine as well vnto thy soule as to theirs Wherfore after the like maner the cause why that Frithes reasons doth renne as well against the necessitee of other necessary articles as it doth against the necessitee of this for which they were purposed is vtterly because the very same necessitee of beliefe is commune and doth aperteine as well vnto this as to them and all one for els it were not possible for those reasons purposed but onely against this to make any thing more against the necessitee of those other then against as I said the light of the sonne or any thing els beside Therfore it must nedes folow that this article is of as great necessitee to be beleued as any of the other is wherfore because Frith wolde haue proued it indifferent and could not he hath therfore now proued it necessary and wolde not Wherwith content thy selfe thou gettest no more of me at this tyme. HERE Yes I pray you sir one thinge more and then I will bid you farwell CA. What is that HERE Mary sir I haue redde Frithes boke I wene as often as euer did you and yet could I neuer finde or perceiue such matter therin as ye haue declared and I meruaile greatly what shuld bee the cause therof CATH It is no meruaile at all for doubtles if Frith had no more trewth vertue wit and learning in thine opinion then he had in his owne head thou shuldest sone haue perceiued in his booke a great deale more then I haue shewed the. And that shalt thou proue most trew if thou do but withdraw thine opinion and affection from him HERE Trow ye so CATH There is no doubt of that HERE Well sir here is my way now and therfore I will trouble you no longer at this tyme. CATH Then farewell tyll to morow HERE God be with you sir CATH And with the to HERE At. ix or x. of the clocke ye say CATHOLICVS What els HERETICVS I will not faile you Fautes escaped in the printyng Leofe Side Line Fautes Corrected 37. 2. 15. any of any of 38. 2. 6. as vs 40. 1. 6. whtch which IMPRINTED AT LONDON IN FLETESTRETE IN THE HOVS OF THOmas Berthelet Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum folum ⧠LVCRECIA ROMANA THOMAS BERTHELETVS 1. Co. 11 Math. 7. Logike Sillogismus Sophisticacion â— Co. 1â— Mat. 13. 1. Co. 15 2. Peâ—… Mat. â— Mat. 12.
whiche he dooth vtterly denie saiyng ther is none suche And any other peines after this lyfe beside any of those two there is to our knowlage vtterly none Therfore what so euer he saith none other he meaneth but that it is none article of our faithe necessarie to be beleued vnder any peine at all HER. Naie sir not so for he wolde not speake it as he doothe excepte he mente vnder some peine CA. Vnder what peine is that HE Vnder the peine of suche lawes as be made ordeined for it here in this life CA. And wel said for if he ment not that plaine it is that he mente as I saide none at all But how cowld he meane that when he accompteth al those lawes nothyng els but euen the very cruell tyrannie of men whom he calleth prowde prelates and furious tyrannes of malicious mindes and vengeable hertes as it appereth in the .xiii. and .xv. lefe of his booke And therfore he wolde that men shulde in no wise folowe them but rather die then obeie them HERE How knowe you that CATH By nothyng better then his owne acte For euen so did he hym selfe HERE Yet his death dooeth shew that he was bownde vnder that peine For els he had not died CATH Take hede what thou saiest for although his death dooth shewe that he was bounde at the least vnder that peine yet it dooth not shewe that he so tooke it for all that But it dooth shew clerely the contrarie For if he had thought hym selfe bounde to beleue it he wold neuer haue chosen rather to die then to graunt it for he was not so madde although he were madde enough and to madde in dede as to chose his owne death rather then to stande to that whiche he thought hym selfe he was bound to Therfore that he chose rather to suffer death then to graunt hym selfe or any man els bounde to beleue it doth moste clerely proue and shewe that he ment it no article of our feith to bet beleued vnder any maner of peyne But to be so free at so great libertee that he thought it better to die as he did in dede then to graunt it or to be in any wise bounde vnto it Capitulo 3. HERE Then if he ment vnder no peynes at all why did he saie vnder the peine of damnacion secludynge no mo peines but onely that CATH He did it either because he could not tell therin how to expresse his mynde but foolyshely or els because he durst not russhe it euen all out plainly And yet thought to wrappe it in his wordes so craftily that his aduersaries should not take hym with the open faute directly nor his frendes belefte ignorant of his meanyng if thei weighed the sequele of his wordes throughly Wherfore sith it is clere that he wolde haue this sacrament none article of our feithe to bee beleued vnder any peine at all what followeth or what other thinge is it but that he wolde haue no man bounde to beleue it For vnder no peyne and then vnder no bonde And vnder no bonde then at our free libertee And there he wolde haue it as it dooeth well and plainly apere Therfore now let vs see the depe lernyng of this wise man wherby he hath drawen so many disciples after hym as he hath done first if we be not bounde to beleue it why is it an article of our feithe for an article of our feith he dooth confesse it as it apereth in the .xxvi. lefe of his booke where his owne wordes be these Though it be he saith an article of our feith it is none of our crede in the .xii. articles whiche are sufficient for our saluacion Capitulo 4. HERE Marry sir this dooeth open all the matter CATH How so HE. He saith it is an article of our feith but yet it is none of our Creede in the xii articles CATH A very well and therfore we are not bounde to beleeue it a blessed doctrine It is likewise none article of our Creede in the .xii. articles nother as he dothe take them that euer Christe preached or taught a monges the Iewes Therfore we are not bounde to beleue it It is none article of our Creede in the .xii. articles nother that Christe had .xii. Apostles or that there was any suche Peter or Paule as we speake of or that our Lady liued after the death of Christe And therfore we are not bounde to beleue it HERE Yes syr for all those thynges apere playne in the gospell and therfore we are bounde to beleue them CATH I tell thee the gospell it selfe is none article of our Creede in the .xii. articles nother And therfore we are not bounde to beleue any more of that then dooth apere in the .xii. articles of the Crede if we beleue Frith as to many dooe wherfore is not this a gaie teacher that wold so shut locke vp our feithe within the .xii. articles of our Crede that we nede not beleue any of these thinges nor many mo besyde as great as these be And furder more If this sacrameÌ„t be an article of our feith and we not bounde to beleue it why is it a sacrament HERE Because Christe hym selfe did so institute it CA. Then by Frithes doctrine we are not bounde to beleue Christê own institucioÌ„ when that which our sauiour Christ did institute is left at our libertee to choose whether we wil beleue it or no as Frith doth holde it is And therfore is ther any maÌ„ but only Frith his adherentê that wolde thinke our sauiour Christe to institute any article of our feith so that we might chose without parill wâ—â—â—her we will alowe it or no we dooe not alowe it if we dooe not beleue it and we neede not beleue it if we be not bound to it and we are not bounde to it if it be vnder no peine it is vnder no peine saieth Frithe HERE Vnder no peine of damnacion he saith CATH Vnder no peine at all he meaneth But neuerthelesse let it so be as thou saiest in his most fauour And yet that waie because there is no bond as he saith vnder that peine we may at that gappe as close as thou kepest it without any parill of damnacion after his minde cleane thrust out the credence and alowance of this holy sacrament notwithstandinge that it is of the very ordinaunce and institution of our sauiour Christe him selfe Therfore how dooeth Frithe handle this mater but euen as though our sauiour Christe at his institucion hereof had saide Here I leaue it amonge you those whether ye will beleue it or no if he had so said what might Frithe dooe more to the fortifiyng therof then he dooeth wherfore sith it is plaine that our sauiour Christe neuer saide so Nor yet as all trewe christen hertes dooe know neuer ment so what a thinge is this of Frithe that he wolde yet make vs beleue so Farther more if it