Ad Nicolai Selnecceri librum, qui inscribitur Necessaria et brevis repetitio, etc. in quo exegesis saxonica oppugnatur, brevis, modesta et necessaria Lamberti Danaei responsio

continues from previous page: true fact. For the body that he exhibits to us believers to be participated in is that very same body which, not tropikōs figuratively, not symbolikōs symbolically, not metonymikōs by metonymy, is the body of Christ; but it is the true and substantial and actual body that suffered for us, was raised, and glorified. Thus far, therefore, I agree with Selneccer. Regarding the rest, however, there is wondrous discord between us both. First, he asserts that this very life-giving body of Christ is given to all who eat the bread and wine of the Supper. For these men do not want any distinction to be made regarding the reception of Christ's body between the worthy and the unworthy, believers and unbelievers, hypocrites and those who embrace the promises of God by true faith; but they contend that that true and substantial body of Christ, which is both that which suffered and that which is glorious, is participated in indiscriminately by all—that is, by all who take the signs, whether worthy or unworthy—and that by oral manducation. For although they say it is consumed with a different effect or fruit by the good and the bad, they nevertheless insist that the very body of Christ was in fact perceived by the bad, and even by Judas himself, the traitor of Christ, while communicating in the Lord's Supper. But we have long since denied this to them, and truly so. Indeed, the signs of the Supper themselves (that is, bread and wine—not indeed vulgar things, but sacraments, but symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and, as pious antiquity has always spoken, antitypa antitypes/counterparts, which for that reason are called the body and blood of Christ)