Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 44
Winchester.
Now let vsus heare what this author will say to S. Ambrose. He reherseth him of good length,Ambrosius. but translateth him for aduaūtage. As among other, in one place where S. Ambrose sayth. This Sacrament which thou receiuest, is made by the word of Chryst. This author translateth, Is done by the word of Christ, because making must be vnderstanded in the substaunce of the Sacrament chiefly before it is receiued, and doing may be referred to the effect chiefly, for which purpose it should seeme the author of this book cānot away with the word made, whereat it pleaseth him in an other place of this book to be mery, as at an absurdity in the Papistes, when in deed both S. Ambrose here, S. Cyprian, and S. Hierome also in their places vse the same word speaking of this sacrament, and of the wonderfull worke of God in ordayning the substaunce of it, by such a conuersion as bread is made the body of Christ. But as touching the answere of this author to S. Ambrose, it is diuers. For first he doth trauerse the authority of the book, which allegation hath bene by other heretofore made, and aunswered vntounto in such wise, as the book remayneth S. Ambroses still, and Melancthon sayth it séemeth not to him vnlike his, and therefore alleadgeth this very place out of him agaynst Decolampadius. Thys author will not sticke in that allegation, but for aunswere sayth that S. Ambrose sayth not that the substaunce of the bread and wine is gone, and that is true, he sayth not so in sillables, but he sayth so in sence, because he speaketh so plainly of a chaunge in the bread into that it was not, whereunto this author for declaration of chaunge, sayth the breade and wine be chaunged into an higher estate, nature and condition, which thrée words of estate, nature and condition, be good wordes to expresse the chaunge of the bread into the body of Christ, which body is of an other nature, an other state and condition, then the substaunce of the bread, without comparison hier.
But then this author addeth to be taken as holy meates and drinkes, wherin if he mean to be taken so, but not to be so, as his teaching in other places of this booke is, the bread to be neuer the holier, but to signifie an holy thing: then is the change nothing in deed touching the nature, but onelyonly as a coward may be changed in apparayle to play Hercules or Sampsons part in a play, himselfe therby made neuer the hardier man at all, but onelyonly appoynted to signifie an hardy man, of which mans change although his estate and condition might in speach be called changed for the tyme of the play, yet no man would terme it thus to say, his nature were changed, whether he ment by the word nature the substance of the mans nature or property: for in these two poyntes he wer still the same man in Hercules coate, that he was before the play in his owne: so as if ther be nothing but a figure in the bread, then for so much this authors other teaching in this booke where he sayth, the bread is neuer the holier, is a doctrine better then this, to teach a change of the bread to an higher nature, when it is onelyonly appoynted to signifie an holy thing. And therfore this authors answer garnished with these three gay wordes of estate, nature and condition, is deuised but for a shift, such as agreeth not with other places of this booke, not it selfe neyther. And where S. Ambrose meruayleth at gods worke in the substance of the sacrament, this author shifteth that also to the effect in him that receaueth, which is also meruaylous in deede, but the substance of the sacrament is by S. Ambrose specially meruayled at, how bread is made ye body of Christ, the visible matter outwardly remayning, and onelyonly by an inward change, which is of the inward nature, called properly substance in learning, and a substance in deede, but perceaued onelyonly by vnderstanding, as the substance present of Christes most precious body, is a very substance in deede of the body inuisibly present, but present indeede, and onelyonly vnderstanded by most true and certayne knowledge of fayth. And although this author noteth how in the examples of mutation brought in by S. Ambrose, the substances neuertheles remayned the same, that skilleth not: for the wonder of those meruayles serue for an induction to releeue the weake fayth of man in this miracle of the Sacrament, and to represse the arrogancy of reason, presuming to search such knowledge in Gods secret workes, whereof if there might be a reason geuen, it néeded no fayth. And where there is a like, there is no singularity, as this miracle in the sacrament is notably singuler, and therefore none other found like vntounto it. The Sacramentall mutation, which this author newly so termeth, is a mere shift to auoyd among such as be not learned the truth of Gods miracle in this chaunge, which is in déed such as S. Ambrose speaketh of, that of bread is made the body of Christ, which S. Ambrose in an other place, termeth it the grace of the body of Christ, and all is one, for it is a great grace, to hauehave the body of Christ for our food present there. And out of Christes mouth, calling the bodye of Christ, is making the body of Christ, which wordes calling, signifying, naming, vsed in S. Ambrose writinges, do not limitte Christes wordes, and restraynt them to an onelyonly calling, an onelyonly signifiyng, or an onelyonly naming, but geue an vnderstanding agréeable to other of S. Ambrose wordes, that shew the bread after consecration to be the body of Christ, the calling to be vnderstanded a real calling of the thing that so is made, and likewise a reall signifying of the thing in déed present, and a reall naming as the thing is in déed. As Christ was named Iesus, because he is the sauiour of his people in déede. And thus perusing this authors answeres, I trust I hauehave noted to the reader, with how smal substaunce of matter this author impugneth transubstantiation, and how slenderly hée goeth about to aunswere such authors as by their seuerall writinges confyrme the same, besydes the consent of Christendome vniuersally receiuing the same. And how in the meane way, this author hath by his owne handes pulled downe the same vntrue doctrine of the fyguratiue speach, that himselfe so lately hath deuised, or rather because this matter in his booke goeth before, he hath in his second booke marred his frame, or euer be commeth to the third booke to set it vp.