An account of a disputation at Oxford, anno dom. 1554 with A treatise of…

But here I remember that I have read in some writers of the contrary opinion, which do deny that That which Christ did take he brake; For, say they, after this taking [he blessed it] as Mark doth speak, and by his Blessing he changed the natural substance of the Bread into the natural substance of his Body. And so, although he took the bread, and blessed it, yet because in blessing it he changed the substance of it, he broke not the bread which then was not there, but only the form thereof. Unto this Objection I have two plain answers, both grounded upon Gods word. The one I will rehearse here, the other answer I will defer until I speak of the Sacrament of the Blood. Mine answer here is taken out of the plain words of St. Paul, which doth manifestly confound this fantastical invention; first invented, I ween, of Pope Innocentius and after confirmed by the subtle sophist Dunse, and lately renewed now in our Days with an eloquent stile, and much fineness of wit. But what can crafty Inventions, subtlety in Sophisms, Eloquence or fineness of Wit prevail against the infallible word of God? What need we to contend and strive what thing we break, for Paul saith, speaking undoubtedly of the Lords Table—The Bread (saith he) which we break, is it not the partaking or fellowship of the Lords Body? whereupon it followeth that after the Thanksgiving it is Bread which we break. And how often in the Acts of the Apostles is the Lords Supper signified ⟨p. 15⟩by breaking of Bread. They did per severe in breaking of Bread. And again—They brake Bread in every house. And again—When they were come together to break Bread. St. Paul who setteth forth most fully in his writing both the doctrine and the right use of the Lord's Supper, and the Sacramental eating and drinking of Christs Body & Blood, called it 5 times Bread, Bread &c.

But here I remember that I have read in some writers of the contrary opinion, which do deny that That which Christ did take he brake; For, say they, after this taking [he blessed it] as Mark doth speak, and by his Blessing he changed the natural substance of the Bread into the natural substance of his Body. And so, altho he took the bread, and blessed it, yet because in blessing it he changed the substance of it, he broke not the bread which then was not there, but only the form thereof. Unto this Objection I have two plain answers, both grounded upon Gods word. The one I will reherse here, the other answer I will defer untill I speak of the Sacrament of the Blood. Mine answer here is taken out of the plain words of St. Paul, which doth manifestly confound this fantastical invention; first invented, I ween, of Pope Innocentius and after confirmed by the subtil sophist Dunse, and lately renewed now in our Days with an eloquent stile, and much fineness of wit. But what can crafty Inventions, subtilty in Sophisms, Eloquence or fineness of Wit prevail against the infallible word of God? What need we to contend and strive what thing we break, for Paul saith, speaking undoubtedly of the Lords Table—The Bread (saith he) which we break, is it not the partaking or fellowship of the Lords Body? whereupon it followeth that after the Thanksgiving it is Bread which we break. And how often in the Acts of the Apostles is the Lords Supper signified