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

Yet can I, saith the third Papist, find out a fine and subtle solution for this place, and say, that Christs Body is not contained in those Vessels at the Lords Table as in a place, but as in a Mystery;—Is not this a pretty shift, and a mystical solution? But by the same Solution, then Christs Body is not in the Lords Table, nor in the Priests Hand, nor in his Pyx, and so he is no-where; for they will not say, that he is either here or there, as in a place. This answer pleaseth so well the maker, that he himself, after that he hath plaid with it a little while, and showed the fineness of his wit and eloquence therein, he is contented to give it over, and say—That it is not to be thought that Chrysostom would speak after this fineness or subtlety, and so returneth again to the second answer for his Sheet-Anchor, which is already sufficiently answered.

Yet can I, saith the third Papist, find out a fine and subtil solution for this place, and say, that Christs Body is not contained in those Vessels at the Lords Table as in a place, but as in a Mystery;—Is not this a pretty shift, and a mystical solution? But by the same Solution, then Christs Body is not in the Lords Table, nor in the Priests Hand, nor in his Pixe, and so he is no-where; for they will not say, that he is either here or there, as in a place. This answer pleaseth so well the maker, that he himself, after that he hath plaid with it a little while, and shewed the fineness of his wit and eloquence therein, he is contented to give it over, and say—That it is not to be thought that Chrysostom would speak after this fineness or subtilty, and so returneth again to the second answer for his Sheet-Anchor, which is already sufficiently answer'd.

Another short place of Chrysostom I will rehearse, which (if any Indifferency may be heard) in plain terms setteth forth the truth of this matter. Writing Ad Caesarem Monachum, Before the Bread, saith he, be hallowed, we call it Bread, but the Grace of God sanctifying it by the means of the Priest, it is ⟨p. 31⟩delivered now from the name of Bread, and esteemed worthy to be called Christs Body, although the nature of Bread abide in it still.—What can be said, or taught more plain against this Error of Transubstantiation, than to declare that the Bread abideth so still? and yet to this so plain a place, some are not ashamed thus shamefully to delude it, saying,—We grant the nature of Bread remaineth still thus far, that it may be seen, felt, and tasted, and yet the Corporal substance of the Bread therefore is gone, lest two Bodies be confused together, and Christ should be thought impanate. What contrariety and falsehood is in this answer, the simple man may easily perceive. Is not this a plain Contrariety, to grant that the nature of Bread remaineth so still, that it may be felt, seen, and tasted, and yet to say the Corporal substance is gone to avoid absurdity of Christs Impanation. Or what manifest falsehood is this, to say or mean, that if the Bread should remain still, then must follow the Inconvenience of Impanation; as though the very Bread could not be a Sacrament of Christs Body, as the Water is of Baptism, except Christ should unite the nature of Bread to his nature in unity of Person, and make of the Bread God.