Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 25
Caunterbury.
SAynt Ambrose teacheth not the reall and corporall presence of Christs body in the sacrament, as I hauehave proued sufficiently in my former booke, the 64. 81. and 82. leaues, and in myne answere vntounto you in this booke. But agaynst Transubstantiation he teacheth playnly, that after consecration not onelyonly thinges remayne, but also that the thinges changed, still remayne. And what is this, but a flatte condemnation of your imagined Transubstantiation? For if the thinges changed in the sacrament do still remayne, and the substances of bread and wine be changed, then it followeth that theire substances remayne, and be not transubstantiated, so that your vntrue and crafty shift will not releeue your matter any whit, when you say, that the accidence of bread is bread, wherin all the world knoweth how much you erre from the truth. And better it had bene for you to hauehave kept such sayings secret vntounto your selfe, which no man can speake without blushing (except he be past all shame) than to shew your shamefull shiftes open vntounto the world, that all men may see them. And specially when the shewing therof onelyonly discouereth your shame, and easeth you nothing at all. For the accidences be not changed (as you say your selfe) but the substances. And then if the thinges that be changed remayue, the substance must remayne, and not be transubstantiated. And S. Ambrose bringeth forth to good purpose the creation of the world, to shew the wonderfull worke of God, aswell in the spirituall regeneration, and spirituall feeding and nourishing of the liuely members of Christes body, as in the creation and conseruation of the world. And therfore Dauid calleth the spirituall renouation of man, by the name of creation, saying: Cor mundum crea in me Deus, Psalm. 50.O God create in me a new hart. And as for any further answer here vntounto Ambrose nedeth not, but bicause you referre you here to Emissene, they which be indifferent, may read what I hauehave answered vntounto Emissene a little before, and so iudge.
Now let vsus examine S. Augustine.
Augustinus in sermone ad infantes.And S. Augustine about the same tyme, wrote thus: That which you see in the alter, is the bread and the cup, which also your eyes do shew you. But fayth sheweth further, that bread is the body of Christ, & the cupper his bloud, Here he declareth two thinges: that in the sacrament remayneth, bread and wine which we may discerne with our eyes: and that the bread and wine be called the body and bloud of Christ.
In lib. sententiarum Prosperi.And the same thing he declareth also as playnly in an other place, saying: The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two thinges, of the visible kind of the element, and of the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ, both of the sacrament, and of the thinge signified by the sacrament. Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, forasmuch as he is very God and very man. For eueryevery thing cōteineth in it, the very nature of those thinges, wherof it consisteth. Now the sacrifice of the church cōsisteth of two thinges, of the sacrament, and of the thing thereby signified, that is to say, the body of Christ. Therfore there is both the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, which is Christes body.
What can be deuised to be spoken more playnly agaynst the error of the Papistes, which say that no bread nor wine remayneth in the sacrament? For as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures, that is to say, of his manhod, and of his godhead, (and therfore both those natures remayne in Christ,) euen so (sayth S. Augustine) the sacrament consisteth of two natures, of the elements of bread and wine, and of the body and bloud of Christ, and therfore both these natures must nedes remayne in the sacrament.
For the more playne vnderstanding hereof, it is to be noted, that there were certayne heretikes, as Simon, Menander, Martion, Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, Manes, Eutiches, Manichaeus, Apolinaris, and Diuers other of like sortes, which sayd, that Christ was very God, but not a very man, although in eating, drinking, sleeping, and all other operations of man, to mens iudgementes he appeared like vntounto a man.
Other there were, as Artemon, Theodorus, Sabellius, Paulus Samasathenus, Marcellus, Photinus, Nestorius, and many other of the same sectes, which sayd, that he was a very naturall man, but not very God, although in geuing the blind their sight, the dumbe their speach, the deafe their hearing, in healing sodenly with his word all diseases, in raysing to life them that were dead, and in all other workes of God, he shewed himselfe as he had bene God.
Yet other there were, which seeing the scripture so plaine in those two matters, confessed that he was both God and man, but not both at one tyme. For before his incarnation (sayd they) he was God onelyonly, and not man, and after his incarnation, he ceased from his Godhead, and became a man onelyonly, and not God, vntill his resurrection or ascension, and then (say they) he left his manhod, and was onelyonly God agayne, as he was before his incarnation. So that when he was manne, he was not God: and when he was God, he was not man.
But agaynst these vayne heresies, the Catholike fayth, by the expresse word of God holdeth and beleueth, that Christ after his incarnation left not his diuine nature', but remayned still God, as he was before, being togither at one tyme, (as he is still) both perfect God and perfect man.
And for a playne declaration hereof, the old auncient authors giuegive two examples: one is of man, which is made of two partes, of a soule and of a body, and ech of these two partes remayne in man at one tyme. So that when the soule, by the almighty power of god, is put in to the body, neither the body nor soule perisheth therby, but therof is made a perfect man, hauing a perfect soule and a perfect body, remayning in him both at one tyme. The other example, which the olde authors bring in for this purpose, is of the holy Snpper of our Lord, which consisteth (say they) of two partes, of the sacrament or visible element of bread and wine, and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receaue the sacrament, the very natures of bread and wine ceasse not to be there, but remayne there still, and be eaten and drunken corporally, as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten and drunken spiritually: so likewise doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne still with his humanity.
Let now the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation, that there remayneth no bread nor wine in the ministration of the Sacrament, if they will defend the wicked heresies before rehersed, that Christ is not God and man both togither. But to proue that this was the mynd of the old authors, beside the saying of S. Augustine here recited, I shall also reherse diuers other.