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

Then (in which this is the second error of Selneccer) he is deceived by the amphibolia ambiguity of these words, Body of Christ. For when that very true and essential body and true blood of Christ is called the body and blood of Christ without a trope, and the signs and symbols of both (namely Bread and Wine) are likewise called the body and blood of Christ, but sacramentally and only tropikōs figuratively: Selneccer (who declares that he is little concerned with words) thinks, I say, that when the wicked and hypocrites take the signs themselves (which, as I said, are named the body), they take that very thing which is the true and essential body and blood of Christ, in which he manifestly hallucinates by the homonymy of these words, Body and blood. Therefore, we differ from Selneccer first in this: that he thinks the true and essential body of Christ itself is eaten without faith, whereas we, to the contrary, with Paul, with Augustine, and finally with Christ himself, deny it. Second, we also differ in that he denies we can communicate with the flesh of Christ unless that very flesh of Christ is corporeally, essentially, substantially joined, coupled, and associated with the Bread and Wine of the Supper itself, and he wants it to be eaten by us through oral manducation and (as he speaks below, page 20, without circumlocution) corporally. We disagree. Therefore, the mode of this our communication with that sacred flesh and blood of Christ

1 Cor. 11.

John 6.

Augustine in Sermon on the words of the Gospel.