A MANIFESTE DETECTION OF THE notable falshed of that part of Iohn Frithes boke, which he cal­leth his founda­cion, And bo­steth it to be in­uincible: newly set foorthe by John Gwinneth Clerke.

LONDINI. 1554.

Capitulo. 1.

CATHOLICVS,

Ah coūtrey man, thou art I perceiue, a good riser in a morning, for I thought little to finde thee here so soone.

HERETICVS,

Sir, if you had slepte this night no more then I did, ye wolde haue bene here perchaunce as soone as I.

CATH.

why, thou seest I keepe myne houre, and somewhat afore.

HER.

No sir, that I dare saie ye dooe not. For eyght of the clocke was your houre. And nowe it is almoste nyne, or nyne all together, if it bee not more.

CATH.

Not of any clocke in London I am sure.

HERE.

Naie then are ye well, if ye truste to the clockes of London.

CATH.

Why not?

HERE.

Ye knowe right well, thei neuer agree together. And therfore we may be sure, thei goe not trewe.

CATH.

Then bee they wonder­full like vnto heretikes: and nothyng so euill to bee tru­sted as thei bee: whiche dooe alwaie deceiue, as the clockes dooe not. for there is fewe or none of the clockꝭ, but are sometyme in trewth, and so are theretikes ne­uer, as thou maiest well perceiue, by that I said yester­daie, if thou beare it in mynde.

HERE.

Well syr, I praie you, let all that passe, and nowe to the purpose we come for.

CATH;

Ye but firste tell me how it chaun­sed, that thou sleptest no better to night.

HERE.

Shall I therin be playne?

CATH.

What els?

HERE.

In very deede it was euen longe of you.

CATH.

Of me? how so?

HERE.

Ye gaue me suche a banket to bed­warde yesternight, at our partynge, as hath not a litle troubled my head euer sence.

CATH.

What was [Page] that?

HERE.

Euen the same that ye sayd of myne olde frende Iohn Frith.

CATH.

What saied I of hym?

HERE.

Ye saide he was as subtill, foolishe, and false as euer was any man, that ye haue redde or herde of.

CATH.

And callest thou that, a banket to bedwarde?

HERE.

I maie so call it well enoughe. for it was and yet is vnto me, a bitter banket in dede.

CATH.

Why so?

HERE.

Ye will not thinke howe muche it greueth me, to here hym so reported?

CATH.

Then consider therwith ageyn, howe little it will greeue thee, to here hym so proued.

HERE.

How little? Naie how muche ye maie saie.

CATH.

How muche? thou wotest nere what thou saiest. For wilt thou bee more greeued, with the dewe profe, then with thonly reporte of his falshed, by whom thou art not a litle deceiued? when, for all the reporte, thou maiest yet remayne, other in doubte, or cleane out of credence therof, and so be deceiued stille, where as by the dewe proffe, thou maiest bee certaine and sure, and no longer deceiued, excepte thou wilt thy selfe. And therfore with the reporte, thou canst not bee so muche greued, as with the dew proffe thou oughtest to be glad and well pleased.

HERE.

No syr not so. For although I do here my frende euill reported, yet because the reporte maie chaunce to be false, it can not greue so muche, as the dewe proffe therof, whiche dooeth assure me, that it is trewe. Wherfore the proffe must nedes be more greuous, then the reporte, if I take it right.

CATH.

That is in respect of hym, and not of thy selfe, that is to saie, for his sake, and not for thine owne. To bee sory for thy neighbours falshed, in that he shulde chaunce to bee one of that sorte, is very well doone, whe­ther thou haue it by profe, or reporte other. But of the [Page 3] other side, as touchyng thin owne parte, to bee sory for that thou art by a dewe profe brought to the knowlage therof, were more then extreme foolishnesse: sith by that, thou canst take no maner of hurte, but rather the great commoditee of escapynge all suche displeasure as might chaunce to ensue of the contrarie. And therfore what o­ther thynge is it, not to be gladde to knowe the falshede of a deceiuer, But euen to be wilfully and worthily de­ceiued, as many a one is? And therfore if thou be one of that sorte, whiche are so greeued with the reporte of Frithes falshed, that thei can not bee pleased with the dewe profe therof, it will be as harde for the, as it is for them, to take any profite of the beste probacion that is therof possible to bee made: whiche vnto them is farre insufficient, and nothyng worthe.

HERE.

Why so?

CATH.

Because of their owne obstinate wilfulnesse, Whiche is the directe enemie and greattest resister of all trewthe: and therfore moste incurable of all euils: Wherfore if I wiste, that thou were one of them in dede, I wold euen now bidde the farewell, and talke no more with thee. For if I did, my labour were therin but loste.

HERE.

Syr ye shall not finde me a refuser of reason.

CATH.

And thou shalt not fynde me an of­ferer of any other.

HERE.

Then I meruell howe ye wyll discharge your selfe of this that ye saie, Frith was so subtill, foolishe, and false?

CA.

For that purpose I shall finde matter enough, and it were but in that parte of his worke, whiche he dooeth call the foundaci­on of his treatise, wherin he thinketh him selfe so strong and moste sure.

HERE.

What he saith therin, I re­member very well. And therfore I wyll shewe you some parte therof.

CATH.

No not yet, for I will [Page] make the first recitall my selfe: And therin tell me, whe­ther I dooe it trewly or no.

HERE.

And euen so will I, by your leue.

CATH.

I am well content with all.

HERE.

Whether ye be or not, I will be so bolde at this time.

CATH.

I know it to be a parte of thy profession, to lacke no boldnesse.

HERE.

I maie be bolde in my frendes cause.

Capitulo. 2.

CATH.

Spare not, and therfore take hede, and harken well to it. For in the preface, and firste lefe of his booke, where he maketh mencion of a brother of his (not a brother of consanguinitee, but a brother of his religious fraternitee) his owne wordes be these.

‘This brother (he seith) after muche communicacion: desyred to know my mynde, as touchyng the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of our sauiour Christe, whiche thynge I opened vnto hym accordynge to the gifte that god had geuen me. First I proued vnto hym, that it was none article of our feith necessarie to bee beleued vnder peine of damnacion: Then I declared, that Christe had a naturall bodie. &c.’

¶Nowe for so muche, thou herest what he saith.

HERE,

I will not denie, but those be his owne wordes in dede?

CATH.

And in these wordes, thou seest playne, that he saith the sacrament of the bodie and bloude of our sa­uiour Christe, is none article of our feith necessary to be beleued vnder paine of damnacion.

HERE.

All that I graunte.

CATH.

Therfore if it bee not vnder the peine of damnacion, I aske of hym vnder what peine then? he will not saie vnder any peines of purgatorie, 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 [Page 4] 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: [Page] 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 sacramēt 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 Christꝭ own instituciō, 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 mā, but only Frith, & his adhe­rentꝭ [Page] that wolde thinke our sauiour Christe to institute any article of our feith so, that we might chose (without parill) w [...]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 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 [Page 6] 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 [Page] 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 [Page 7] 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 woordꝭ 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 we haue tried all redie, are not bothe one, but farre vnlike, and differeth muche. for that before was, that the sacrament it selfe, is no article of our feithe necessarie to be bele­ued. &c. And this nowe is, that it is none article of our feithe necessarie to be beleued, that the sacrament is the naturall bodie of Christe. Wherfore these bee two foundacions.

HERE.

Sir that same other before, he did not laie for a foundacion.

CATH.

That is not so, his owne woordes doothe proue the contrarie. For, in satisfiyng the requeste of his brother in Christe, as tou­chyng this sacrament, his owne woordes (thou knowest) [Page 8] be these.

‘First I proued vnto hym (he saith) that it was none arti­cle of our feith necessarie to be beleued. &c.’

Here thou seest no lesse, but of all that buildyng, this parte he laied firste, as he saith hym selfe. And in all buildynges, that is the foundacion, whiche is first laied. Therfore other he laied that, for a foundacion, or els thou must nedes graunt, that there he builded without any foundacion at all: as the moste foolishe builder ne­uer dooeth. And therfore although he dooeth not pro­prely name but one foundacion, yet two (as I said) he hath laied for all that, wherof sith we haue tried the one alredie, let me nowe here what profe he maketh of this other?

Capitulo. 3.

HERE.

His profe is this?

‘Firste we muste all acknowlage (he saith) that it is none article of our feith, whiche can saue vs, nor whiche we are bounde to beleue vnder the peine of eternall damna­cion. For if I shulde beleue, that his very naturall bodie both flesh & blood, were naturally in the bread and wyne, that shuld not saue me: seing many beleue that, and re­ceiue it to their damnacion. for it is not his presence in the breade, that can saue me, but his presence in my herte through feith in his bloode: whiche hath washed out my synnes, and pacified the fathers wrath towarde me.’

‘And agayne, if I dooe not beleue his bodely presence in the bread and wyne: that shall not damne me: but the absence out of my herte thorough vnbelefe.’

Nowe sir, here ye haue herde his profe, what saie ye to it?

CATH.

In very dede, with some of his owne woordes, I saie to it this. First we must all acknowlage, that he is the moste subtill, craftie, and wilie solititour of his masters cause, that euer traueled in this matter, so farre [Page] as I haue redde. For if the diuell hym selfe were in­carnate, and so shulde come amonge vs, to see what he coulde dooe againste the faithe of this holy sacramente, what might he inuent or imagine therin, more subtilly, more craftily, and with more wilynesse for the purpose, then this man of his, hath doone alredie? For he dooth not directely denie it a sacrament, he dooth not directly denie it an article of our feith: he doothe not directly de­nie, that we are bounde to the belefe of it nother: But he goeth anere waie to worke then so. For all these waies, or any of them, he knewe right well, had ben of suche a sorte, to swade at the firste, that men wolde haue ben therin, more redy to spette at hym, then willyng to here hym. Wherfore he thought to begynne an other waie, that is to saie, with no more, but onely the deniall of the peine of damnacion, dewe for the not beleueinge therof. And that because he considered, how prone, reddie, and gladde all men are, to bee ridde of the perill and daun­ger of peines, specially the peines of damnacion. And therfore to creepe the more easely into their fauour, he thought to enter with that, whiche thei had moste luste to here: Beyng well assured, that if he preuailed therin (as it semed to him moste like) all the reste of his pur­pose, should easly folowe: as to playne it is, that it hath doone, in a great sorte. For if I shuld intende to allure thee from the belefe, that Christe was borne of a virgin, how coulde I so craftily, and so easely brynge it aboute by any meanes, as by this perswasion, that there is no perill of damnacion therin? For let me once brynge the out of the feare of that perill, And then, who dooth not see, how easy a matter it were, to bryng the out of thee feare of all other perils, whiche are nothynge in respecte [Page 9] of that, sith thou mightest kepe the from them, with not bewraiyng thy selfe? And when thou arte once therin, throghly ridde and paste the feare of all perils, what case art thou in then, with thy feithe of that article, but euen cleane careles? for no man careth, but for feare of some displeasure that might ensue. Therfore when thou art careles, whether thou beleue it or no, what nede any far­der perswasion to moue the from it? specially when the propretee of the thyng is suche, as will neuer abide with him, that careth not for it: for he that careth not for it, set­teth nothyng by it. And he yt setteth nothyng by it, other hath lost it, or will not longe kepe it. And therfore, when it is once come to be nothyng set by, To what cometh it farder, but euen to contempte and extreme hatred? wherof there can be no greatter profe, then the lamenta­ble experience therof, to great and openly knowen? For hath not this wilie Reinarde, by the meanes of this his diabolicall perswasion of no perill of damnacion in the lyke case, brought many a one to the same pointe, with this holy sacrament whiche we nowe speake of? as it maie moste plainely apere, by the shamefull approbri­ous woordes and behauiour of his owne disciples. whiche sticke not, some in the pulpet, and moe in the ale howse, to call it iacke in the boxe: A god of .xxiiii. a penny: A god of the bakers makyng: A great idoll, a sacrament of the halter, in dirision of it, and of the ho­ly alter: with such other moste shamefull, both saiyngꝭ and examples, so horrible and odible, as can not but ab­horre all good Christen eares to here them. Therfore in this pointe to conclude (as I began) First me muste all acknowlage (if we dooe well) that he is (as I saide) the most wilie, subtill, and craftie solititour of his ma­sters [Page] cause that euer medled in this matter.

Secundarily, we must all acknowlage likewise, that he is not so wilie, subtill, and craftie one waie, but that he shewth hym selfe as fonde, and foolishe an other waie, as it dooth partely apere euen nowe, and muche more shall here after. For here thou seest, he taketh vpon him (as a matter of great weight) to proue that, whiche no man learned will denie.

HERE.

What is that?

CATH.

That the sacrament is not the naturall bodie of Christe. For who knowth any thynge, and knoweth not that? although it bee commonly called the bodie of Christe, as right well it maie for diuers causes, whiche here after shall well apere.

HE.

Sir of this folie, I dare well excuse hym. For although it be knowen to thē that be lerned, that the sacramēt it selfe, 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 [Page 10] 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 [Page] 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.
[Page 11]

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,1. Co. 11 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 [Page] 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.

But he woulde haue saied, we be bound not to beleue it.

CATH.

Therfore what is this to the purpose of our bond of beliefe? If he counde haue proued, that suche as dooe not beleue it, were in no dainger therfore, it had bene then an other matter. But to say, seeing many be­leue it: and as who say, therfore we maie laufully chose: what noddy wolde so saie or suppose, but he?

HERE.

Sir it is not that nother, which Frith intendeth to shew it by.

CATH.

What then?

HERE.

That they re­ceiue it to their damnacion.

CATH.

Doth that shew, that we be not bounde to beleue it?

HERE.

Cleerly me thinke.

CATH.

Euen as though the bonde of be­leuing, were enough to put away, the danger of vnwor­thy receiuing: but yet I pray thee looke better vpon it. And tell me in good ernest, whether it dooeth not seeme rather to shew, that we be not bound to receiue it, then not bounde to beleue it?

HERE.

Receiue it? what we be bounde therto, by the plaine wordes of the gospel.

CATH.

That I graunt to be trew: And therfore tell me whether of them both, dooe Frithes wordes seeme [Page 12] rather to shew, for although bare wordes of shewing bee farre from the strength of dew prouing, yet if there bee any thing in his shewing, that might sound herein a­geinst our dewtie of beleuing, dowtles it dooeth sound ten times more ageinst our dewtie of receiuing, then a­geinst that. And yet betwene the dutie of receiuing, and the deutie of beleuing herein, the difference is such, that vnworthinesse of maners, may and ought for the time, exclude the dewtie of receiuinge: But so it can neuer doe the deutie of beleuinge at any time. Wherfore in this much, hitherto, we haue found, vnder the onely pretence of a great worthy prouinge, nothinge els in deede, but his onely bare, leane, and naked saiyng, without rea­son, trewth, wit, or learning.

Cap. 10.

HERE.

Ye but yet ye muste take that foloweth with all, and then iudge as ye see cause. For ye know he addeth vnto it this, ‘It is not his presence (he saieth) in the bread, that can saue me, but his presence in my hert through feithe in his bloud, which hath washed out my sinnes, and pacified the fathers wrath towarde me.’

Now sir weigh this and the other together.

CATH.

Nay the other we haue weighed well enough alredie And therfore what shall we weigh in this, but that it is none article of our feith, which we are bounde to be­leue vnder paine of damnacion, that the very bodie of our sauiour Christ is presently in heauen?

HERE.

I meruaile that ye will so say. For Frith hath here no such wordes.

CATH.

No, it is enough for him so to teach, although it bee in other wordes. For when he doth saie it is not his presence in the bread, that can saue hym, what dooeth he els intende, but therby to proue [Page] that we are not bound to beleue it?

HERE.

That I graunt.

CATH.

And dooeth it not euen as muche a­gainst our beliefe of his very bodily presence in heauen?

HERE.

I thinke not.

CATH.

Then harken well what I shall say, for the selfe same wordes, that he spea­keth here, of Christes bodely presence in the sacrament, I will speake of his bodily presence in heauen, and then tell me thy selfe, whether it be as I say or not.

HERE.

With a good will.

CATH.

Then this. It is not his presence in heauen, that can saue me: But his presence in my herte, through feith in his bloude, whiche hath wasshed out my sinnes, and pacified the fathers wrath toward me. Wherfore it is none article of our feith, which we are bound to beleue vnder peine of damnaci­on. How saiest thou to it now?

HERE.

I saie the plaine wordꝭ of the scripture dooe binde vs therin to the contra­ry.

CATH.

And therfore I saie, the plaine wordes of the scripture is ageinst this, which Frith dooeth teache. And for a more clere vnderstandinge therof, when he saieth, it is not his presence in the breade, that can saue me, but his presence in my heart thorow feyth in his bloud, and therof wold haue it folow, that it is none ar­ticle of our feith, which we are bounde to beleue vnder peine of damnacion, I aske no more of him, but what of his preseece vpon the Crosse? what of his presence in the Sepulcre? what of his presence among his disciples? what of his presence now in heauen? with his presence in many cases moe? doest thou not clerely see, that this les­son of his doth renne directly euen as wel ageinst the be­liefe of al these, as ageinst the belife of his presens in this holie sacrament? Therfore if his seiyng make any thing against this, it maketh as much ageinst al the rest: If it [Page 13] make nothing against al the rest, then it maketh nothing against this:

HERE.

Sir the presence of these thingꝭ, that ye speake of, are all gone and paste, sauyng his pre­sence in heauen.

CATH.

Ye but the feithe and belefe of them all amonge vs, is nother gone nor paste, for we stande bownde to that neuerthelesse. And that is it, whiche Frithe attempteth to oppugne and ouerthrowe. And therfore what so euer he doothe (as I saide) against the belefe of one of theim: without faile he dooth against the belefe of them all.

HERE.

Sir ye maie make of euery mans tale what he luste, if ye bee so disposed.

CATH.

Why saiest thou so. Thou maiest easely per­ceiue, that I make none other of his tale, then therof must I nedes folowe. And therfore where he goeth far­der and saieth of the contrarie parte.

‘If I dooe not beleue his bodily presence in the breade and wyne: that shall not damne me, but the abcence out of my herte through vnbelefe.’

Looke nowe thy selfe, if he might not as well haue said, If I dooe not beleue his bodily presence in heauen, that shall not damne me, but the absence out of my herte through vnbelefe? How saiest thou? Is it not well pro­ued of hym, that Christes bodily presence in the sacra­ment, is none article of our feith, whiche we are bounde to beleue vnder peine of damnacion, when he proueth vtterly by the same reason (as he did before) euen as muche and no lesse of his bodily presence in heauen? But where he saithe, If he dooe not beleue it, that shall not damne hym, how will he proue that? or why dooth he not so muche as pretende or seme to goe aboute it? But without faile, because his heretical lie therin, is so great, that it will with no maner of thyng be couered, but one­ly [Page] with his fals feith, whiche hideth it from hym, and suche other as he is, and from no man els. And therfore I praie thee, marke well what he saith immediately fo­lowyng in the same lefe for his woordes be these, ‘Now if they wold here obiecte (he saith) that though it be trewth, that the abcence out of the bread could not damne vs: yet are we bound to beleue it: because of gods worde, which who beleueth not: as muche as in hym lieth, 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 obiectiō, 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 thobiectiō 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 [Page 14] 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 Christꝭ 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. [Page] But where our sauiour Christ saieth vnto vs,Math. 7. 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 dir [...] 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 Dardanū: 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 partꝭ must the conclusiō nedꝭ folow.’ Now sir, how say ye to this gere?

CATH.

Countrei­man, as thou saiest, it is perchaunce after the iudge­ment of some, a great and sore reason. But yet I pro­mise the one thing, it semeth to the no more trew, then it is well known to me, to be very false, specially as he dooth vnderstand it, and as thou shalt find it, if thou her­ken [Page] well to me. And for the sure and perfect triall ther­of, Thou must first consider this, that Logike is a cer­taine.

HERE.

Nay then we haue it, and ye come in with Logike▪

CATH.

What softe, thou doest inter­rupt my tale, as though thou mightest not abide the he­ring of it.

HERE.

Tushe sir Logyke, what shuld Lo­hike dooe here▪

CATH.

A, I know what thou mea­nest well enough. And therfore hold thy peace a while, tyll I haue tolde the,Logike. what I meane. For Logike (I say) is a certaine arte, which doeth teache a compendious waie to discerne the veritee of a thing, from the falsitee, and that can not bee doone, excepte both bee knowen. Therfore among all other thingꝭ, there is for the pur­pose inuented a certaine argument, which is made and formed of three partꝭ. And of the which three, the firste and the seconde are called in schooles, two proposicions, the more and the lesse. And when those two, in their con­uenient kinde be both trew, and trewly knitte together, then the third part, which of them bothe, must needes fo­low, and is called the conclusion, can neuer be false. And againe, when any of those two proposicions be false, or not trewly knit together, the conclusion, which shuld fo­low, can by them, neuer be trew. This argument also, when the first part, and the second is trew, wherof their necessarie conclusion must nedes bee trew also, it is cal­led thē a Syllogismus. Sillogis­mus. Sophisti­cacion. And whē any of thē both be false, for the which their intended conclusion, can by them ne­uer be trew, it is thē called a Sophisticacion. So that be­twene Logike and Sophistrie, there is in this case no dif­ference, but vnder one aparent maner and forme, the one holdeth the veritee, and the other the falsitee. Therfore this facultee, art, or cunning of Logike, I dare wel saie, [Page 16] there is no iust louer of trewth, but wil iudge it very ne­cessary to be had, when it is but the iust trial of trewth it selfe. And yet is it a thing, which in special, some teachers doe vtterly forbid, and cry out vpon. But that wold they neuer doe, if their teaching were good & trew. For who be thei, that teache a doctrine, and forbiddeth their disci­ples the iudgement of such, as can best skill to discerne what it is, but onely fals harlotes, which goe about to deceiue.

HERE.

Sir wherfore speake you all this?

CATH.

Trewly euen for the schoole, that thou art of. For haue you not brought the name of Logike and phi­lophie so farre in sclander of subtile and craftie deceite, among no small sorte of suche as knoweth it not, that they doe now suspecte, and refuse the iudgement of a man so much the more, as they thinke or heare tell, that he is learned therin. But [...] this your [...] doiyng, how great is your shame, in the iudgement of such, as dooe well perceiue it? And yet how like is all that shame, in respect of this, that the very same maie well be founde and proued in you, which ye trie so sore vpon all your disciples, most cheiflie to shunne and beware of in other? that is to saie, sophisticall subtiltee, as though ye medled nothing withal your selfes, whē ye practise & vse almost nothing els? And that is the cause why, that ye forbede your scholers the hering of such as know it, lest by them they shuld learne to espie and perceiue your falshed, whiche ye wold haue renne and [...]eepe still in the darke, vnto the time it might put out all the light.

Cap. 12.

HERETICVS.

Sir I pray you geue me leue, we goe about the [...] of Frithes mat­ter, therfore, what is all this to that purpose?

CATH.
[Page]

Doest thou not perceiue?

HERE.

No trew­ly. For he neuer vsed any suche thynge as ye speake of.

CATH.

No did? Shall I nede to reherse vnto thee (whiche doest knowe it so well) how he doothe exclame and crie against sophisters and sophistrie almoste in e­uery corner of his booke, and yet plaieth none other, but the same parte hym selfe? For inquire thou of any [...]n, that can shall therof, and if he dooe not saie, that this, whiche thou hast now rehersed of Frithes owne woordes, is the selfe same scholasticall and sophisticall argument, which I haue here discribed vnto thee, and is daily vsed in the scholes, take me for no better then, (I saie) he is. How be it, I dooe not meane, that it is the same argument, whiche is daily vsed in schooles, when it holdeth the verite [...]: but vtterly the same, when it hol­deth the falsitee, onely with these two differences, that in the schooles it is put in latine where he putteth it here in english and againe them it is but a feigned falshed, to teache me [...] to be were of it: And here it is an ernest fals­hed, to teache men to be deceiued with it. And to proue this that I saie to be trewe, First I shall not nede to bid thee, beare his argument wel in minde, which hast here rehersed it vnto me thy selfe. Therfore if thou marke it wel the whole pith of it, doth rest vpon the saiing of saint Austen, whiche as [...] doeth allege him, is this, (The same feith shall saue vs whiche [...]aned the olde fathers be­fore Christes incarnation Now if saint Austen had not said, the same feith, but an other feith shall saue vs. &c. it had bene vtterly nothyng for Frithes purpose. Ther­fore thou maiest playnly see thy selfe, that all the weight of the matter, dooth lie in this woorde. The same. Wherfore let vs now [...]e [...]rder, what maner of worde [Page 17] this is, and whether it bee apte to builde a good argu­ment vpon, or not.

HERE.

That is but reason.

CATH.

then tell me trewly, what thynge thou arte.

HERE.

What thynge am I? what shoulde I bee but a man?

CATH.

And am I any other thynge then that?

HERE.

No that is plaine.

CATH.

Then am I the same that thou art, and thou the same that I am. But what so euer the same that I am, dooth, I dooe: And what so euer the same that thou art, doeth, thou doest. Therfore it muste nedes folowe, that what so euer thou doste, I dooe, and what so euer I dooe, thou dooste, be­cause thou art the same that I am, and I the same that thou arte.

HERE.

Naie sir, that will not folowe.

CATH.

Why so?

HERE.

Because you take this woorde (the same) other wise then I ment. For although we be eche the same that other is in nature, we doe yet differ in person: for ye bee one persone, and I an other: And not the same that you be, nor you ye same that I am. Therfore your artes bee not mine: nor mine yours.

CATH.

Yet thou thy selfe, when thou were first borne, were the same in nature, and the same in person then, that thou art nowe, and the same nowe that thou were then.

HE.

That I graunt.

CATH.

But thou were then, not one yarde longe. Therfore no more thou arte nowe, when thou art now the same that thou were then.

HERE.

What sir yet againe? It is two thynges to be the same in nature and person: and to bee the same in quantitee. Therfore ye maie be sure, that I ment not so nother.

CATH.

Then thou or I, were deceiued a­geine in this woorde (the same).

HERE.

That is trew.

CATH.

Yet that quantitee of thyne excepte, thou wilte graunt thy selfe to be now, the same that thou were then.

HERE.
[Page]

Yea that excepte.

CATH.

And then thou cou­dest nother speake nor goe. wherof it foloweth, no more thou canst do nowe, while thou art nowe the same that thou were then.

HERE.

Tushe, syr after this maner, ye might reason also of myne age, and my knowlage, with all other powers and qualitees besyde, when ye maie be sure, I dooe not so meane.

CATH.

Then tell me this, were not all englishe people an hundreth yeres paste, bounde to the lawe of this lande, and we nowe liuynge? also to the same.

HERE.

That is no doubte.

CATH.

Go to nowe, and take hede what I saie: we be bownd to the same law now, that thei were, whiche liued an hundreth yeres paste. But thei that were liuyng an hundreth yeres paste, were not bounde to the statutes and artes of the laste parliament. Ther­fore it foloweth, no more be we nowe: excepte thou wilt saie, thei be no partes of the lawe: and then we bee not bounde to them nother.

HE.

Sir we be bonnde to the law that our elders were, & thei to the same that we be. But this is vnderstande the same in generall, that is to saie, the lawe of Englande, without any respecte of partes. For it was none other, nor no lesse, then the law of Englande, whiche thei were bounde to: nor it is no other, nor no more then the lawe of Englande nother, whiche we are bounde to. Therfore when it is no more, nor lesse, nor yet none other, it muste nedes be the same (as I saide) in respecte of the whole generally, and not the same in respecte of the partes specially, by as many actes and statutes as hath bene sens, for considerations added vnto it mo then was than. Therfore your argu­ment is false, and can not holde.

Cap. 13.

CATH.

Countrey man, I can thee thanke, for without question thou speakest herein very well: and therfore marke what I shall saie vnto thee, when it is so, that this woorde (the same) is of a significacion so ambiguous & incertaine, that a thyng maie be saide the same in nature, and not the same in person, or the same in them both, and not the same in quantitee, or the same in al three, and not the same in power, or the same in one qualitee, and not the same in an other: or the same in generall, and not the same inspeciall: or the same in all these, & yet not the same in many cases mo beside: when a thyng (I saie) maie be called the same, and yet not the same, in so many respectꝭ, why did not Frith with al his sophistrie (ageine the which he barked so sore, & yet vsed nothyng more) why did he not consider all this in the woorde, and put awaie the doubtful vnderstandyng, and ambiguite therof, before he made therupō his argumēt? Seing it might chaūce to be (as of him it is) taken other­wise, then the author of the worde, did meane or intende? for either he knew, or he knew not, that he shuld so dooe, or els take it for no ground or principle to dispute vpon: if he did not know it, that is to sai, if he did not know, that a conclusion can not be proued by any principle, whiche is incertaine: doubtles he was thē to blinde a teacher, to be beleued of any man, specially in so great and weightie a mater as this is. For all men knowe, it is against both nature & reason, to come to suerte, by incertitude. Agein of the other parte, if he did know it, & yet wold (as he did) tumble forth his argumēt neuertheles: what other thing could moue him so to do, but only wilful malice & falshed. For be it in case, that I perceiued a woorde or a sentence, [Page] the sence wherof: were doubtfull and incertaine (for the which no treuth therupon were probable) and yet before the ambiguitee therof were put awaie, wold grounde mine argument vpon the same: what could cause me so to do, but onely to make mē thinke, I proue that I proue not, And so make them beleue, that thei ought not. For the intent of eueri ernest argument, is alwai to cause the conclusion to be graunted, whether it be trew or fals. Therfore what motiue therof canst thou finde, in who so euer so doth, but euen a malicious intencion to deceiue other? Wherfore, whether blind ignorance, or els this wilful malice, were the cause why, that Frith did builde his argument vpon this flitting foundacion, I leaue it partly for this time, to thine owne iudgement. For of the one, or the other, I am sure thou canst not excuse him

HE.

Yes sir, he might chaunce (as many men do) purpos­ly put foorth an argument, taken of an incerteine princi­ple, to here what wold be said vnto it.

CATH.

Nay nay my frende, that is not it, that cā excuse him. For although that, be somtime vsed in schooles, to the intent it might by that, be lerned, where the falsitee of such argumentes doth rest: yet questionles Frith had here no such purpose. For he did not put it forth, to see what wold be said to the contrarie, or that it shuld be lerned, where the deceite of it laie. But his intent was onely by the craftines therof, to draw men into his false and wicked opinion. The which he held so vehemently to be trew, that he lai­ed thervpō, no les wager, thē his owne selfe, both body & soule: the losse of the which, without faile, is no les like in both, then it is wel known, to be sure in the one: how be it that shall passe, to come to our purpose againe, whiche is to shew, the great falshed of him in his argumente.

[Page 19]For who but he, wolde as who saie, so hedlyng at a ven­ture iudge sainte Austen (when he saith, the same feithe shall saue vs, whiche saued the olde fathers) to mene the same feith in respect of euery particular point distinctly, and not the same onely in respect of the whole together confusely. For these two consideracions dooe much differ in euery thyng. And that wonderous plainly in the law, as thou didst euen nowe declare thy selfe. For in the con­sideracion and respect of the whole, confusely to gether, it is euen the same now, that it was an hūdreth yeres past, & was euen thē the same that it is now: that is to say, the lawe of England now, and none other then: the lawe of Englande then, and none other nowe. whiche worde dooeth signifie, all the whole thinge to gether more or lesse without any difference or respecte of any speciall partes at all. For when thou hearest it spoken, it dooeth put the no more in mynde of any one parte, then of any other. but of the vnitee of them all together, which, the name dooeth onely signifie. But the consi­deracion of the same in partes distinctly, dooeth differ farre from that. For in respect therof, it is not euen the same now, that it was an hundreth yeres paste, nor the same then, that it is now, by all the actes and statutes, which hath bene added vnto it since, and yet can it not fo­lowe but that it is the same lawe in general stil, for al the new partꝭ, which it had not before. Also a tree, being full of new leaues, twigges, braunches, & bowes, is yet the same tree, that it was, yeres past before thei sprōge out of it: but how the same? the same in respect of the whole, which is but one. And not the same in respect of the partꝭ which are many. For some partes be new, but so are not al. yet before the new partꝭ were sprong out of [Page] it, it was none other, nor yet no lesse then the same tree, that it is afterwarde: & afterward none other nor yet no more, then the same tree, that it was before. Therfore as the tree, full of new partꝭ, is euen the same tree, that it was before: and yet not the same in euery pointe. And as the lawe of this lande, is euen the same law now, that it was an hundreth yeres paste, and yet not the same in e­uery point. Euen so is the feith of Christe now, the same that it was before his incarnacion, that is to saie, the feith of Christe then, and the feithe of Christe now, all one and the same, in respect of the whole (wherof it bea­reth the name, without respect of any nūbre of partes more or lesse) but yet not ye same in respect of euery point, without any maner of difference perticularly. Wherfore suppose thou in it, but euen one perticular difference, and tell me then, where is all Frithes argument become: When, for any thynge that is in it els, euen the feith of this blessed sacrament, might well be the same, which he laboureth so sore to ouerthrowe.

Cap. 10

HERE.

An argument sir ye know right well, is not to bee auoided by supposicions or coniectures, but by probable and manifest reasons. And therfore if ye can proue any such particular difference betwene the olde fa­thers feith before Christes incarnacion and ours nowe, wherof it must nedes folow, yt saint Austens wordes can not be so vnderstande, as you saie Frith doth take them, I wot then what I haue to do.

CA.

Without faile there be diuers differences, not onely to sure to be doubted in, but also to manifeste & open to be inquired of. For had the olde fathers before Christes incarnacion beleued in euery particular pointe of the feithe as we dooe: that is [Page 12] to saie, beleued his blessed birth, passion, resurrection, and ascencion to be doone and paste, as we dooe: and we to come as thei did: Euen so farre differ we eche from o­ther, that it had els ben damnable, bothe of their parte, and ours to. Also there was conteined in their feithe diuers sacramentes, whiche we haue not in ours. And lykewise in ours, whiche thei had not in theirs, and that the chiefe of eche parte. Ageyne, their feithe, be­yng much hid, and couered with so many figures, darke shadowes, and misticall prophecies, as in maner the whole course of scripture dooth testifie that it was: who therfore wolde not see it to be then, but obscure, grosse and confuse, in respecte of the pure distincte clerenesse, whiche ours tooke, by the very cōmynge of our sauiour Christe hym selfe, and the predicacion of his gospell? And what was that same obscuritee, but as who saie, a coueryng of many poyntes together confusely, whiche the new bright splendour of Christe, did open and shewe distinctly? wherby it maie well appere, that their feithe and ours, coulde not bee throughly lyke and bothe one, in euery pointe perticularly. More ouer there is no doubte, but that there were many good and faithfull folke, of the commune people of the Iewes, beside the prophets. Neuertheles, we maie not thinke, that thei had the feith in suche maner as the prophettes had them selfes (whiche were therwith immediately inspired of god) that is to saie, not so clerely, so specially, and so dis­tinctly as thei had, but much more obscurely, grosly, & confusely: By reason wherof it is plain, that their feith con­teined many thynges moe then thei were ware of them selfes, the which thinges were yet not so hid & vnknowne to the prophettes that taught them. Furthermore it is [Page] not to be thought, that eche of the prophets had it lyke distinctly nother. When some of them be called more, and some lesse, as the cause wherof, doeth well apere by their woorkes, of the whiche, some one is farre more large then diuers of the reste together: God shewed not distinctly & apertly, all to eche of thē, but some to one, and some to an other. Yet we may not saie, yt he, or any of the cōmune people, which were feithfull, had for all that, any lesse then altogether cōfusely. For who so euer, at the least waie, hath it not so, doubtles hath rightlie therof, no­thyng at all: because the trewthe of the whole feithe (as I shewed the yester daie) is priuely hid and conteined in euery parte of it. Finally, as the maner of hauynge the feithe, differd betwene the prophets and the common people of the Iewes then: so dooth it not onely betwene their tyme and ours, but also betwene some one sorte, and an other, of vs euen nowe. For there is no doubte, but the plowman hath now the same feithe, whiche hath the doctour of diuinitee, and the doctour, the same that he hath, that is to saie, the feithe of Christe: but yet farre vnlike. For where the plowman hath it in maner but grosly and confusely: the doctour hath it more specially and distinctly. And therfore in the plowmans confuse feith: doubtles there bee many mo speciall articles and misteries conteined, then he is ware of him selfe, whiche be not vnknowne to the doctour: Yet neuerthelesse, vn­to the belefe, as well of them, as of the residewe, the plowman is no lesse bownde, (for all that he is not ware of them) then is the doctour of diuinitee with his presise knowlage. For the same feithe shall saue the one, which saueth the other: Although thei haue it not bothe lyke, but with great difference. Therfore when the feith be­twene [Page 21] the fathers and vs, hath by reason of tyme, taken one difference, and that suche as thei could not haue bene saued, beleuyng in euery poynt as we doe, nor we bele­uyng as thei did. And when it hath also taken an other difference in thynges, no lesse then very sacramentes, and that of the chiefe of bothe partes. And besyde all that, when there is betwene their feith and ours suche a difference in the maner of hauyng of it, that it maie bee saied, thei had the same and not the same that we haue: and we the same and not the same that thei had, because that, whiche thei had more grosly confusely, and obscure­ly, we haue it more particularly, distinctly and manifestly. Saint Austen (thou maiest well knowe) when he saieth, (as Frith dooth allege hym) the same feithe shall saue vs, whiche saued the fathers, neuer ment (as Frith dooth falsely vnderstande hym) the same feithe in euery condicion perticularly, but the same, in respecte of the whole confusely, that is to saie, the feith of Christe ge­nerally, without any distincte consideracion of partes. As a man doth ofte tymes speake or thinke of money, without any consideracion of this coine or that, or how many diuers coynes bee conteined vnder the generall name of moneie. As there hath bene sometyme fewer, and sometyme mo, and yet the generall name therof, no more, no lesse, nor none other, but alwaies one and the same.

Capitulo. 15.

HERE.

Sir yet still, I dooe somewhat maruaile, how ye knowe, that Frith (as ye saie) dooth vnderstande sainte Austen to meane the same feithe in euery condicion perticularly.

CATH.

And I doe meruaile also, how thou cowdest els fynde whiche waie saint Au­stens [Page] woordes might so much as seme, any thynge to sounde to his purpose. For if he had vnderstande saint Austen to meane, the same feithe, with any difference, Then the same difference might haue bene in this holy sacrament, as well as in any thynge els. And where had Frithes purpose ben then? Therefore thou maiest easely perceiue, that he vnderstandeth hym to meane, without any difference at all. For if he had vnderstand so muche, and no more difference, betweene the fathers feithe and ours, but euen onely as is in the diuers ma­ner of hauynge therof: that is to saie, of our parte, the particular, distinct, and pure clerenesse of it (whiche it tooke through the blessed comyng of Christe, and of their parte, the grosse and confuse obscuritee of it (wherin it was before that same light of the worlde came forthe & shewed his beames abrode) there were no doubte, but it wolde thereof well folowe (as the trewthe is in deede) that this holy sacrament, as well as the sacrament of baptisme, with many other thingꝭ moe, was then in their feith, although not manifeste, as nowe in ours, but ob­umbrat, couered and hid, with the shadow of that clow­die season. Accordyng to the woordes of the apostle, sai­yng: [...]. Co. 1 [...] Our fathers were al vnder a clowde: which clowd had ben to thē no clowde at all, if euery particular parte of our feith, whiche was conteined in theirs, had ben so distinctly had and knowne of them, as it is of vs: yet thei had the same feith that we haue: how be it (as I saide) after an other maner. For if we should be bownde to the belefe of no mo thynges perticularly, then were open and manifeste to them before Christes most glorious in­carnacion, because the same feithe shall saue vs, whiche saued them then: it must therof clerely folow, that either [Page 22] our sauiour Christe him selfe brought with him no more light of the feithe, that is to saie, he reueled no mo secretꝭ therof, necessarie for our saluacion, then were open and knowne before. Or els if he did (by Frithes no reason) we are not bownde to beleue them: what wicked per­son wold beleue or thinke any of them both, beside Frith? I must nedes excepte hym, because it so foloweth of his owne doctrine. Therfore where the maner of scholes is this, that he whiche maketh an argument, must to con­firme the same, proue the partes therof particularly by them selfes, whiche forme and maner Frith doth here so­phistically pretend to imitate: And for ye profe of his first parte, he hath no more but his allegaciō of saint Austen falsly vnderstande, which maketh for him euen therafter, as thou hast herde, I will now to the second parte of his argumēt, to see what profe he maketh of that: except thou hast yet any thyng els to saie more in this.

HE.

Nothing syr, that I wil yet declare, till I here what ye wil saie to the reste.

Cap. 16.

CATH.

Then the second parte of his argumēt (thou knowest) is this, yt the fathers before Christꝭ incar­nacion, were not bound vnder pein of dānacion to beleue this point of the holy sacrament. Which parte (he saith) is so manifest, that it nedeth no probacion, and two causes why, he dooth allege, wherof the one is, that in their time it was neuer said. And the other is, yt it was neuer done. For without the woorde (he saith) thei coulde haue no feith. Therfore quickely to dispatche the one of them, if he will haue it folowe, that the fathers before Christes incarnacion were not bownde to beleue it, be­cause it was neuer doone in their time: by the same rea­son it muste nedes folowe, that their were not bownde [Page] to beleue, the birthe of Christe, his death, his resurrecti­on, nor his ascencion. For those thynges were neuer done in their tyme nother. Wherfore if thei were not bounde to beleue those articles, it muste also nedes fo­lowe therof, that we are not bounde to beleue them nei­ther, because the same feithe shall saue vs whiche saued them.

HERE.

Sir although these thynges were not doone in their time, yet thei were doone sence.

CATH.

So was the holy sacrament to. Therfore what is that to Frithes purpose? he speaketh of their tyme, and not of any tyme sence. For he goeth aboute to take awaie, our bonde of belefe in the holy sacrament, because (as he saith) the fathers before Christes incarnacion were not bounde to beleue it. And thei were not bownde to be­leue it (he saith) because it was neuer done in their time. And I saie, no more was Christes birth, his passion, his resurrection, nor his ascencion nother. Wherfore (by his doctrine) the fathers were not bownde to beleue them. And by the same rule no more are we, because the same feith shall saue vs, whiche saued them. Ther­fore is not this, that it was neuer doone in their tyme, one good cause why, that this seconde parte of his argu­ment nedeth no probacion? as it nedeth not in deede.

For without fayle it is plaine euil enough, without any probacion at all. And nowe therfore to his other cause, whiche is this, that it was neuer saide in their time: what muste folowe therof?

HERE.

As Frithe dooth saie, that thei were not bownde to beleue it. For with­out the woorde (he saith) thei coulde haue no feithe.

CATH.

Then if he will haue it folow, that the fathers were not bownde to beleue it, because it was neuer saide in their tyme, will it folowe therof, that we are not [Page 23] bownde to beleue it, when we haue not onely herde it saide in our tyme, but also haue it in dede?

HERE.

Ye syr, for the same feithe shall saue vs whiche saued them.

CATH.

Then 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,Mat. 13. 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 [Page] 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 spēde, 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 [Page 24] 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 partꝭ, 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 ye aulter, is not so much as a sacramēt nother, as of his own wordꝭ 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 boūde 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, yt 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 christē 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, [Page] whiche saued the olde fathers before Christꝭ 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 dardanū. &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 [Page 25] is euen this, that the same feith, which the Iewes hath now, shall saue vs: that is to say, without batisme, with­out the beliefe that our sauiour Christ is come, or hath suffered death, or hath risen againe, or hath ascended to heauen, of the which, they beleue not so much as any one. Iudge now thy selfe, whether this bee of trew Lo­gike, or of deceiueable Sophistrie: yea rather of very trew feith, or abhominable heresie: Is it not a proper argument, which can so trie our dewtie in euery article, from one to an other, that without parill of damnation we maie leue our beliefe of them altogether? For sure­ly, and without any doubt, loke how much it maketh a­geinst this article, which he wold ouerthrow, if he might: Euen so much it maketh not onely ageinst many moe directly, but also against them altogether consequently. If it make nothing against all (as I saide before) with­out faile no more doth it against this one: For any thing against this one, and so much against all: Nothing a­gainst all, and as litle against this.

Cap. 18.

HERE.

Well sir, we haue enough of this. And therfore I pray you, let vs here what he bringeth more of saint Austen in other places.

CATH.

Some reason thou semest to require. But yet I wolde first wit of thee, where he had these wordes of saint Austen, which he hath herein thus alleged alredy, and bosteth so much to make for his purpose?

HERE.

He him selfe dooth tell you where, in that he saith ad dardanum, that is to say, in that epistle, which saint austen wrote to one Dardanus.

CATH.

Ye but when Frith dooth allege saint Austen in other places, he dooth allege him in his owne wordes as he wrote them at the first in latine, [Page] and after dooeth translate the same in to Englishe. And therfore why dooth he not here now, euen so likewise?

HERE.

He doth allege him in Englishe.

CATH.

And why not also first in latine?

HERE.

What nede that here, when thenglishe is enough?

CATH.

Why nedeth it not here, as well as in other places, where he dooeth both?

HERE.

It nedeth not in any place, when thengleshe is as good, and dooeth serue the turne as well as the latine. Wherfore there is no mat­ter in this. For it was but as it chaunsed him to dooe.

CATH.

Chaunsed him? Nay my frende thou shalt not excuse hym so. For I will recite vnto the, saint Au­stens owne wordes of the same place my selfe, both in la­tine and also in Englishe. And then tell me how this Reynards allegacion therof, dooth agree withall. For the very wordes of saint Austen speking there, of the sacrament of babtisme, are in latine euen these.

‘Sacramētū porro regenerationis nostre, manifestum esse voluit manifestatus mediator: Erat autē antiquis iustis aliquid occultnm. Cum tamen & illi eadem fide salui fierint, quae fuerat suo tempore reuelanda.’ That is to saie, certeinly, the mediator made manifest, wolde the sacrament of our regeneracion to be manifest For there was something hidde from the old iust men: when for all that, they were saued by the same feith which was to bee reueled, when the tyme therof came. Now marke how Frithes allegacion agreeth with this. For he maketh it in these wordes: The same feith (he saieth) shall saue vs, which saued the olde fathers before Christes incarnacion: how dooeth this and the other, sound and agree? dooeth saint Austen make here any mencion of Christes incarnacion? any mencion of fa­thers [Page 26] any mencion of vs? as this wilie pie dooth chat­ter and clatter vnto vs?

HERE.

Sir although he doth it not directly in proper wordꝭ, yet is it so implied in his saiyng, that it maie well bee gathered therof. For by those olde iust men, he ment the olde fathers. And by the same feith, he ment the feith that saueth vs sence Christꝭ incarnacion. So that all this (I saie) maie well be ga­thered of his saiyng. And according to the same, Frithe dooeth here allege him:

CATH.

Although thou saiest in Frithes behalfe, as much as can be said for him, yet thou must nedes graunt, that the same, that Frith doth here allege, is not the very wordes of saint Austen, but Frithes owne gathering therof, as he him selfe doth take them.

HERE.

What of that?

CATH.

I shall tell the what, thou hast herde enough to perceiue, that his ga­thering is not of saint austens meaning. wherfore it can not be auoided, but he doth here allege saint Austen in that, which saint Austen neuer said, nor ment, when he doth allege him nother in his wordes, as he spake them, nor yet in the sence, that he ment them, but vnder pretēce therof, in his owne proper meaning, according to his false dreamyng and nothing els.

HERE.

Nay sir and ye go so to worke, I must nedes looke better vpon the matter. For where ye saie he doth not allege saint Au­stens wordes, that is not so. For although he dooth not allege them all, yet he dooth allege some of them.

CATH.

Thou saiest well therin▪ For in dede some of a mans wordes, maie so be handled without the rest, that they are enough to inuert and ouerthrow the very right sēce of al the whole tale. And therfore what wordꝭ of saint Austens be those that he dooth here allege?

HE.

That are these: thei wer saued (saith S. Aus.) by the same [Page] feith and the same feith (saith Frith) shal saue vs.

CA.

Callest thou this an allegation of a mans words, which shuld alway bee, but a iust rehersall or a veritall therof, is witnesse, proue, or confirme an other thinge by? For to that purpose, all trew men dooe euermore vse it, and none otherwise. But here thou seest no rehersall at all, but onely an other distinct saiyng: and so distinct, that it differeth in words, it differeth in order, it differeth in sence, it differeth in tyme, it differeth in person, and al­most in euery condicion: so that it may well be denied to be any of saint Austens minde. In so much, that if Frith had le [...]e out, p [...] in, or chaunged, but a worde of sainte Austens saiying, he had yet made therin, but a false alle­gacion. Wherfore now, [...] he changeth in maner no lesse then all together, what shall we saie, but that, vnder the onely colour and pretence of an allegacion, he dooeth falsly belie saint Austen, and nothing els?

HERE.

Sir that foundeth but shrewdly, and therfore I pray you say not so.

CATH.

Why [...]a [...]e not I saie so, as well as he dooeth is? For dooeth he not here [...] father and forge the great profe of his purpose vpon saint Austen? And yet what one word hath he here of saint Austens saiyng but onely this, that he saieth, the same feith? whiche he taketh nother in the same sence, nor order [...]ther, that saint Austen speaketh it in. And therfore dooeth he not lie vpon him, when he saith his purpose maie be proued by him▪ for what can a worde or wordes proue, when they make no perfit sentence? and what perfit sentence maketh these wordꝭ, They were saued by the same feith? But wottest thou why, he handleth the matter after this sort?

HERE.

Why say you?

CATH.

I shall tell the. Frith toke this place of S. Austen, as though it had bene [Page 27] like vnto a snaake: whose venim (men saie) is but in the head and the tayle: whiche beyng cutte away, the reste of the bodie maie well be eaten, as it is said, to be vsed in some countreis. And therfore according to the same, Frith perceiuing the head and taile of this place of saint Austen to be suche, as were enough and able to kyll and destroy the whole pith of his purpose altogether, did in his allegacion cutte them both cleane away: and yet he suspectinge that they wold, at the least, bee missed and asked for, if he shuld haue brought forth all the rest of his bodie, as it is, did also therfore cutte out therof, but this preatie peece (the same feyth) so litle, as wherby it shulde not bee knowen, of what kinde of bodie it was: And so, neither the head, nor the taile be looked for, nor missed nother. For if he had brought forth the whole rest of the bodie together, that is to say, the middle part as it is, and said thus as saint Au­sten doth (they were saued by the same feith) we muste nedes haue required the head of that bodie, and asked of him, which they? For thou maist well perceiue, that saint Austen wold not haue said, they, (which hath rela­cion to some other worde) except he had put somewhat before, vnto the which he dooth referre it. And that was nothinge els, but (as it apereth in his owne plaine wordes) the old iust men, from whom (he saith) there was some thinge hidde. Ageyne likewise, we must haue required also the ta [...]e of that bodie to, and haue asked of him, whiche same feith is that? for this worde, the same, muste nedes bee referred to somewhat, be­fore or after, or els it can haue no sence: And there is nothing before, that it can be referred vnto. wherfore it is declared by that, which commeth after, and that is the [Page] same feith, which (as saint Austen saith) was to be reue­led, when the time therof came. Now for al that this is the principal place of saint Austen, wherin Frith hath his great and most singular trust, for the special defence and chefe profe of his foundacion, yet if there be any sparke of good will and wit in the at all, thou maiest clerely per­ceiue and see, not only how nothing it maketh for him, but also how cleane it maketh directly ageinst him, and ouerthrowth his purpose quite: ye and farder, how in­uincibly it doth declare and proue that to be trew, which I haue said vnto the all reddy concerninge the same. For doubtlesse this is the place (as he saith him selfe) wherof he doth (after his facion) gather and saie, ‘The same feith shall saue vs, which saued the old fathers before Christes incarnacion.’

Where as saint Austen saith, (if thou marke him well) that they were saued, by the same feith, wherin was some thing hidde from them. And againe, by the same feith, which was to bee reueled, when the time therof came: whiche was not in their daies: but (as he saieth) when the mediator was made manifeste, and wolde the sa­crament of our regeneracion to be manifest: And that was not before Christes incarnacion. Wherfore thou maiest now euen here perceiue, by the plaine wordes of saint Austen him selfe, directly against Frithes purpose how the old fathers feith and ours, dooth both differ, and not differ, not differ in respect of the whole, considered in generall: And yet much differre, in respect of the partꝭ considered in speciall. For by the plaine wordes of saint Austen, there was some thinge hidde from them, that is not hidde from vs: And some thing reueled to vs, that was not reueled to them. And yet one and the same feith [Page 28] in respect of the whole confusely together: and not one, nor the same nother, in respect of the partes considered a sonder. Wherfore, of that which was hidde from them, and now reueled vnto vs, why may not this holy sacra­ment, with the beliefe therof be a part, as well as the sa­crament of baptisme is: if there be no reason nor trewth to the contrary, as there is not in dede, where is Frithes foundacion become? Therfore shall I nede now to aske the any more, why Frith doth not here allege saint Au­stens owne wordꝭ, first in latine, and then in English, as he doth in other places, but leaueth them both cleane out as he doth? I thinke thou seest the cause why well e­nough now thy selfe: If not, how saiest thou to such a felow as bringeth in a witnesse, and when the witnesse shuld speake, he will not suffre him to tell his tale?

HE.

I saie he semeth not al the best.

CATH.

Nay, if he seme not to the, a very false harlot, yet will I saie plaine, that he is no lesse, when he trusteth more in the name of his witnesse, then in his tale.

HER.

As ye saie, there is somewhat in that.

CATH.

Then farder, how saiest thou to that felow, which in his cause, wolde pike out such a witnesse for him, as when he commeth to the he­ring, wolde and must nedes tell the tale cleane against him?

HERE.

Mary sir, I say, he were a very foole to those his witnesse so.

CATH.

Yet may his witnesse be wise for all that. And therfore when the one of these fe­lowes plaieth (as thou saiest) the false harlot, and the o­ther the very foole, is it not here properly hādled of Frith alone, to play no lesse, thē both those partꝭ in one? And to haue S. Austen his witnesse in each of them to?

HERE.

How so?

CA:

First it apereth plaine, that S. Austen for his witnesse he bringeth in, and leueth his tale behinde [Page] him cleane, because he wold not haue that come to he­ring in no condicion: For els, he might haue brought them, both together, euen as well the one as the other. But that he wold in no wise dooe, because he knew the name of his witnesse, might in his cause seme to dooe somewhat, where as his very tale withall, could in dede dooe nothing, but mar altogether. And therfore to brag out the matter, forth he commeth with his bare witnesse whom he kepeth cleane in silence, as vntrustie to talke in his cause, while he telleth of his owne head, all the whole tale, and maketh vp the euidence him selfe. Wherfore because he faceth vs after this sorte, saiyng, ‘The firste parte of mine argumente is proued by sainte Austen ad Dardanum. And I dare boldly saie almoste in an hundreth places. For I thinke there bee no pro­posicion, whiche he dooeth more often inculcate then this, that the same feith saueth vs, whiche saued our fathers.’

I say, because he faceth vs after this sorte, with such a worthy credible witnesse, and yet, when all com­meth to all, wolde not suffre vs, (by his will) to here him speake, nor him, as who saie, to tell his owne tale, nother in this named, nor yet in any other of those hundreth incertaine places beside, what shall we, or can we make of hym els, but euen as he ma­keth of him selfe, a very false harlot in deede? And therfore as towchinge the other parte of his plaie; what a foole was he, to chose saint Austen among all other, to bee his witnesse herein? when there was none more vnmete for his purpose then he, as belike he did suspect, and yet wold haue him neuerthelesse, for his foolishe phāsie: trusting that with the sound of his name to do somewhat: whereas with his whole saiyng [Page 29] he coulde doe nothynge: But yet notwihstande all his great shifte made, to kepe hym from herynge, (wherein he sheweth hym selfe as he is) yet was he brought by meane vnto it at laste, and then tolde his tale so directly, against the peruers purpose of Frithes wicked folie, that nothyng could be saide more plaine to the contrarie, as thou hast nowe herde thy selfe alredie. Wherfore con­sider, that thou haste here nowe, for one pece of thy frendꝭ falshed, suche a manifeste profe, as I dare saie nother thou, nor any frende that he hath beside, is able to caste any colour of excuse therupon: excepte it be, with tushe tushe, no no, or some other wriglynge and startlynge talke, from one thynge to an other, till vndiscussed the matter be wrapte vp euen all confusely together, as your common practise is alwaie to dooe: Therfore let this be sufficient, as it is in dede, to knowe what he is.

Cap. 19.

HERE.

Naie sir not so. For he wolde not call it the very foundacion of all his matter, if he had not somewhat els, to make for hym then all this.

CA.

I praie thee what is that?

HE.

No lesse then an other saiynge of saint Austen, whiche maketh as well for hym as any thyng that ye herde yet.

CA.

I thinke thou saidest not a trewer worde to daie.

HE.

Naie sir, I wot what you meane by that wel enough: but I meane this, that it maketh for him very wel.

CA.

Who wold beleue that, knowyng so much as thou hast herde?

HE.

That is no matter saint Austens woordes (he saith) be these. ‘As many as in that māna, did vnderstande Christe, did eate the same spirituall meate that we dooe. But as ma­ny as sought onely to fill and satisfie their hunger with that māna, did eate and are deade. And likewise the same drinke. For the stone was Christe.’

CATH.
[Page]

What I praie thee, will Frith make of this?

HERE.

Mary sir ye shall here his owne woordes.

‘Here you maie gather (he saith) of saint Austen, that the māna was vnto them, as the breade is vnto vs. And like­wise that the water was to them, as the wyne is to vs: whiche anone shall appere more plainly.’

CA.

So it had nede. For he sendeth vs here to a ga­therynge, wherin I see not what we can gather more trewly, then euen the same of him, that we haue gathe­red before.

HERE.

No sir, for he dooth alege, that saint Austen saith furder these woordes: ‘Moyses also did eate manna, Aron, and Phinees did eate of it: and many other did there eate of it, whiche pleased god, and are not deade. Why so? Because thei vnder­stode the visible meate spiritually. Thei were spiritually an hungered, thei tasted it spiritually, that thei might spiritually be replenished: thei did all eate the same spiri­tuall meate, and all did drinke the same spiritual drinke, Euen the same spirituall meate, albeit an other bodely meate. For thei did eate manna: and we eate an other thynge: but thei did eate the same spiritual, whiche we dooe. And thei all dranke the same spiritual drinke. Thei dranke one thynge, and we an other, but that was in the outwarde apparence: whiche for all that did signifie the same thing spiritually, how dranke thei the same drinke? Thei (saith the apostle) dranke of the spirituall stone folo­wyng them, and that stone was Christe.’

Now sir al this doth he allege of saint Austen.

CA.

Yea, but doest thou recite it trewly, as he doth allege it?

HE.

Euen as he doth translate it out of latine into englishe, looke in his booke when ye will. And therfore what saie ye to it?

CA.

This same I sai to it, that al this same dif­ficultee of this same point, after this same maner, is put this same waie, clene out of doubte, if men take this same trewth, as it is in dede, yt this same errour, of this same felow, made hym of this same blindnesse, that he was of [Page 30] this same iugemēt, that this same worde, the same: could none otherwise be vnderstande, but euen the same waie, that he thought the same shuld draw men, from the same feith, which al trew christen people doth holde, & bringe them into the same heresie, whiche the same Frith hym selfe doth teache. And all this same (I saie) did he, by rea­son of this same worde the same. For is he not as one in a maze, now in the same path, where he began? And ther­fore euen iuste in the same case, that he was than? For is there any other cause, why he doth allege these wordes of saint Austen, but that he saith thei did eate and drinke the same spiritual meate & drynke, that we dooe? For what if saint Austen had put this worde: an other: in the place of this woorde the same? or els had left them both cleane out?

HE.

Sir that had ben an other matter: it had bene then, nothyng for Frithes purpose. And therfore he wolde not alleged it, if it had ben so.

CA.

Thou saist very trew. And therfore all that semeth herein, any thyng to make for him, thou maiest well perceiue, doth only reste (as I saide) in this same woorde, the same. And haste thou not herde enough, what a proper principle it is, beyng vnde­fined, to proue or conclude any thyng by? Neuerthelesse, Whē Frith him selfe doth take this same spiritual meate and drynke, to be the bodie & bloode of Christe, as in the iiii. leafe of his booke, his owne wordes therof are these, This Abraham (he saith) did both eate his bodie and' drynke his bloode, through feith.'

I wolde therfore wit of hym, whether he take the same meate, & drinke, to be only spiritual & not corporal: or els both spiritual & also corporal?

HE.

He doth take it to be both, & so do I.

CA.

As how?

HE.

Euen as he doth here allege of. S. Aust. yt thei did eate māna, and we an other thīg? which thingꝭ are both corporal, wherein, that same, [Page] which thei did, and we dooe eate, is one spirituall meate: And therfore that, whiche thei did, and we dooe eate, is both spirituall and corporall.

CATH.

Thou plai­est Frith with me now in dede. For my question is one, and thou answerest me to an other. I aske not of their corporall meate, nor of ours nother, whiche to them was, and to vs is, subiecte to the eie, and other outwarde sences: but I aske onely of the spirituall meate, whiche was to them and is to vs (as saint Austen saith) all one and the same. Therfore whether that be onely 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?1. Co. 15

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 [Page 31] 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. [Page] 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:
[Page 32]wdich will make thē 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 rēneth 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 ye maner of his allegacion of saint Austen, in these two later places, yet because he hath no reason to lay to the contrary but yt thei make no lesse thē far frō his purpose, I wil passe thē ouer with yt I haue said alredie, & go to that, which he brī ­geth in of. S. Beda: whose few wordꝭ 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 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 [Page 33] 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 [Page] 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: [Page 35] 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 those .xii. articles,2. Pe [...] whiche he saith are onely [Page] necessarie vnto saluacion. And to bee shorte, we maie denie by his doctrine all the whole scripture, those .xii. articles of our Crede excepted, if thei onely (as he saith) be necessarie vnto saluacion. For what so euer is not ne­cessarie to saluaciō, maie be vnbeleued without any dan­ger of damnacion. This doth he somwhat more plainly declare immediately hym selfe saiynge these woordes: ‘But the other pointes conteined in scripture, although thei be vndoubted veritees, yet maie I be saued without them.’

What is, this same, saued without them, but saued with­out the belefe of them? That is to saie, although thei be neuer so trewe, and that of moste worthie thynges.

Yet I nede not beleue them. Therfore when he noteth, all Christen princes, and all Christen people, to bee madde, for their belefe, whiche thei haue in the blessed sacrament: how muche maie we note him, more then madde, that will beleue and so saie, that he maie be sa­ued without the belefe of all or any veritees conteined in scripture, beside those same .xii. expressed in the Crede?

HERE.

Sir I suppose that Frithe wolde soone auoide all these absurdites, whiche ye dooe gather to folowe of his woordes: and saie that the veritee of Christes equa­litee with the father, and suche other veritees, as ye speake of, are priuelie conteined in the .xii. articles of our Crede, & beleued in them, although thei do not ther­in, expressely and distinctly apere.

CATH.

Naie naie countreie man, neuer suppose, that he wolde saie so. For then wolde I quickely aunswere hym and saie, as the trewthe is in dede, that the veritee of this holie sacra­ment, which he denieth, is one of them, and that it was conteined and hidde in the olde fathers feith, as many [Page 34] other veritees were confusely, to be reueled and brought to light distinctly, when their time therof should come, which was by the comyng of our sauiour Christe. Ther­fore with this, Frithes mowthe were soone stopte, if he wolde saie so. But he was ware of this well enoughe: And prouided for it therafter, that men shoulde not take hym so to meane. For els when he saith those articles onely, are necessarie to saluacion, he wolde not haue ad­ded this vnto it, saiyng: ‘The other pointes conteined in scripture, although thei be vndoubted veritees, yet maie I bee saued without them.’

Therfore who hath hearde of suche a doctour, that will not denie, but all the pointes of scripture, are vndoubted veritees: And yet will holde, that we are not bownde to the belefe of any moe of them but onely twelue? I coulde neuer here of any veritee of the scripture (as there be in it none other) but who so euer wolde not be­leue it, he was vtterly therin no lesse then an heritike: But this man is, and so teacheth other to be, at libertee with them all, onely twelue excepte.

HERE.

It maie so bee, well enough, in certaine cases.

CATH.

What cases, I praie thee be thei?

HERE.

He dooth forthwith declare .ii. or .iii. him selfe.

CATH.

Then let me here them.

HERE.

Thei be euen these.

As be it in case (he saith) that I neuer herde of them.'

There is one.

Or when I here of them, I can not vnderstande them,' nor comprehende them.'

There is an other

Or that I here them, and vndestande them, and yet' by reason of an other texte misconstrew them.'

There is the thirde.

CATH.
[Page]

A, bee these the cases, wherin men be not bounde to beleue any veritees of scripture mo then those xii. expressed in the Crede?

HERE.

So saith he.

CATH.

Then saie I, that if thou marke it well in his firste and seconde case ioigned together, he dooeth put, whether he dooe heare them, or not here them. And in the seconde, and thirde case, whether he vnderstande them or not vnderstande them: So that he dooth not put these cases, but onely to thintente that in euery case, he might auoide and cleane exclude, the nede of all the veri­tees of scripture, saue onely twelue. For when he saieth he maie be saued without them, whether he here them or here them not: and whether he vnderstande them, or vnderstande them not. And therfore after his owne doctrine, whether he beleue them, or beleue them not? What nede maketh he of any of them all, but meneth a­waie with them clene in euery condicion. For if he maie be saued without them (as he saith he maie) then it is clere, that he hath no nede of them. If he haue no nede of them: doubtles he hath no nede to beleue them. Ther­fore if he haue no nede to beleue them: in very dede, he hath lesse nede to vnderstande them (for more necessarie is belefe, then is vnderstandynge in thynges of our feith) and therfore if he nede not beleue them, nor vnderstande them, plaine it is, that he nedeth not so much as here thē (for what shuld he here, that he nedeth not beleue) Ther­fore if he nede not so muche as here them, he hath vtterly no nede of them at all: if he haue no nede of them at all: then be thei (as he wolde make them in dede) no partes of the feithe at all: excepte he will saie (as he dooth so muche as it cometh to) that all the most parte of the feith nede not to be herde: And consequently, nor beleued no­ther. [Page 37] Thus are we clerely discharged of all the veri­tees of scripture, saue onely twelue in euery condicion wherof he might be asked this prety question, why thei were writen? But how so euer this diuelishe doctrine behaueth it selfe: what other thing is the feithe of Christ, but all the veritees of scripture? And contrary wise, what other thyng are all the veritees of scripture, but the feith of Christe? Therfore when all the veritees of scrip­ture, are conteined in the feith of Christe (as it is one of them so to beleue) And the feith of Christe (as I shewed thee yesterdaie) can not bee trewly had, but all whole together: It muste nedes folowe, that who so euer hath trewly the feith of Christe, hath also therin no lesse then all the veritees of scripture. Fals therfore is the doctrine of Frith, that saieth, we maie be saued without them all, saue only twelue: when the feith cannot be trewly had, without them all. More ouer, how saiest thou to this: is it not a necessarie veritee vnto saluacion, to beleue that the commaundementes of god are good, and ought to be kepte?

HERE.

Sir what question is that: there is no man dooeth doubte therin.

CATH.

And is there any perell in it, if a man dooe not so beleue it?

HERE.

In very dede no lesse then damnable.

CATH.

Take hede, perchaunce thou wotest nere what thou saiest.

HERE.

Why what?

CATH.

Vtterly that Frith is a fals lier: when he saith, those articles of our Crede, are onely ne­cessarie vnto saluacion. For which is it of those .xii. to beleue, that the commaundementes of god be good, and ought to be obserued and kepte, or that there is any pe­rill in it: if 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) [Page] 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 commaundementꝭ 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 whē he saith, in the other is no perill, so that we haue a probable reason to dissent from thē, 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 frō any veritees most special & aboue al, frō 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 [Page] 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 condi [...]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.

[Page 39]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.Mat. [...]

[Page]But as that Herode missed his purpose of that one, whō 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 perditiō) be but a meane of bringing thē to a more clere light of knowlage in many one thē 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 cōtrary. That Herode, sent men to find him where he was not, but this Herod sēdeth men to lese him where he is. Also that Herod laboured to make him be takē, but this Herode, laboured to make him forsakē. 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,

[Page 40]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 [Page] 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▪ 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 wordꝭ 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 mēt 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 [Page 39] 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 godꝭ worde? therfore what is any verite of scripture, but the verite of godes word? And what probable reasō is that, which ledeth one to dissent frō any veritee of godꝭ word, but only ye falsitee of ye diuels worde? Yet herein, saith Frith, there is no pe­ril. This thou seest, he moueth vs vnto. For with a proba­ble reasō (he saith) we may without any peril, dissent frō 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, [Page] 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 godꝭ 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 ignorātly 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 reasō 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 miscōstruing 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 thē we shal be [Page 42] 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 vnderstāding 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 miscōstruction, which is the great enemy of them both, to be as a stickeler betwene them: wherfore of the other side, if he meane yt the verite of this [Page] 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 vnderstāding, which can not be. Therfore whether the trewth of this other text, yt Frith speaketh of, be vnderstād or not vnderstād, 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 [Page 41] 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 nowe.

Cap. 25.

CATH.

Tawnte or tawnte not, thou shalt neuer fynde, how he can otherwise ioigne them together when thou haste all doone. And therfore, as a man so trowbled and tyred with this case of his owne, that he woteth nere whiche waie to turne hym, he geueth it ouer quite, and falleth to an other matter, euen with these woordes: ‘But nowe to returne (he saith) to our purpose, if we will examine the authoritees of saint Austen, & Beda before alleged, we shall espie, that beside the probacion of this foresaide proposicion: thei open the misterie of all our matter, to them that haue eien to see:’

(Those he meaneth, whiche are as blynde as he.)

‘For saint Austen saith (saith he) that we and the olde fa­thers dooe differ, as touchynge the bodily meate. For thei eate manna, and we breadde.’

Now countreiman, because thou didst after his allegaci­on recite the woordes of saint Austen vnto me thy selfe. I praie thee hertily therfore remembre them well, and tell me trewly, whether saint Austen spake there, so muche as any woorde of bread, as this felow dooth now reporte hym.

HERE.

Sir therin to confesse the trewth, [Page] saint Austen saith, that the fathers did eate manna, and we an other thynge. But in dede he hath not there this same woorde bread.

CATH.

Thou maiest see therfore what a iuste parte gentle Frieth plaith herein with saint Austen. He thought this woorde bread, wolde sownde somewhat more for his purpose, then this woorde an o­ther thyng: whiche in dede soundeth towarde it nothyng at all. And therfore in the stede therof, in with breade he cometh, but not by and by immediatly after he reher­seth the woordes of saint Austen: but longe after. For had he brought it in streight waie, while the woordes of saint Austen were in the minde of the reader: he wist wel enough, it wolde then be soone perceiued and taken, not like a pointe of falshed, but euen as it is, for very one and the selfe same in dede. and therfore he falleth first in to a longe bablyng of his owne phantasticall inuencion. And afterwarde, when he supposeth the wordes of saint Au­sten somewhat growne out of remembraunce with the reader:

Then, in cometh the baker with his mustie bread,
And that he dooth only, euen of his owne head
without cause or requeste, made of any man,
But onely in liyng, to shew what he can.
wherfore in fewe woordes, by my very assent,
He shall for his great labour, be this content:
what so euer other men saie, or will thinke,
To take his bread with hym, and goe ere he drinke.
HERE.

What sir me thinke ye fall to rymyng againe.

CATH.

In very dede, if thou were, so able to weigh and consider how wylie and foolishe his falshed is, as some men are and doth in dede, I doubte not, but thou woldest saie thy selfe, that rimynge onely, were good e­nough [Page 44] for hym, although it were (as it is not here) with­out bothe reason and trewthe. For he that vseth, (where alwaie two of them ought to be) nothyng els but falshed in dede, Is not euen the least of them three, more then enough, and to good for hym? How false dooth he apere once againe, in this reporte that he maketh here nowe of saint Austen? For coulde not saint Austen hym selfe haue put in this woorde bread: as well as this woorde, an other thynge? if he had so ment, or had not seene some good cause to the contrarie? was his minde so oc­cupied in treatynge only of this matter, that he had for­gotten the proper name of bread, whiche was moste present redie and apte to be thought vpon in this case? or coulde he not call that woorde to remembrance: be­cause it was so strange and farre out of vse? He sticketh not at manna, but directly expresseth it with the proper name therof: why staieth he at this woorde bread, more then at that? was it more strange and farder out of vse, then the manna was? why dooeth he touche this, with no proper name: but with a woorde commune, and indifferent, in maner to all thynges? wolde he refraine so redy a thynge, and see no cause why? if he sawe any, what was that? Frith will not put that in question vnto vs: he wolde not here of it: he had leuer haue vs forget it: it maketh not for his purpose, as hereafter it shal well apere.

HERE.

Yet sir in some other places, seint Austen hym selfe dooth call it bread plainly.

CA.

Why therfore, dooth Frith allege him so here, where he dooth not so cal it: & will not allege hym there, where he doth call it so? what meneth he by that? doth it signifie nothyng? I wil wel, that saint Austen so doth call it: & that diuers times: but yet neuer without suche a certaine conuenient [Page] circumstance with all, as declareth what he meaneth by it: whiche circumstance, Frith perceiueth to make no lesse agaynst hym, then this woorde breade, semeth to sownde with hym. And therfore because the woorde and that circumstance, he can not fynde in saint Austen ason­der, he therfore hym selfe, wolde plante the one, in some other corner alone: as thou seest hym here, this craftily assaie, where he dooeth knowe, that circumstance to bee awaie: And therfore this hast thou herde a great parte of the very thynge I maie saie vnto thee, whiche (as he saith) dooeth open the misterie of all his matter, to them that haue eien to see: Although he meaneth but those (as I tolde thee before) whiche are as blinde as he: wher­fore, hast thou not nowe, euen more then enough, to per­ceiue what a goodly foundacion of his this is, to builde any good woorke vpon?

Cap. 26.

HERE.

To saie the trewthe, if it be no better then ye make it, he hath not leide it so depely as I thought he had done:

CATH.

Naie saie not so, for he hath leide it no lesse depe, I maie saie to thee, then euen downe to the diuell hym selfe: And therfore fynde thou no lacke in the depenesse therof: for deper could no man laie it in dede, then he hath done: And yet not withstan­dynge that, and all that I haue declared therof beside: Beholde how he glorieth therin, and what a face he set­teth vpon it, as though there were no suche matter at all: for in his preface and firste lefe of his booke, where he speaketh of his first treatise, whiche he wrote in hucker-mucker, and not (as he confesseth hym selfe) to be publi­shed abrode, he hath these woordes: ‘But nowe it is commune (he saith) abrode in many [Page 45] mens mowthes, in so muche that maister Moore whiche of late hath busied him selfe, to meddle in al such matters (of what zeale I will not difine) hath sore laboured to con­fute it, but some men thinke that he is ashamed of his parte.’

And a little after, he addeth vnto it these woordes.

‘But this I am right sure of, that he neuer towched the foundacion that my treatise was builded vpon. And ther­fore sith my foundacion standeth so sure, and inuinsible (for els I thinke verely he wolde sore haue laboured to haue vndermined it) I will therupon, builde a little more: and also declare that his ordinance is to sclender to breake it downe although it were set vpon a wors foun­dacion.’

Whiche I saie is not possible to be had: and yet for all that in the thirde lefe. his woordes therof be these: ‘This was (he saith) the foundacion of my firste trea­tise, that he hath lefte vnshaken: whiche is a great argument that it is very trew. For els his pregnant wit coulde not haue passed it so clene ouer. But wolde haue assailed it with some sophisticall cauellacion whiche by his painted poetree, he might so haue coloured: that at the leste he might make the ignorant some apparence of trewthe, as he hath done against the residew of my firste treatise, whiche neuertheles is trew, & shall so be proued.’ How it proueth, thou hast had a good saie therof alredie: And yet beholde (as I saide) how he glorieth therin, as though it were in very perfection, moste suer and inuin­sible: in so muche, that with those termes he bosteth and setteth it out (as here thou seest) to the vttermoste: when it is in dede no lesse, but euen as farre behinde, as he wolde set it forwarde. And as for that he saith here, of maister Moore, euery man knoweth of his notable worthinesse, what a singular man he was, both of witte and learnynge, and yet marke how lewdly this felowe d [...]oth here vse hym with nothynge els, but very mockes [Page] tauntes, and checkes, thinkyng therby to deface him, and set out hym selfe: but whiche waie that turneth, I sup­pose it no nede to tell thee: Therfore I praie thee tell me, how cometh this to passe? that one hauyng not halfe the witte or lernyng, that Frith was thought to haue, before he fell to these foolish, fonde, wicked, and erroneous opini­ons: can soone perceiue so muche folly and falshed in his booke, that there is in maner no lefe without it, and yet he hym selfe, coulde see therof nothynge at all? how (I saie) cometh this to passe? Maie we not thinke, that he met with that facultee, whiche causeth it to bee trewly saide of some man, that the lenger he liueth, the more foole he wexeth? That is to saie the more he taketh of it, the les witte he hath? for if he sawe any falshed ther­in, then went he wittyngly aboute to deceiue men: if he sawe none, wherin is so muche: what bitter smooke so troubled his eies, that he coulde not espie some parte therof? was he not taken (trowest thou) into the wes­warde tuicion, of that darke and inuisible tutour, whiche (for all thy saing) caused hym therin to wander, he wi [...] nere whether? howe maie we thinke otherwise, if we with diligence prepende well the matter? For the very trewthe to saie (as I tolde thee before, and nowe also againe, to thintent thou shuldest the better here it awaie, and kepe it in mynde) if the diuell hym selfe, were at the libertee, to be incarnate: And euen so to come amonge vs, onely to entice and lede vs from the belefe of any article of our feithe, let me see, how it were possible, for that father and fountaine of all craftie falshed, to in­vente for that purpose any maner of deceiueable wyle, comparable to this, whiche we fynde in Frith? That is to wit, to beare vs in hande, that it is indifferent, and at [Page 46] our owne libertee, to beleue it or not: there is no perill in the matter, take whiche parte we luste: for, by this per­swasion, how many trewe men is there in a lande, tow­ched with neuer so litell a nede, that might not soone, be brought to stealyng, if thei were borne in hande, & so per­swaded to thinke in dede, that it were an acte indifferent and without al maner of perill to them that wolde vse it? Ye what maner of euils are thei, whiche some men (now full honeste) wolde then forbeare and refraine, if thei thought, were therin to them no daunger? or whiche waie might thei so easely be led vnto them, as to be stif­ly so borne in hande? ye make them but once beleue that, and lede them no farder: for it shal then, be no nede at al. a meruailous zeale of iustice hath he, that wolde not sone plaie the thiefe at a companions requeste, if he were once brought in opinion, that therin could be, to him no ma­ner of peril. Thus lerned Frith (of whom so euer he was taught) to perceiue, that he had a wonderous fast feith in this blessed sacrament, whiche wolde not sone be content to leue it, if he were once brought in opinion, that therin could come vnto him no maner of displeasure. he saw it a matter of most difficulte, to make Christen people leue any part of their feith directy: but he saw it agein, a mat­ter as easy, if thei might once be made beleue to be no pe­ril therin, if thei so did: full well he wist, bring them once to that opinion, and let them then alone them selfes. For it shulde be enough, with the helpe of his owne doctour of darkenesse, whiche taught hym this lesson: for doubtles from whence it came, the thyng it selfe, doth shew and de­clare: wherfore of this his moste perillous, crafty & wic­ked wilines in this cace, let this, with yt I said therof be­fore, be a sufficient occasion for the, wel to prepēde, marke [Page] and consider, bothe what it is, and wherof it came: For the more thou thinke vpon it, the more thou shalt see in it: And the more thou shalt see in it, The more (I dare well saie) thou shalt mislyke it: ye and at lengthe, euen abhorre it:

HE.

Ye dooe what ye can, to make a man abhorre it in dede:

CATH.

If I dooe otherwise, I shoulde not dooe well: And therfore take thou good hede vnto it, for it standeth thee so in hande:

HERE.

Whe­ther it dooe or not, I wyll not forget what ye saie.

Cap. 27.

CATH.

Then of the other side, to growe to an ende for this tyme, what shall I saie, more then I haue done, of his moste fonde, foolishe, and blinde falshed? whiche apereth so plaine, in euery thynge, that he medleth withall, that I can not well tell, what to saie more, but that I am sure thou neuer sawest nor herdest of the lyke, nor no man els. For who but he, in a matter of our feithe, wolde graunt vs a libertee to be­leue that, whiche he hym selfe, doothe not onely, not beleue, but also stifly holde and saie, that it is false, and no suche thynge in dede? And yet for all that, saie, that it is an article of our feithe to.

HERE.

What sir, ye ouercharge hym nowe to farre: for there is no man so madde, (I thinke) as to speake thynges, after suche a sorte:

CATH.

If thou haddest excepted hym, I wolde graunte the fame.

HERE.

Naie I wyll not excepte hym, nor no man els herein.

HERE.

Then againste hym, let vs take none other, but euen he hym selfe to witnesse. For in the laste lefe of his booke, where he calleth the changeyng of the substance of bread & wyne into the very flesh & blood of our sauiour Christe, [Page 47] at the time of the holy consecration therof, the opinion of the prelates, as though it were but their opinion, and nothing els, his owne wordes be these.

‘The cause why I can not (he saieth) beleue their opinion of transmutacion, is this, first because I thinke verily that it is false, and can not bee proued by scripture nor feithful doctours, if they be well pondered.’

Here thou feest plain of his own wordes, that he taketh this article to be vtterly false, And yet he geueth vs li­bertee and leue to beleue it neuerthelesse: as it may and doth well apere, by this, that he (saiyng, neither parte ought to dispise other) will no more reprehende vs ther­in, then he wolde that we shuld reprehende hym in the contrary. For each (he saith) seketh the glory of god: And therfore by that (as I towld the before) the one in a trew feith & the other in a false, for both can not be trew. Wherfore beside this, the very same, which he doth here sai in plaine wordꝭ, that he thinketh verely to bee false, he cōfesseth it as plaine, to be an article of our feith, saiyng, ‘Though it be an article of our feith, it is none of our Creede.’

Therfore by this it is clere, that although he denieth it an article of our crede. yet he confesseth it an article of our faith.

HERE.

Ye but not necessary to be beleued the saith) vnder payne of damnation.

CATH.

Whe­ther it be vnder that paine or no: yet an article of our feith (as ye trewth is in dede) he saith it is: And therfore say I, necessary to, for els it were but vaine and su­perfluous, which to beleue, were shame vnto vs, and dis­shonour to our feith, that it shulde conteine any such thing.

HERE.

Sir now I perceiue that ye do not take this, that Frith dooth say (not necessary) as he dooth meane it.

CATH.

How is that?

HERE.

[Page]He meaneth it for indifferent and nothing els: for in the laste leafe of his boke saue one, his woordes thereof be these.

‘I thinke many men wonder (he saith) how I can die in this article, seying that it is no necessarie article of our feith: I graunt that neither parte is an article necessa­ry to bee beleued vnder paine of damnacion, but leue it as a thinge indifferent, to thinke therin as god shal instill in euery mans mynde, and that neither part condemne other for this matter, but each receiue other in bro­therly loue.’

Here you may perceiue that he meaneth by this worde, not necessary, nothing els but indifferencie.

CATH.

I can the thanke, it is a place well place out: wher­in strife, consider vpon what to quest he maketh his graunte. And after that, when he saieth, I leue it as a thinge indifferente, tell me what meaneth he, by this same woorde, it? saiyng I leue it.

HERE.

He meaneth the same that goeth before, when he saith, neither parte is an article necessary. &c.

CATH.

Then the sence of his words must nedes be this, that he leaueth it, that is to say, neither parte, as a thing indifferent: wherfore if he leaue neither part, as a thing indifferent, then he leaueth both partes as thinges necessary: if he leue them both as thinges necessary, Then (to vn­derstande the best therof) he leaueth the one parte necessarie to bee taken, and the other as necessarie to be forsaken, because the one is trew and the other false. And therfore, where is nowe his indifferencie become, that thou speakest of? or where is his principall purpose become, but by this cleane ouerthrowne?

HERE.

I ne­uer herd one, turne a mans tale as ye do.

CATH.

why so?

HERE.

Because ye haue brought it cleane out [Page 48] of his meaning, and directly against the purpose he spea­keth it for, as it dooth well apere: for ye maie bee suer, he ment not so.

CA.

How then?

HE.

His mea­nyng is this, that neither parte, that is to say, neither of both partes, is an article necessary to be beleued vnder paine of damnation, but each of them, is to bee lefte as a thing indifferent to thinke therin as god shall instill in euery mans mynde.

CATH.

And is this, his very meaning thinkest thou?

HERE.

It can bee none otherwise?

CATH.

Then this indifferencie he meaneth not to be of neither part: But to be of both partꝭ

HERE.

What els?

CATH.

which both are they?

HE.

Both his part and yours.

HERE.

His and ours, are cleane contrary.

HERE.

That is plaine.

CATH.

And euen therfore so plaine is this, that the one is trew, and the other false.

HERE.

That can not be denied.

CATH.

Therfore this must nedes be graunted, that here he leaueth plaine, both trewth and falshed at liber­tee, to bee taken or forsaken, euen together indiffe­rently: and in the ende knitteth vp the knot, with the request of a brotherly loue, to bee had betwene them. Wherfore hast thou herde of suche a stickler betwene trewth and falshed as this is? who wolde venture so arduous a matter, but he alone? how be it, his courage was suche, that when he sawe betwene trewth and falshed, that is to say betwene god and the diuell, so great a controuersie, as yet was neuer at reste, he thinking therin to winne his spurres, wold nedes as a man indifferent, take vp the matter betwene them, and make them shake handes, with a brotherly loue. But yet because his indifferencie was in this matter suche, as did put no difference betwene those parties which are [Page] of so great and [...] difference that is possible to be, Go [...] wole therfore in no wife haue him of his side, but refu­sed him so cleane, that he had ben yet, as a masterlesse vacab [...]nd, if he had not ben taken into seruice of the o­ther side.

HERE.

What sir me thinke ye talke your pleasure now at large.

CATH.

In very deede no more at large, then thoccasion therof doth iustly require: for without question he was farre to parciall of the wrong side, to supple trewth and falshed together, with the straite narowe yoke of indifferencie: he had forgotte the gospell, wherin trewth it selfe doth say, qui non est mecum, Mat. 12. contra me est: That is to say, he that is not with me, is against me: wherin we finde no meane a­lowed. Neuerthelesse although it be impossible for this same, with me, and against me, to ioygne together by any meane in bede, yet Frith not therwith content, wold nedes thrust in no lesse then euen indifferencie, as a meane betwene them for all that, and so, couple them together according to his fantasie. But how he sped withall, somewhat thou feest, and more thou shalte: for what if I lay to his charge, that he doth here impute vnto God, thynstilling as well of falshed, as of trewth into mens mindes?

HERE.

It shall not skyll what ye lay to his charge, so ye proue it not in deede.

Cap. 28.

CATH.

Let me see how thou canst herin defende him. For doth he not say, I leue it as a thing indif­ference, to thinke 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? [Page 49] 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 [Page] 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 partꝭ of his beliefe and ours, in this article of the holy sa­cramente, wherof the one is trew, and the other false. And those two partꝭ 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▪ 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.

[Page 50]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 nedꝭ 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 nedꝭ 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 [Page] 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 yet wolde I appose him for al that, in one cause more, why he did thus diuide al the other veritees of scrip­ture from those .xii. of the Crede?

HE.

Is there an other cause therof yet?

CA.

ye that there is.

HE.

I pray you what is that?

CA.

In the last leafe of his boke, his owne wordꝭ doth well declare, which are euen these.

‘There are many veritees (he saieth) which are no such ar­ticles of our feith.’

HE.

Is this all?

CA.

Nay not so But first what arti­cles meaneth he, by these, no such?

HE.

No such as [Page 42] be of our Crede.

CATH.

Well saide. And what ve­titees dooth he meane here, that maie be no suche arti­cles?

HERE.

All the other veritees of scripture.

CATH.

Then here his woordes againe, with those that foloweth, and therin let them be iudge. for ‘There are (he saith) many veritees whiche yet maie bee no suche articles of our feithe. It is trewe that I laie in yrons, when I wrote this. how be it I wolde not receiue this trewthe for an article of our feithe: for you maie thinke the contrarie without all ieoperdie of damnacion:’ Nowe consider all this well together, and thou maiest soone perceiue, that this same exaumple of his imprison­ment, dooth clerely shewe, that he meaneth not here, by these same veritees that he speaketh of, any veritees of scripture, but the veritees of all other thynges, whiche veritees in general, with the veritee of his imprisonment inspeciall, he bryngeth for example, how he wolde haue vs take all the veritees of scripture saue twelue. For as the veritee of his imprisonment, maie be no suche article of our feithe, as those be of our Crede, Euen so after the same sorte, wolde he haue all those other veritees of scrip­ture, to be no such articles of our feithe nother: But the veritee of his imprisonment, and all other of that sorte beside, are not onely no suche, but vtterly no articles of our feithe in dede, wherfore no more wolde he haue all the veritees of scripture, scantly those twelue excepte of the Crede: And yet before this, he lefte those other veri­tees of scripture as articles indifferent: But now he wil haue them, other none articles of our feithe at all, or els the veritees of all other thynges, to bee articles of our feithe euen as well as the: Therfore what wonder is it, though he thus diuide all the other veritees of scrip­ture, as of an other kinde from the veritees of the Crede, [Page] when thei be with him of no more estimacion, then be all such other veritees, as (for example) the steple of Paules is higher then the crosse in chepe? And because the veri­tee therof is none article of our feithe, for all it is a veri­tee in dede: Therfore by his plaine exaumple, no more wolde he haue all the veritees of scripture, sauing onely those expressed in the Crede: were not a man happie thinkest thou, to mete with suche a doctour, to teche him his feithe? dooest thou not perceiue the mighty power and strengthe of this veritee, whiche he wolde so faine ouerthrowe, when it geueth him so shamefull faules, in euery wicked wile, that he dooth attempte against it?

‘It is trewe (he saith) that I laie in yrons when I wrote this: how be it I wolde not receiue that trewthe for an article of our feithe.’

And yet without faile when he said so, he went more nere to make it one, then he was ware of him selfe: for he went so nere it, that he brought it within one worde of it: In so much, that if he had put in (as the trewth required) but this same worde (worthely) more then he did, & said, it is trew that I lay worthely in yrons whē I wrot this, without question, it had ben then so nere an article of our feith in dede, That who so euer wolde not beleue it (kno­wing the matter) thei could not be, but in great ieoperdie of damnacion. For doubtles those that thinke hym vn­worthily prisoned, knowing the cause why, be of the same most damnable opinion, that he was of him selfe, god of his great mercy graunt them sone to amende it: for how damnable that opinion is, it maie well and sufficiently apere, and it were but by these his reasons (as to some thei seme) which we haue discussed hitherto alredie: how be it, god willynge, in the residewe yet to come, it shall [Page 52] be no doubte to the most affectionate frendꝭ that he hath: onely those excepte, whiche gate it by the same meane, and holdeth it by the same tenour, that he came by it and helde it him selfe.

HERE.

Well sir, if there bee no better meanyng in Frithes woordes, then ye haue de­clared hitherto, I meruaile greatly, that euer he wolde speake them as he dooth.

CATH.

Dooest thou mer­naile at that?

HERE.

I can not choose.

CATH.

Then why doest thou not meruaile at an other thyng, which is a thousande tymes more meruellous then that is:

HE.

What is that?

CATH.

That euer suche a number wolde folowe him as there hath done, and take him for so plaine, beyng so deceitfull: Take him so simple, being so traftie: Take him so wise, being so foolish: Take him so trewe, beyng so false. And of that numbre, so many welthie, as men dooth deme: so many wise, as them selfes dooth wene: so many politike, as thei seme: and yet spie not his falshed in all this time, what meruell maie be compared vnto it? for where as the wisedom of one, shuld ouerthrow ye foolishnes of many, here the wis­dome of many, is clene ouerthrowen with the foolishnes of one: And also where as the falshed of one, shuld geue place to the trewth of many, here hath the trewth of ma­ny, cleane giuen place, to the falshed of one: who is able sufficiently to describe the wonderfulnes of this mat­tier? Wherfore if thou fall to meruailynge, meruaile at this, whiche maie bee called a meruaile alone: And therfore because, in consideracion of our longe talke, it is nowe time to drawe to an ende. Remember that I haue declared vnto thee, although not all, nor halfe nother, but yet enough and enough, for thee to perceiue [Page] what maner of foundacion it is, wherin Frith bosteth and glorieth so greatly, that he is not ashamed, in re­proche of master Moore, and auauncynge hym selfe, to saie (as I tolde thee before) these woordes.

‘This am I right suer of (he saith) that he neuer touched the foundacion, that my treatise was builded vpon. And therfore sith my foundacion standeth so suer and inuinci­ble (for els I thinke verily he wolde sore haue laboured to haue vndermined it) I wyll therupon builde a little more. &c.’

And againe: ‘This was the foundacion (he saith) of my firste treatise, that he hath lefte vnshaken, whiche is a great argument that it is very trewe. For els his pregnant wit coulde not haue passed it so cleane ouer, but wolde haue assailed it with some sophisticall rauellacion. &c.’

Howe false a riar he sheweth hym selfe herein, I take none other, but euen him selfe to witnesse in the. 56. lefe of his booke, where he reciteth maister Moores owne saiynge in these woordes.

‘God forbid (saith maister Moore) that any man shoulde be the more prone and readie to beleue this yonge man in this great matter, because he saith in the beginnyng, that he wyll bryng al men to a concorde and a quietnes of con­science. For he bringeth men to the worste kynde of qui­etnes that maie be deuised, when he telleth vs as he doth, that euery man in this matter, maie without perell be­leue which wai he lust. Euery man mai in euery matter, without any counsaile, soone set him selfe at reste, if he luste to take that waie, and to beleue as he lust him selfe, and care not how. But and if that waie had bene suer, saint Paule wolde neuer haue shewed, that many were in perell of sicknes and death to, for lacke of discernyng reuerently the bodie of our Lorde in that sacramente, when thei came to receiue hym:’

How saiest thou nowe? dooth maister Moore leue this [Page 54] lyers false foundacion vntouched and vnshaken, as he shamefully saith and lyeth that he doth? who, maie saie more vnto it, in so fewe woordes? And yet as though it were nothynge so, I wolde not haue thee forget, how the false rainarde glorieth therin, as though he had won­derfull iuste, and good cause why so to dooe, how bee it, I dooe not greatly meruaile therat. For so muche asha­med is he to lie, as moste honeste men are, to saie the trewthe: And therfore with this I wyll leue thee nowe, and bede thee farewell.

Cap. 30.

HERE.

Mary syr a faire farewell in dede.

CATH.

Why what eileth it?

HE.

What shal I nede to tel you, if we parte nowe, and leue the matter thus?

CA.

What remedie? for I can tary no longer at this time:

HERE.

Then I praie you tell me, when we shall mete agayne:

CATH.

Mete againe? why art thou not well yet?

HERE.

Well yet quotha? Mary sir all this is nothynge to that I looke for.

CATH.

what is that?

HERE.

I looke for the scriptures, the olde holy doctours, and the natural reasons, that Frith bringeth for the profe of his principall purpose againste the reall presence of Christes veray bodie in the sacrament, whiche purpose he buildeth vpon this foundacion. These thyngꝭ I looke for, to see, what ye can saie to them: or whether ye be a­ble to auoide them or not.

CATH.

I dooe plainly con­fesse, that I am not able in dede. For who can auoide holy scriptures, olde holy doctours, or naturall reason other?

HERE.

Then if ye can not auoide them, ye must nedes graunte, that Frith hath his purpose.

CATH.

Naie softe, thou must pardon me therof. For although I can not auoide the holy scriptures, nor yet the olde holy [Page] doctours, that he bringeth for him: yet I can wel auoide his fals vnderstandynge of them. And what by them, hath he gotten then? And as for his naturall reasons that thou speakest of, I am well able to proue, that they bee in the name of them, nothynge els, but a sorte of deceueable sophisticacions: wherin he plaieth as one did (synce I maie remember) beynge aboute to steale ware out of a shoppe in London, and perceiuyng that he was spied and lyke to bee taken, he to goe, and diuers after hym, criynge stoppe the thefe stoppe the thefe, and he herynge that, cried euen so lykewise hym selfe, as faste as they did, by reason wherof, suche as met hym in the waie, nothynge suspectynge hym, looked so muche after an other, whiche as thei thought shoulde bee before hym, that he by that meanes gat to saint Mar­tyns, and deceiued them all. And so lykewise this wily sophister Frith, goynge aboute to steale from vs the trewthe of our feithe with his deceiueable sophisticaci­ons, vnder the name and pretence of naturall reasons, and fearyng therwith to be taken, had none other shifte nor hope to scape, (but as I tolde thee before) to exclame and crie, beware of sophisters, beware of sophisters, thinkynge vtterly therby, that no man wolde suspects hym to bee any of that sorte: and yet in comparison of hym, there is none but he alone: wherof thou haste had a metely good profe alredie:

HERE.

What profe so euer I haue had alredie, I wolde here the profe of that whiche I nowe desyre:

CATH.

Thou shalte:

HERE.

Yea but when?

CATH.

Euen when thou wilte thy selfe:

HERE.

That, by my wyll; shall bee euen to morowe, while this that I haue herde to daie, is somewhat freshe in memorie.

CA.

Content.

HERE.

[Page 55]Then where shall I mete with you?

CATH.

In no place better than here:

HE.

What time? before noone or after?

CA.

Naie it passeth an after noones woorke I maie saie to thee: for the whole daie longe, I suppose were littell enough. And therfore come by nyne or ten of the clocke at the fardest. For one thynge I will tell thee before, thou neuer herdest suche a woorke, of an he­retike since thou were borne, as thou shalt here of him de­clared in this profe whiche thou requirest.

HE.

What wors then I haue herde to daie?

CA.

Be thou iudge thy selfe when thou herest it:

HE.

Well sir, I will not faile the time apointed, for I shall now thinke longe till it come.

CA.

Therfore I will bede thee farewell till then:

HE.

No sir not yet, for I will bringe you home­warde.

CA.

That shall not nede:

HE.

Yes sir, for halfe your waie and mine is all one:

CA.

Then come on, let vs goe together for so farre:

HE.

That is my desyre. And therfore is it not as good we be talkyng by the waie for the time, as ought els?

CA.

Yes, I am veray well pleased therwithal, if thou hast any thyng els to saie.

HE.

Yes mary sir, and that is this: I wolde faine knowe by what reason you can proue, yt this same article, which we haue bene aboute all this while, is one of them, that we are bownde of necessitee to beleue vnder peine of dam­nacion: Ye haue hitherto inueied againste Frith, for holdyng the contrarie, but yet haue ye doone nothynge to the probacion therof your selfe: for it is two thynges to proue Frithes opinion false, and to proue yours trewe:

CATH.

Well, although the probacion of the trewthe, can not haue a veray apte and conuenient place, before the falsitee bee cleane reselled and through­ly put awaie, and that in the whole, as it is not nowe, but [Page] in parte, yet all voide of thy request, I wyll not leue thee, because I perceiue thee, somewhat desyrous to here of the matter: And therfore while Frithes opinion is this, that it is an article of no necessitee to bee beleued, and our feithe is plaine to the contrarie, the one parte, or the other, muste nedes be trewe: wherfore because the one parte, or the other muste nedes be trewe, and betwene trewthe and falshed there can be no meane, it can not be auoided, but sith the falshed is founde of his syde: The trewthe muste nedes remaine with vs.

HERE.

Nay sir that foloweth not: for the falshed that ye fynde 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 [Page 56] 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 thē 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 [Page] 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.
[Page 57]

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 & ofany of
38.2.6.asvs
40.1.6.whtchwhich

IMPRINTED AT LONDON IN FLETESTRETE IN THE HOVS OF THO­mas Berthelet.

Cum priuilegio ad impri­mendum folum. ❧

LVCRECIA ROMANA THOMAS BERTHELETVS

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.