CONSPICILLVM.

...in idolaters, who flee now to this idol, now to that, neither becomes you nor us. You will certainly never show that this diversity of ours varies anything in the opinion itself. For do you think that those who interpreted the pronoun "This" as the very action or celebration of the Lord's Supper were so insane that they referred it strictly to the bread itself, and did not rather signify that this bread is not to be considered simply in itself and outside of its legitimate use? For the Papists are involved in this greatest error, into which even Cyril himself seems to incline in a certain place. But a trope, whether you place it in the copula (which is most approved by me, as it was by Dr. Zwingli) or in the predicate (which pleased Dr. Oecolampadius and many other very great men), it absolutely has a place whenever, in the writings of the fathers, the body of Christ is said to be created, to fall to the earth, to be consumed, to be seen, to be touched: but why not also by the same and equal reason, as the flesh is said to be eaten and the blood to be drunk? For they agree in words, though not in the thing itself, which you commit as contradictions. For who does not see that the meaning of these statements is the same: "This bread is sacramentally" (namely, by conjunction and offering) "my body given for you," and "This bread is the Sacrament of the body given for you."