THEODORI BEZÆ

to affirm and by affirming to deny, when one interprets those words of the Lord κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν according to the letter—that is, to eat the human body Capernaitically a reference to the literal and carnal interpretation of John 6:52, where the listeners asked "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?", whether bit by bit, or solid, or visibly, or invisibly with the mouth, and to drink human blood with the mouth—they do not dissent from each other any more than things that necessarily cohere.

I ask further, Hofmann, even if I were to grant you that it is possible for someone to be said to oppose coarse thoughts while still retaining an oral eating and drinking, why do you not equally flee from the opposite vice? For I see from your dogma that the flesh of Christ is reduced to such subtlety and thinness, or rather οὐδενότητα nothingness, that you establish it as invisible and illocal. Yet how much more correctly than you do we feel, rejecting both monstrosities and yet affirming that the truth of Christ's words remains, as is fitting, both in the sacramental offering and in the spiritual perception through faith.

You later agitate on page 5 that the same Zwingli, of blessed memory, wrote freely and ingenuously that he had no teacher stronger or more appropriate for the opinion he professes than faith itself. But by what right, pray, do you reprehend this? For thus did that man, truly endowed with a Christian foot...