An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written

First,¹ whereas I said if they understand by the cup, the blood in the cup, as they do, then is there mention made of double blood; you tell me, I lie grossly and intolerably: such courteous speeches I have no cause to thank you for: but let all men of wisdom be judges, whether I have not said the truth. Thus you make S. Luke to speak, this cup, that is, this blood, is the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Is not here by your construction ⟨p. 212⟩mentioned first one blood, then an other? your reply is pitiful M. R. For to say, This Christ is Christ the Son of God, this God is God of heaven and earth, as it signifieth not a double Christ or God: so is it nothing like this saying of yours concerning the blood in the sacrament. For you cannot make the construction, as you pretend, this blood is the blood of the new Testament: the words stand otherwise: unless you will commit a greater fault, then that wherewith you charge Beza so heinously. S. Luke speaketh not, as you make him, this blood is the blood of the new testament: but, this cup is the new testament in my blood. If by cup, he meant blood, as you affirm, then our saviour Christ his blood was the new Testament in his blood. And is it all one to say, This blood is the blood of the new testament, and, this blood is the new testament in my blood? If it may be lawful for you, to alter and expound the words at your pleasure, then can you help your selves well enough: but your exposition must be squared according to the words, not the words framed to your exposition.

First,¹ whereas I said if they vnderstand by the cuppe, the bloode in the cuppe, as they doe, then is there mention made of double bloode; you tell me, I lie groslie and intollerablie: such curteous speaches I haue no cause to thanke you for: but let all men of wisdome be iudges, whether I haue not saied the truth. Thus you make S. Luke to speake, this cup, that is, this bloode, is the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Is not here by your construction ⟨p. 212⟩mentioned first one blood, then an other? your reply is pitifull M. R. For to say, This Christ is Christ the sonne of God, this God is God of heauen and earth, as it signifieth not a double Christ or God: so is it nothing like this saying of yours concerning the blood in the sacrament. For you cannot make the construction, as you pretend, this blood is the blood of the new Testament: the wordsstand otherwise: vnles you wil commit a greater fault, then that wherewith you charge Beza so hainously. S. Luke speaketh not, as you make him, this blood is the blood of the new testament: but, this cup is the new testament in my blood. If by cup, he meant blood, as you affirme, then our sauiour Christ his blood was the new Testament in his blood. And is it all one to say, This blood is the blood of the new testament, and, this blood is the new testament in my blood? If it may be lawfull for you, to alter and expound the words at your pleasure, then can you help your selfes wel enough: but your exposition must be squared according to the wordes, not the words framed to your exposition.