Ad Danielis Hofmanni demonstrationes ad oculum, Theodori Bezae Conspicillum

...from the literal sense of Christ's words, pretends mere Capernaitic and carnal thoughts. I have undertaken to defend here, not Zwingli himself—who now rests happily in the Lord, and who was once an excellent instrument of God in restoring the Gospel in our memory—but the truth, of which he was a faithful herald. So it is exactly as you say, and you cannot deny that it was done correctly by him. But why do you not explain what these crude thoughts are? Is it because they are the very ones you defend? Namely, the real co-existence of Christ himself with the bread, and of his blood with the wine, and the corporal eating and drinking of the same, common to those approaching worthily and unworthily? Since these things are affirmed by you as true, I for one cannot see how you do not contradict the Christ who is true God and man inseparably, being expressed and explicitly stated as placed in bread and eaten, nor by what reason you can excuse that mere σαρκοφαγίαν flesh-eating. For what you are accustomed to except—that Luther rejected these thoughts with his whole heart, and yet did not desert the words of Christ (for to you, anyone who does not interpret those words κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν according to the letter is said to desert the words of Christ)—is absolutely nothing but denying something...