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

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.

Another short place of Chrysostom I will reherse, 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 call'd Christs Body, altho 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 falshood 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.