This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

1 Cor. 10.
mentioned saying of Paul—namely, that the Fathers ate his flesh even before the incarnation of Christ—must be erased. But because these things are true, you perceive, dearest brothers, how inept Osiander's argument is.
Page 10 and 11.
Another [argument] follows, no less invalid than that one, and yet repeated by him in almost infinite places, both here and in the book against Sturmius.
There is one [type of] merely spiritual manducation of the flesh of Christ, which is treated in John chapter 6: there is another [type], the sacramental, which was instituted in the Supper of the Lord. Therefore, the very flesh of Christ in the sacramental [manducation] is In, Under, and With that Bread and that Wine in a manner of corporal presence: and it is taken together with the sign itself by anyone approaching the Supper, even with an impure mouth. R. As if, indeed, although the sacramental manducation has signs for the sake of teaching and relieving our infirmity, which the merely spiritual manducation does not have: the thing of the Sacrament itself, namely the flesh of Christ (which is one and the same in both, that is, in the spiritual and in the Sacramental manducation) is eaten in this sacramental [manner] by a different reason and with a different mouth than in that merely spiritual one. However, that reason, or the mouth of eating the flesh of Christ itself, is faith. What then? Osiander is mistaken, and indeed childishly, who thinks that the flesh of Christ itself is one thing or is eaten in one way in the spiritual manducation, and another in the sacramental. But if it is the same flesh of Christ, therefore it is also received by the same mouth, with the same teeth, [and] with the same stomach: namely, spiritual [and] not corporal; by faith, not by mouth; by spirit, not by belly. For although sacramental manducation has signs beyond the spiritual (which are metonymically called the flesh and blood of Christ because of the signification and, as the Fathers say, analogy) the flesh itself