More ouer, the breade is Christes bodye, euen as the breakynge of the breade is the death of hys bodye. Nowe the breakynge of breade at the maundye is not the verye death of Christes bodye, but onelye a representacyon of the same (albeit the mynde through faythe doeth spirytuallye beholde hys verye death) and euen lyke wyse that naturall breade is not the verye bodye of our Lorde, but onely a sacramēt, sygne, memoryall, or representacyō of the same, albeit through the admonycyō therof, the mynde through fayth, doth spirytually beholde the verye body. And surely yf a man be faythfull, the spirite of God worketh in his harte very swetelye at his communyon.
Fynallye, it was not laufull to eate or drynke the bloode not onelye of man, but also of a brute beaste, and the Apostles them selues moued by the rule of charyte, ded instytute that men shulde abstayne from bloode, somewhat fauourynge the infyrmyte of the Iewes. Now yf the Apostles had taught (as ye do) that in the sacrament hys verye fleshe andbloode is eaten and dronken with the teth and mouthe of faythfull and vnfaythfull, what coulde haue bene a greater occasyō to haue excluded the Iewes frō Christes fayth euen at ones? Thynke you that the Apostles wolde not haue bene to srupulous to haue dronken hys very bloode, seynge it was so playne agaynst Moses lawe, yf they had vnderstonde hym so grosselye as ye do?|Act .10.|Peter had a clothe sente downe from heauen, in whiche were all maner of beastes forbydden by the lawe, and was commaunded to fle and eate thē. And he answered, God forbyd, for I neuer eate any vncleane thynge, meanynge therbye that he neuer eate any thynge forbyddē by the lawe. Wherof it muste neades folowe, that eyther he neuer receyued the sacrament (whiche is playne false) or els that he more spyrytuallye vnderstode the wordes of Christes maundye then ye falselye fayne. For it was playnelye forbydden by the lawe, to eate or drynke any maner of bloode.|obiectyō.|And I knowe but one reason, that they haue which they counte as insoluble: how be it by Goddes grace we shall soone avoyde it. Their reason is this. Paule sayeth, he that eateth and drynketh this sacrament vnworthelye, shalbe gyltye of the bodye and bloode of the Lorde. Now saye they, how shulde they be gyltye of the Lordes bodye ād bloode whiche receyue it vnworthelye, excepte it were the verye bodye and bloode of the Lorde.
|Solutiō.|This argument I saye, is verye weake and slender. For I can shewe manye examples by the whiche it may be dyssolued. For he that dyspyseth the Kynges seale or Letters offendeth agaynste hys owne parson, and yet the Letters or Seale is not hys owne parson. He that vyolentlye plucketh downe hys graces Armes, or breaketh hys brode Seale wyth a furyouse mynde or wyth vyolence, commytteth treason agaynste hys owne parson. And yet hys Armes and brode Seale are not hys owne parsō. He that clyppyth the Kynges coyne, commytteth treason agaynste the Kynges parson and the common wealth: and yet the money is neyther hys graces parson nor the common wealth. And therfore your argument is but weake and slēder. For euē as a man doth offende agaynste the Prynces parson by dyspysinge his Armes, Seale, or Letters, so doth a mā offende agaynste Christes bodye and bloode, by abvsynge the sacrament of hys bodye and bloode, although he be not there present, as the Kynges parsō is not presente in hys Armes, Seale, or Letters.
Besydes that S. Paule sayeth, that euerye man whiche prayeth or preacheth with covered heade shameth hys heade, & hys head is Christe; shall we therfore Imagenthat Christe is naturallye in euerye mās heade, as your argument cōcludeth? Forsoth that were a preatye fantasye. Fynally S. Austen sayeth, that he doth no lesse synne whiche neglygētlye heareth the wordes of God, thē doth the other which vnworthelye receyueth the sacrament of Christes bodye and bloode. Nowe yf this be true, then is your reason not worth a ry she, for Christes naturall bodye is not in the worde whiche is preached, as all men knowe. And yet he synneth no lesse that neglygentlye heareth it, then doth he that vnworthelye receyueth the sacramēt. And thus you see their insoluble argument easelye dyssolued.
|More.|❧ But now muste thys yonge man consyder agayne that he hym selfe confesseth, that the cause for which hym selfe sayeth, that Christe in so sayenge ded so meane, is because that yf he shulde haue mēt so, yt was impossyble to God to brynge hys meanynge a bought: that is to saye, that Christes bodye myght be in two places at ones. And therfore but yf he proue that thynge impossyble for God to do, els he confesseth that God not onelye sayde it but also mente it in dede. And yet ouer thys, yf Christ had neuer sayde it, yet doubt I nothynge, but he is able to do it, or els were there somwhat that he coulde not do; And then were God not almyghtye.
|Fryth.|¶ Here Master More wolde myre me with his sophystrye, ād wyth wyles wolde wynne hys spores. For as he before ded discant on these wordes, can, and impossyble, and wolde haue made mē beleue that I mente it coulde not be, because it coulde not be by reason, and that I mente it was impossyble, because reason coulde not reache it: So now he dysputeth with lyke maner of sophystycacyon, concludynge that I confesse that it is impossyble and cā not be, because that yf God shulde so haue mente, it was impossyble for God to brynge hys meanynge a bought. Deare bretherne, thys bablynge is suffycyentlye discussed alreadye. For I mente not that it was impossyble for God to brynge it aboute, yf he had so mēte, but I mente that it is impossyble to stonde with the processe of the scrypture whiche we haue receyued. And I saye more ouer, that though it was possyble for God to haue done it (yf it had pleased hym) yet now, the scrypture thus stondynge, it is impossyble for hym to do it. For then he muste make hys sone a lyer. And I saye, that yf he had so ment as the letter stondeth, that he wolde then haue geuen vs other scrypture, and wolde not haue sayde that he muste departe to hym that sente hym, with other textes as are before rehearsed.
And where master More sayeth, thatyf there were somwhat that he coulde not do, than were God not almyghtye. I saye it is ashame for our Prelates that they haue gottō suche an ignoraunte proctoure to defende them. And I am sure that they thēselues coulde haue sayde moche better. For els how shulde they enstructe other and leade them in the ryght waye, yf they themselues were so rude and vnlearned? Shulde they not knowe what thys meaneth, that God is almyghtye, whych is a peace of the fyrste artycle of our Crede? Then how shulde their shepe haue any sure syght? More thynketh that God is called almyghtye, because he can do all thynges. And then in dede it shulde folowe that he were not almyghtye. For all thynges he can not do, he cā not saue the vnfaythfull, he can not restore vyrgynyte ones vyolated, sayeth S. Thomas and also (as I remember) S. Hierome wrytynge of vyrgynyte vnto Paula and Eustochium: he can not synne sayeth Dunce: he can not denye hym selfe sayeth .S. Paule.|2. Tim.|Now yf thys mans learnynge were alowed, thē myght not God be almyghtye, because there is sumwhat that he cā not do. But they that are a customed with scrypture, do knowe that he is called almyghtye, not because he can do all thynge: but because there is no superyour power aboue hym, but that he maye do all that he wyll: and all that hys pleasure is to do that maye he brynge to passe. And no power is able to resyste hym. But he hath no pleasure nor wyll to make hys sone alyer nor to make hys scripture false, and in dede he maye not do it. And yet notwithstondynge he abydeth almyghtye. For he may do all thynge that he wyll.
|More.|❧ Then master More as towchynge the reason of repungnaunce sayeth, that many thynges may seame repungnaunte both to hym and me, which thynges God seeth how to make them stonde together well ynough, and addeth such blynde reasons of repungnaunce as induceth manye men in to a greate erroure: some ascrybynge all thynge vnto destenye without any power of mans fre wyll at all. And some genynge all to mans owne wyll. And haue no fore syght at all to the provydēce of God, and all because the poore blynde reason of man can not see so farre, as to perceyue how Goddes prescyence and mans fre wyll can stonde together, but seame clerelye to be repungnaunte.
|Fryth.|¶ As for hys dygressyon of mans fre wyll, I wyll not greatlye wrestle with hym. But thys one thynge I maye saye,|Ioan. 8.|that yf the sone of God delyuer vs, then are we verye free.|2. Cor. 3.|And where the spyryte of God is, there is fredome. I meane not fredome to do what you wyll; but fredome|Rom. 6.|frō synne, that we maye be the saruaūtes of ryghtuousnes. But yf we haue not the spyryte of Christe, then wyll I saye with S. Austen,|Augustinus de spiritu & litera.|that our fre wyll is wretched, and can do nought but synne. And as towchynge suche textes of repugnaunce, yf they be so dyffuse that mans reason (which is the lyght of hys vnderstōdyng) can not attayne to set them together, then were you beste to make thē none artycles of our faythe. For I thynke as manye as are necessarye vnto our salvacyon, are conteyned in the Crede, which I thynke euery mā beleueth: I beseche you laye no bygger burthen vpon vs then those faythfull Fathers ded, which thought that suffycyent. And then I am sure, we shulde haue fewer heretykes. For I neuer harde of heretycke that euer helde agaynste any artycle of our Crede, but all that ye dyffame by thys name, are onelye put to death, because they saye that we are not bounde to beleue euerye poynte that the lawes and tyrannye of the cleargye alowe and maynteyne, which thynge how true it is (blessed be God) is meatelye well knowen alreadye. For els had I and many mo bene deade before thys daye.
|More.|❧ I wote well that many good folke haue vsed in thys matter manye frutefull examples. As of one face beholden in dyuerse glasses, and in euerye peace of one glasse broken in to twentye, ād of one worde comynge whole to an hundreth eares at ones: and the syght of one lytle eye presently beholdynge an whole greate contrye at ones, with a thousande suche meruelles mo: suche as those that see thē daylye done (and therfore meruell not at thē) shall yet neuer be able, no not this yonge man hym selfe, to geue suche a reason by what meane they maye be done, but that he maye haue suche repugnaunce layde agaynste it, that he shalbe fayne in conclusyon (for the chefe and moste euydent reason) to saye, that the cause of all those thynges, is because God that hath so caused them to be done, is almyghtye of hym selfe, and maye do what hym lyste.
|Fryth.|¶ As towchynge the examples that master More doth here alleage, I maye soone make answere vnto them. For they that are lyke our matter, make cleane agaynste hym, and the other can not make for hym. The glasse I graunte is a good example. For euen as the glasse dothe represent the verye face of man, so doth this sacrament represent the verye bodye and bloode of Christe. And lyke as euery peace of the glasse doth represent that one face, so doth euery peace of that sacrament represent that one bodye of Christe. But euerye mā knoweth ryght well, that thoughe the glasse represent my face, yet thesubstaunce of the glasse is not my verye face, neyther is my very face in the glasse. And euen so though the sacrament do represent the bodye of Christe, yet the substaunce of the sacrament is not hys verye bodye (no more then the glasse is my face) neyther is hys verye bodye in the sacrament, no more thē my verye face is in the glasse. And thus this example maketh well for vs. And for that one worde commynge whole to an hūdreth eares, I saye that worde is but a sounde ād a qualyte & not a substaunce, and therfore yt is nothynge to our purpose, and can not be lykened to Christes bodye which is a substaunce. And as concernynge the syght of the lytle eye, I say that though the eye dyscrye and see an whole contrye, yet is not that whole contrye in the eye: but as the contrye is knowen by the syght of the eye (though the contrye be not in it) so is the death of Christe and his bodye breakynge and bloode sheadynge knowen by the sacrament, though hys naturall bodye be not in it. And thus hys exāples make nothyng with hym, but rather moche agaynste hym. And where he sayeth that the yonge mā hym selfe cā geue no reasō, by what meane they may be done: I maye saye vnto hys mastershyppe, that whan I was seauen yeare yonger then I am thys day, I wolde haue bene ashamed yf I coulde not haue geuen an evydent reason at the Austēs in Oxforde before the whole vnyuersyte. And albeit I now wochesaue not to spende laboure and paper abought Aristotles doctryne, yet haue I so moche towched hys examples, that he may be werye of them.
|More.|❧ Also I cā not see why it shulde be more repugnaunt that one bodye maye be by the power of God in two places at ones, then that two bodyes maye be together in one place at ones. And that poynte I thynke thys yonge man denyeth not.
|Fryth.|¶ The beynge of our bodye in two places at ones is agaynste nature, and scrypture cā not allow it. But that two bodyes shulde be in one place seameth more reasonable. For I haue good experyence that though my bodye can not be in two places at ones (both in the tower and where I wolde haue it besyde) yet blessed be god in this one place, I am not without cōpanye. But yf master More meane that in one proper & severall place, maye be two bodyes at ones, that I wyll denye, tyll he haue laysure to proue it. And yet at the length I am sure, hys proue shall not be worth a podynge prycke. For I am sure it muste be,Ratione porositatis ut in igne & ferro: nam penetracionem dimensionum nunquam probabit.And then he is as nyghe as he was before.
|More.|❧ Now hys laste reason wyth which he proueth yt impossyble for the bodye of christe to be in two places at ones, is this: You can (sayeth he) shewe no reason whye he shulde be in many places at ones & not in all. But in all places he can not be: Wherfore we muste cōclude that he can not be in many places at ones. This is a mervelous cōcluded argumente. I am sure that euery chylde may soone see that this consequent can neuer folowe vpō these two premysses of thys antecedent.
|Fryth.|¶ When I made thys reason & compyled my tretyse I had no regarde to the cavyllacyons of sotle sophysters. For I thought no sophysters shulde haue medled wyth that meate. But neuerthelesse syth now I perceyue that they pryncipallye are porynge vpon yt, seakynge some praye to sette their teth a warke, in this boke I haue samwhat prouyded for thē, and haue brought suche harde bones, that yf they be to busye, maye chaunce to choke thē. And yet is not the argumēt so feable as he fayneth. For the fyrst part (if he lyst to cōsyder the sēce & mynde, & be not to curyous) where I say that they cā shewe no reasō why he shulde be in many places & not in all, is thus to be vnderstōd of wyse mē, that the very reasō & cause that he shulde be in many places must be, because the body is so ānexed with the godhed, that yt is in euery place as the Godhed is. Thys I saye, muste be the cause and reason of hys beynge in many places. And neyther you nor no man els cā iustely asygne any other. Now of this maior or fyrste proposycyon thus vnderstonde doth the conclusyon folowe dyrectlye. For yf this shulde be the cause (as they muste neades graūte) and thys cause proued false by scrypture: then muste they neades graunte that the thynge whiche so foloweth of this cause, muste neades be false. And so is my purpose proued, and they concluded. As by example. The Astronomers saye: that the naturall course of the sonne is from the Weste to the Easte. Nowe yf a man shulde aske them what ys then the cause that we see hym daylye take the contrary course, from the East to the Weste agaynste hys nature: they answere. Because the heyghest spere (whose course is from the Easte to the Weste) wyth hys swyfte movynge doth vyolently drawe the inferyoure speres with hym. This is the cause that they alleage, and no man can asygne any other. And now syth I can proue thys sense false by scrypture (for scrypture sayth that the spere is fastened Heb. viij and S. Austen expoundynge that texte improueth the Astronomers which affyrme that it moueth) they muste neades graunte that the thynge which folowethof this cause muste neades be false. And so we maye conclude agaynste them all, that the naturall course of the sonne is not from the Weste to the East (as the Astronomers saye) but contrarye from the Easte to the Weste. And lykewyse syth the cause that Christes bodye shulde be in many places, is asygned of learned men to be, because hys bodye is so annexed with the Godhed (which is in euerye place) that it is also in all places with it, and no man can asygne any other. And this cause is proued false by scrypture. For when the women sought Christ at hys graue, an Angell gaue the answere that he was not there.|Mar. 14.|But yf hys bodye had bene in euery place, then had the Angell lyed.|Luc. 16.|Also Christ sayde vnto hys dyscyples of Lazarus which dyed at Bathania.|Ioan. 11.|Lazarus ys deade. And I am gladde for your sakes (that you maye beleue) because I was not there. Now yf hys body were in euery place as is the Godhed, then Christ sayde not trulye, when he sayde he was not there. Therfore syth (as I sayde) this is the cause asygned, and yet proued false by scrypture, they muste neades graunte, that the thynge which foloweth of this cause, muste also neades be false. And so we maye conclude agaynste them all, that Christes bodye is in one place onely. And now you maye see how my consequent folowe the premysses.
|More.|❧ For he can no further cōclude, but that we can shewe no reason whye he shulde be in many places at ones. What had he wone by that: Myght he thā conclude thervpon, that he coulde not be in manye places at ones? As though yt were not possyble for God to make hys bodye in two places at ones, but yf we were able to tell how, and why, and wherbye, and shewe the reason.
|Fryth.|¶ How farre I cā conclude is shewed immedyatly before. For though of the bare wordes as ye toke them, it was harde to conclude any thynge, yet haue I nowe declared them, and so farre concluded, that you can not avoyde them. And where he sayeth that though they can shewe no reason, yet I had wonne nought by it, I thynke he wolde be angrye yf I shulde so answere. But surely they are in good case, for yt is ynough for them to saye, thus it is, and neade neuer to shewe any cause or reason whye they so saye. For they are the churche and can not erre: so that yf they teache contrarye thynges, yet all is good ynough. And when they see that no man can make the scryptures to agre wyth their doctryne, then they saye, that their doctryne is true ynough, but no mā can vnderstōnde the scrypture. And though the scrypture seame neuer so repugnaunteboth to them ād vs, yet God seeth well ynough (saye they) how to sette thē together, and it is possyble for God to make it agree, though they can not tell how. But thys doctryne hath longe ynough deceyued vs. For mē haue seane to lōge wyth your spectacles, yet now (thankes be to God) they begynne to see with their owne eyes. And as towchyng how thys matter was possyble to God and how it is not possyble, is suffycyently declared before to all them that lyste to loke.
|More.|❧ Howbeit as for me (though I be not bounde to yt) I am cōtēt yet to proue, that God maye make the body of Christ to be in all places at ones. And because thys yōge mā coupleth that proposycyō with the other: so wyll I do also. And I wyll proue therfore that God cā make hys bodye be bothe in many places at ones, & in all places at ones, by that he is almyghtye, and therfore can do all thynge.
|Fryth.|¶ Now ys the good man in hys olde dreame agayne, and thynketh that God is called almyghtye, because he can do all thynges. And then in dede yt shulde folowe that he were not almyghtye. For all thynges he can not do, he can not saue the vnfaythfull, he can not restore virgynyte ones vyolated, he cā not synne, he cā not denye hym selfe. Yf thys mās lernynge were alowed, thā myght not god be called almyghty, because there is somwhat that he can not do. But they that are accustomed with scrypture, do knowe that he is called almyghtye, not because he can not do all thynges, but because there is no superyour power aboue hym, but that he may do all that he wyll, and all that hys pleasure is, maye he brynge to passe. But he hath no wyll nor pleasure, to make his sone a lyer, & to make hys scrypture false and yet notwitstondynge he abydeth almyghtye and may do what he wyll. And euē as it is impossyble to stonde with the processe of the scryptures (wherin God hath declaeed hys wyll) that the unfaythfull shulde be saued (although at the fyrst god myght haue done it, yf he had so wolde) lykewyse it is impossyble the scryptures stōdynge as they do, that the naturall bodye of Christ, shulde be present to our teth in the sacramēt. And as for our fayth, yt neadeth not to haue hym present in the breade. For I may as well eate hym and drynke hym through fayth (that is to say, beleue in hym) though he contynue styll in heauen, as though he were as present in the sacramēt, as he was hangynge on the crosse. But yet hys mastershype hath lefte one thynge vnproued, and that is euen the pyth of hys purpose. For though he had proued (as he hath not) that God by hys almyghtynes myght make Christesbodye in many places, and in all places, & in the sacrament, yet he forgotte to proue that God hath so done. And therfore albeyt I dyd graūte hym (as I wyll not) that he myght so do, yet therof it doth not folow, that he hath so done in dede. For god maye do manye thynges whiche he doth not. And therfore hys argument doth not proue hys purpose. Now yf he do but thynke that God hath so done, I am well pleased ād wyll not put hym to the payne to proue it. For anone ye shall see hym so intaungled in bryars, that he shall not wete where to be come.
|More.|❧ But yet this yonge man goeth aboute to proue thys poynte by scrypture. For excepte we graunte hym that poynte to be true, he sayeth that els we make the Angell a lyer that sayde, he is not here, ād also that els we make as though Christes bodye in hys assensyon ded not go vp in the cloude in to heauē from earth, but onelye hyd hym selfe in the cloude, and playeth boo pyppe and taryed beneth styll. Here in the ende he forgetteth hym selfe so fowle, that whan he was a yonge sophyster he wolde I dare say, haue bene full sore ashamed so to haue oversene hym selfe at Oxforde at a pervyse. For ye wote well that thynge whiche he sayeth, and whiche he muste therfore proue, is that the bodye of Christ cā not be in euerye place at ones by no meane that God coulde make. And the textes that he bryngeth in for the proue, saye no further but that he was not in all places at ones.
|Fryth.|¶ There are two thynges dysputed betwene master More and me: the one is whether God cā make the bodye of Christe in manye places, and in the sacramente. And therto hys mastershyppe sayeth yea. For God is almyghtye and maye do all thynges. And I saye naye, and affyrme that God is not called almyghtye because he maye do all thynges, but because he maye do all that he wyll. And I saye that he wyll not make hys sonne a lyer, nor hys scrypture false, and that he can not do it, and yet abydeth almyghtye. The other thynge is thys, whether he haue done it or not. For albeyt I ded graunte hym that it were possyble, yet is he neuer the nere excepte he eyther can proue that he hath done it in dede, or els thynke that God hath so done. For as I sayde God can do manye thynges which he doth not. And the controversye of thys doubte is dyssolued by the Aungell and scrypture whiche (as master More graunteth hym selfe) proueth that he was not in all places at ones, And therof it foloweth, that God hath not done it, although it be possyble. And so is hys mastershyppe at a poynte. For yf I shulde graunte it neuer so possyble,yet yf scrypture proue that it be not so in dede, then is he neuer the nere hys purpose, but moche the further from it. And thys is euen it that I sayde before: that it was not possyble to stonde with the processe of the scrypture which we haue receyued. And now hys mastershyppe hath graunted it hym selfe, which you maye be sure he wolde not do yf he coulde otherwyse avoyde it. And here you maye see howe sore I haue overseane my selfe.
|More.|❧ God forbyd that any man shulde be the more prone and readye to beleue thys yonge man in thys greate matter, because he sayeth in the begynnynge that he wyll brynge all men to a concorde and a quyetnes of conscyence. For he bryngeth men to the worste kynde of quyetnes that maye be deuysed, when he telleth vs as he doth, that euery man in thys matter, maye with out parell beleue which waye he lyste. Euery man maye in euerye matter without any counsell, soone set hym selfe at reste, yf he lyste to take that waye and to beleue as he lyste hym selfe, ād care not how. But ād yf that waye had bene sure, Saynte Paule wolde neuer haue shewed that manye were in parell of sycknes and death also, for lacke of dyscernynge reuerentlye the bodye of our Lorde in that Sacramente, when they came to receyue hym.
|Fryth.|¶ When Christe shulde departe thys worlde and go to hys Father,|Ioan. 15.|he gaue hys dyscyples a commaundement that they shulde loue eche other, sayenge by thys shall all men knowe, that ye are my dyscyples, yf ye loue eche other, as I haue loued you. Thys rule of charyte wolde I not haue broken, which notwithstondynge is often in Ieopardye a monge faythfull folke. This thynge consydered, I thought it necessarye to advertyse both partyes to saue thys rule of charyte, and proued in the fyrste chapter of my treatyse, that it was none artycle of the fayth necessarye to be beleued vnder payne of dampnacyon, and therfore that they were to blame that wolde be contencyous for the matter. For syth it is none artycle of the fayth, they may lawfullye dyssente without all Ieoperdye: and neade not to breake the rule of charyte, but rather to receyue eche other lyke weake bretherne.
This I saye I proued in the fyrste chapter agaynste which master More maketh no busynes, and improueth it not. Wherbye you maye soone gather that it is very true. For els syth hys mastershyppe so laboureth in these other poyntes, he wolde not haue lefte that vntowched you maye be sure. Thys is the concorde that I wolde brynge them vnto. And as towchynge quyetnes of conscyence, I haue knowenmanye that haue sore bene combrede wyth it. And amōge all, a certayne master of arte which dyed in Oxforth, confessed vpon hys death bedde, that he had wepte lyenge in hys bedde an hundreth nyghtes wythin one yeare space, because he coulde not beleue it. Now yf he had knowen that it had bene no necessarye artycle, what cōforte and quyetnes shulde it haue bene vnto hym. Furthermore, euerye man can not so quyet hymselfe, as master More Imageneth. For there are manye that thynke them selfes no smalle foles, which whan they haue receyued some folyshe superstycyon, eyther by their owne Imagynacyon, or by belevynge their gossepes gospell ād olde wyfes tales, by and bye thynke the cōtrarye to be deadly synne, and vtterly forbydden by Chrystes gospell. As by example, I knowe an house of relygyon, wherin is a parson that thynketh it deadly synne to go ouer astrawe yf it lye acrosse. And yf there be vpon the pauemente any paynted pycture, or any Image grauen vpon a deade mans graue, he wyll not treade vpon it, although he shulde go a forelonge a bowte. What is thys but vayne superstycyon wherewith the conscyence is combred and corrupted? May not thys be weded out wyth the worde of God, shewynge hym that it is none artycle of the fayth so to thynke, & then to tell hym that it is not forboden by the scrypture, ād that it is no synne? Now albeyt hys conscyence be so cankered that the ruste wyll not be rubbed out: yet wyth Godes grace, some other whome he hath infected with the same, maye come agayne to Godes worde and be cured full well, whiche shulde neuer haue bene able to quyete them selfes. And lykewyse there are some whiche beleue as your superstycyous hartes haue informed them, and these can not quyete thēselues, because they beleue that you haue featched your doctryne out of scrypture. But when it is proued to them, and they themselues perceyue that scrypture sayeth not so, then can they be contente to thynke the contrarye, ād Iudge it no synne at all. And as towchynge S. Paule, surelye ye take hym wronge. For I wyll shewe you what processe he taketh, and how he is to be vnderstonde. But because it is not possyble to fynyshe it in fewe wordes, I shall deferre it vnto the bokes ende, and then I shall declare hym at large.
|More.|❧ And what a fashyon is thys, to saye that we maye beleue yf we lyste, that there is the verye bodye of our Lorde in dede, and then to tell vs for a trouth, that suche a faythe is impossyble to be true: forGODhym selfe can neuer brynge it abought, to make hys bodye to be there.
|Fryth.|¶ Yf a man take the bare wordes of Christe, and of symplycyte be deceyued, and thynke that hys verye bodye be in the sacramente present to their teth that eate it, I dare not saye that he synneth therin, but wyll referre the matter vnto Godes Iudgement, and yet without doubt, I dare saye he is deceyued. As by example, yf a man deceyued by the litterall sence, wolde thynke that men shulde preache to fysshes (as S. Fraunces ded) because Christe badde hys dyscyples go preache to all creatures, yet wolde not I thynke that he synned therin. But wyll referre hym vnto Goddes Iudgement. But yet I wene euerye woman that hath anye wytte, wyll saye that he was deceyued.
|More.|❧ I am verye sure that the olde holye Doctours which beleued Christes bodye and bloode to be there, and so taught other to beleue, as by their bokes playnelye doth apere, yf they had thought eyther that it coulde not be there or that it was not there in dede, they wolde not for all the good in thys worlde haue wryten as they haue done. For wolde those holye men (wene you) haue taught that men be bounde to beleue, that the verye bodye and bloode ofCHRISTEis there, yf they them selfes thought that they were not bounde thervnto? Wolde they make men honoure and worshyppe that thynge as the very bodye and bloode of Christe whiche they thē selues thought were not it? Thys gere is to chyldyshe to speake of.
|Fryth.|¶ That the olde doctours and faythfull Fathers so taught or thought as ye fayne of them, is verye false. For S. Austen as I haue shewed, maketh whollye for vs. Besydes that, there is none of the olde Fathers but they call it a sacramēte, a mysterye, and mystycall meate, which is not eaten with toth or belye: but with eares and faythe. And as towchynge the honoure and worshyppe done vnto it, I saye it is playne Idolatrye. And I saye, that he falselye reporteth vpon the olde holy Doctours. For they neuer taught men to worshyppe it, neyther can he alleage one place in any of them all whiche wolde haue men to worshyppe the sacramente. Peraduenture he maye alleage me certayne new felowes for hys purpose, as Dunce, Dorbell, Durande, and suche draffe, whiche by their doctryne haue deceyued the worlde wyth dampnable Idolatrye. But I speake of the olde holye Fathers ād doctours, S. Austen, Ambrose, Hierome, Cypriane, Cirille, Chrisostome, Fulgentius, and suche other: These I saye, do not teache men to worshyppe it, and by that I dare abyde. Of thys poynte I am so sure, that Iwyll vse it for a contrarye argument, that hys naturall bodye is not there presente. For yf the holye Fathers before named had taken thys texte after the letter and not onelye spyrytuallye, thē in their workes they wolde haue taught men to worshyppe it, but they neuer taught mē to worshyppe thys sacrament, therfore it foloweth they toke not the texte after the letter, but onelye spyrytuallye. Now do I prouoke you to seake a proue of your purpose. Neuer the lesse I wyll not denye, but that these holye Doctours in dyuerse places, do call it hys bodye, as Christe and Paule do, and so do we lykewyse: and saye also that this verye bodye is there eatē. But yet we meane, that it is eaten with fayth (that is to saye by beleuynge that hys bodye was broken for vs) ād haue his bodye more in memorye at thys maundye thē the meate that we there eate.|Note.|And therfore it hathe the name of hys bodye: because the name it selfe shulde put vs in remēbraunce of hys bodye. And that hys bodye is there chefelye eaten, euen more (through fayth) then the meate wyth the mouth. And so are they also to be vnderstonde.
|More.|❧ Yet one greate pleasure he doth vs, in that he putteth vs all at lyberte, that we maye with out parell of dampnacyon beleue as we ded before: that is to wete, that in the blessed sacramēt the whole substaunce of the breade ād the wyne is transmuted ād chaunged in to the verye bodye and bloode of Christe. For yf we maye wythout parell of dampnacyon beleue thus, as hym selfe graunteth that we maye, then graunteth he that we maye also without parell of dampnacyō beleue that he hym selfe lyeth, where he sayeth, the trouth of that beleue is impossyble.
|Fryth.|¶ The beleuynge of thys poynte, is of it selfe not dampnable, as it is not dāpnable to thynke that Christe is a very stone or a vyne, because the litterall sence so sayeth: or yf you beleue that you ought to preache to fyshes and go Christen them another whyle, as ye do belles. And I insure you, if there were no worse myschefe that ensued of thys beleue, then it is in itselfe, I wolde neuer haue spoken agaynste it. But now there foloweth vpon it dampnable Idolatrye. For through the beleue that thys bodye is there, men fall downe and worshyppe yt. And thynkynge to please God, do dampnable synne agaynste hym. Thys I saye, is the cause that I so earnestlye wryte agaynste it, to avoyde the Idolatrye that is cōmytted through it. Parte of the germanes do thynke that hys naturall bodye is present in the sacramēt, ād take the wordes fleshelye, as Martyn taught them. But none of them worshyppeit, for that Martyn forbyddeth both in hys wordes ād workes, and so (blessed be God) they auoyde that Ieoperdye, which thynge yf you wyll also graunte, and publyshe but this one proposycyon, that it ought not to be worshypped, I promyse you I wyll neuer wryte agaynste it. For then is the Ieoperdye taken awaye, and then I am contēt that your mastershyppe thynke I lye. But in the meane season I muste thynke that ye fulfyll the worlde with dāpnable Idolatrye. And thus haue you also answere vnto the conclusyon, which you alleage out of the kynges graces boke. For I saye in your waye is no hurte, as longe as you do but onelye beleue the bare wordes of the texte, as S. Fraunces ded, when he preached to fyshes. But yf through the occasyon of those wordes, ye fall in to the worshyppynge of it, then I saye that in your waye is vndoubted dampnacyon. And so is there greate Ieoperdye in your waye, and none at all in ours. For though he were there in dede, yet do not we synne yf we worshyppe it not. For we are not commaunded to worshyppe the sacrament. But yf he be not there, then do you dampnable Idolatrye.