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

I trust no man is so far from reason, but he will grant me that Paul did use the form of words which he writeth, let us then consider Pauls words which he saith Christ spake upon the Cup, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood; this do as often as you shall drink it in remembrance of me. Here I would know whether that Christ's words spoken upon the Cup were not as mighty in work, and as effectual in signification as they that were spoken upon the Bread. If this be granted (which I think no man can deny) then further I reason thus. But the word [Is] in the words spoken upon the Lords bread doth mightily signify, (say they) the change of the substance of that which goeth before it, into the substance of that which followeth after; that is of the substance of bread into the substance of Christs body. Now then, when Christs words spoken upon the Cup be of the same might, and power both in working and signifying, then must this word [Is] when Christ saith this Cup [is] the New Testament &c. turn the substance of the Cup into the substance of the New Testament. And if thou wilt say that this word [Is] neither maketh, neither signifieth any such change of the Cup, and that although it be said of Christ that this Cup is the New Testament, yet Christ meant no such change as That; Marry Sr, even so say I when Christ said of the Bread ⟨p. 19⟩which he took, and after thanksgiving brake, and gave them saying take, eat, this is my Body, he meant no more any such change of the Bread into the substance of his natural Body than he meant of the change and Transubstantiation of the Cup into the substance of the New Testament; and if thou wilt say that the word (Cup) here in Christs words doth not signify the Cup it self, but the Wine or thing contained in the Cup, by a figure called Metonymia, (for that Christs words meant, and so must needs be taken) thou sayest very well; but I pray thee by the way here note two things. First, that this word (Is) hath no such strength or signification in the Lords words to make or signify any Transubstantiation. Secondly; That in the Lords words whereby he instituted the Sacrament of his Blood he used a Figurative speech. How vain then is it that some say that Christ in Doctrine, and in the Institution of the Sacraments, used no Figures, but all his words are to be strained to their proper signification;

I trust no man is so far from reason, but he will grant me that Paul did use the form of words which he writeth, let us then consider Pauls words which he saith Christ spake upon the Cup, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood; this do as often as you shall drink it in remembrance of me. Here I would know whether that Christ's words spoken upon the Cup were not as mighty in work, and as effectual in signification as they that were spoken upon the Bread. If this be granted (which I think no man can deny) then further I reason thus. But the word [Is] in the words spoken upon the Lords bread doth mightily signify, (say they) the change of the substance of that which goeth before it, into the substance of that which followeth after; that is of the substance of bread into the substance of Christs body. Now then, when Christs words spoken upon the Cup be of the same might, and power both in working and signifying, then must this word [Is] when Christ saith this Cup [is] the New Testament &c. turn the substance of the Cup into the substance of the New Testament. And if thou wilt say that this word [Is] neither maketh, neither signifieth any such change of the Cup, and that altho it be said of Christ that this Cup is the New Testament, yet Christ meant no such change as That; Marry Sr, even so say I when Christ said of the Bread