Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 23 – Section 24
Caunterbury.
THe first place of Chrysostome by me alleadged, you say toucheth not the doctrine of Transubstantiation. But you rehearse but a piece of Chrisostomes wordes. For he sayth not onelyonly that Christ vsed wine, but also drancke wine in the misteries, and the very wine of the grape. And how could then the wine be transubstantiate, except it were transubstantiate, after it was drunken.
Now as touching the second part of Chrisostome, where he sayth, that the bread when it is consecrated, is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the Lordes body, and yet the nature of bread doth still remayne, he meaneth that the bread is deliuered from the bare name of bread, to represent vntounto vsus the body of Christ (according to his institution) which was crucified for vsus, not that he is present or crucified in the bread, but was crucified vponupon the Crosse. And the bread is not do clearely deliuered from the name of bread, that it is no bread at all, (for he sayth the nature of bread doth still remayne) nor that it may not be called by the name of bread, but it is so deliuered, that commonly it is called by the higher name of the Lordes body,Changing of names. which to vsus it representeth. As you and I were deliuered from our surnames, when we were cōsecrated bishops, sithens which tyme we hauehave so commonly bene vsed of all men to be called bishoppes (you of Winchester and I of Caunterbury) that the most part of the people know not that your name is Gardyner, and myne Cranmer. And I pray God that we being called to the name of Lordes, hauehave not forgotten our owne baser estates, that once we were simple squiers. And yet should he hauehave done neyther of vsus wrong, that should hauehave called vsus by our right names, no more then S. Paule doth any iniury to the bread in the sacrament, calling it bread, although it hauehave also an higher name of dignity, to be called the body of Christ. And as the bread being a figure of Christs body hath the name therof, and yet is not so in deede, so I pray God that we hauehave not rather bene figures of bishops, bearing the name and title of Pastors and Bishoppes before men, then that we hauehave in deede diligently fed the little flocke of Christ with the swete and holsome pasture of his true and liuely word.
And where you alleadge Ciprian,Ciprian. to auoyd therby the saying of Chrisostome in the epistle by me cited, you take Ciprian clearely amisse, as I hauehave playnly opened hereafter in the xi. chapiter of this booke, wherunto for to auoyde the tediousnes of repeting, I referre the indifferent reader, vntounto which myne answer there, healpeth much that which you graunt here,The word Nature. that the word (nature) signifieth both the substance and also the propriety. For in Ciprian it is not taken for the substance (as you would fayne hauehave it) but for the property. For the substance of bread still remayning in them that duely receaue the same, the property of carnall nourishment is changed into a spirituall nourishment, as more largely in myne answer to you in that place shall be declared.
And where you would somewhat releue your selfe by certayne words of Chrisostome, which immediatly follow the sentence by me alleadged (which wordes be these, that the bread after consecration is not called two bodies, but one body of the sonne of God) vponupon which wordes you would gather your Transubstantiation, how effectuall your argument is in this matter, may appeare by an other like. Steuen Gardiner after he was consecrated, was called the byshop of Winchester, and not two byshoppes but one bishop, ergo Steuen Gardiner was transubstantiate. And a counter layd by an Auditour for a thousand poundes, is not then called a counter, but a thousand poundes, ergo it is transubstantiated. And the man and wife after mariage, be called but one body, ergo there is Transubstantiation. This must be the fourme of your argument, if you will proue Transubstantiation by these wordes of Chrisostome.
Now come we to S. Ambrose.
Ambrosius.At the same tyme was S. Ambrose, who declareth the alteration of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ, not to be such, that the nature and substance of bread and wine be gone, but that thorough grace, there is a spirituall mutation by the mighty power of God, so that he that worthely eateth of that bread, doth spiritually eate Christ, and dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him.
For (sayth S. Ambrose,De ijs `qui misterijs initiantur. cap. vlt. & de sacramentis li. 4. cap. 4. speaking of this change of bread into the body of Christ) if the word of God be of that force that it can make thinges of nought, and those thinges to be, which neuer were before, much more it can make thinges that were before, still to be, & also to be changed into other thinges.
And he bringeth for example here of the change of vsus in baptisme, wherin a man is so changed (as is before declared in the wordes of Eusebius) that he is made a new creature, and yet his substance remayneth the same that was before.
Winchester.
Saynt Ambrose doth not (as this Author would hauehave it) impugne Transubstantiation,Ambrosius. but confirmeth it most playnly, bicause he teacheth the true presence of Christes body in the sacrament, which he sayth, is by change, and thinges still remayning, and that may be verefied in the outward visible matter, that is to say, the accidents remayning with their proper effects, which therfore may worthely be called thinges. And here I would aske this Author, if his teaching as he pretendeth were the catholike fayth, and the bread onelyonly signified Christes body, what should nede this force of Gods word that S. Ambrose speaketh of, to bring in the creation of the world, wherby to induce mans fayth in this mistery to the belefe of it? As for the example of Baptisme to show the change in mans soule, wherof I hauehave spoken, declaring Emissene, serueth for an induction not to leane to our outward sences, ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther, bycause we see none outward experience of it, but els it is not necessary that the resemblance shall answere in equality, otherwise then as I sayd afore, each part answering his conuenient proportion, and as for their comparison of resemblance Baptisme with the sacrament, this author in his doctrine specially reproueth, in that he can not I thinke deny, but man by regeneration of his soule in Baptisme, is the partaker of holines, but as for the bread, he specially admonisheth, that it is not partaker of holines by this consecration, but howsoeuer this author in his owne doctrine snarleth him selfe, the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne, that before the consecration it is bread, and after the consecration the body of Christ, which is an vndoubted affirmation then to be no bread, howsoeuer the accidents of bread do remayne.