A15061:283
An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written
An answer to a certain book, written by Master William Rainolds student of divinity in the English college at Rhemes, and entitled, A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cavils, etc. by William Whitaker ...An answere to a certeine booke, written by Maister William Rainolds student of diuinitie in the English colledge at Rhemes, and entituled, A refutation of sundrie reprehensions, cauils, etc. by William Whitaker ...
Printed at London : For Thomas Chard, 1585
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Again,1 you say, where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence, I ⟨p. 213⟩rail at the first, so that between Beza, and me S. Luke hath never a word right: wisely considered doubties. The words are right, your exposition is fond and wicked. The cup you make to be the blood of Christ, who as yet was not crucified, nor his blood shed. If your doctrine be true, Christs blood was shed already, and that really: else it could not be in the cup really.2 But if Christs blood was shed sitting at the table, who was he, M.R. that shed it? who made the wound? who opened his side? who thrust his weapon in his heart? who pierced his hands and feet? This must you tell, if you maintain that his blood was then really shed, and poured forth into the cup. But by the cup M.R. is meant the wine in the cup, which is the new testament, that is a sacrament of the new testament in Christs blood shed for us on the cross. This is a true and plain sense, agreeable to all analogy of faith, standing with the words themselves, followed of the ancient fathers.
Againe,1 you say, where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence, I ⟨p. 213⟩raile at the first, so that betweene Beza, and me S. Luke hath neuer a word right: wisely considered doubties. The words are right, your exposition is fond and wicked. The cupp you make to be the blood of Christ, whoe as yet was not crucified, nor his blood shed. If your doctrine be true, Christes blood was shed alreadie, and that reallie: els it could not be in the cup reallie.2 But if Christs blood was shed sitting at the table, whoe was he, M.R. that shed it? whoe made the wound? whoe opened his side? who thrust his weapon in his heart? whoe pearced his hands and feete? This must you tell, if you maintaine that his blood was then reallie shed, and powred forth into the cuppe. But by the cuppe M.R. is ment the wine in the cuppe, which is the newe testament, that is a sacrament of the newe testament in Christs blood shed for vs on the crosse. This is a true and plaine sense, agreeable to all analogie of faith, standing with the words themselues, followed of the auncient fathers.