Chapter 41: The Unity and Substance of the Eucharist
If you demand of him the manner of this transmutation into the body of Christ, he admits it is not easy to express how, in natural nourishment, bread is changed into our flesh. We discussed this earlier with Theophylact.
If the comparison is taken generally and applied to sacramental changing, it suffices. But if you compare it specifically to natural sustenance converted into flesh, you must not only give up the nature of bread but also the accidents.
Chapter 41:
The Unity and Substance of the Eucharist He adds that the bread is made the body of Christ, and wine and water His blood, yet they are not two but one. If he refers to "one" as the cup and bread being one sacrament, we do not dispute this, because in this action, as in one sacrament, Christ is given to us as sustenance. Although the Church, in receiving both parts of this sacrament, does not hesitate to speak of "sacraments" in the plural. In the Collects of the Mass, after communion, you often read: "The sacraments which we have received," and similar phrases. However, if they claim that the bread and the body of Christ are one and not two after consecration due to transubstantiation, we oppose this with the words of Irenaeus, who writes that the Eucharist consists of two things: one earthly and one heavenly. Also, Gelasius the Pope argues from the conjunction of bread with the body of Christ, with both natures remaining whole, that the human and divine natures in Christ are joined in one, each remaining whole and inviolate.
He further asserts that this sacrament is not cast into the draught. This statement aligns with the transubstantiators' view, for they claim that nothing in the Eucharist besides the accidents and the nature of Christ's body can be cast into the draught. However, I counter this with a clear