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.

Those two things, which are not one in number, nor in species, nor in genus:
they cannot be one thing except by proportion.
But the Earthly and Heavenly Food and Drink in the sacred Supper,
are not one thing in number, species, or genus.
Wherefore they are one by proportion. Thus the circumcision of the foreskin and of the heart were one by proportion, signifying that all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit, and all perverse affections, must be taken away from us. Thus the Paschal Lamb and that Lamb already slaughtered from the foundations of the world were one thing: but by proportion, signifying that the Lamb of God, taking away the sin of the world, nourishes and vivifies us. Thus the Water of Baptism and the Blood of Christ are one thing: but not except by proportion, signifying that the Blood of Christ cleanses us from sins. Thus in the Lord’s Supper, earthly food and heavenly [food], Wine and the Blood of Christ are one: but by proportion, σχέσει by relation and mutual respect. For this is what they mean for themselves, that we, having been made grafts of Christ, and clothed by Him, are fed by that very same one. Rom. 6:5; Gal. 3:27; John 6:33.
Thence we gather ἀναντιρρήτως irrefutably that this sacramental union (which analogically joins even things most distant in place and time, according to God’s institution) leaves no place for Transubstantiation, nor for Consubstantiation: that which is easily attained by those who know that those things are joined not for the sake of visible Signs, but for the sake of faithful men, by that elegant collation and similarity: and who know that faith is the ὑπόστασιν substance/assurance of things hoped for, and the proof of things not seen. Heb. 11:1. For with Transubstantiation posited, the sign having been taken away, the analogy that ought to exist between the Sign and the Thing signified perishes. But with Consubstantiation granted, not only is the use of the Sign taken away as superfluous (for to what end does it serve, by representing, to recall to memory that very thing which is judged to be present: and to shadow forth what its nature and virtue might be, by applying signs more obscure than the thing itself? As if someone, in the brightest midday,