A14461:1060
The Christian disputations, by Master Peter Viret. Divided into three parts, dialogue wiseThe Christian disputations, by Master Peter Viret. Deuided into three partes, dialogue wise
The Christian disputations, by Master Peter Viret. Divided into three parts, dialogue wise: set out with such grace, that it cannot be, but that a man shall take great pleasure in the reading thereof. Translated out of French into English, by John Brooke of AsheThe Christian disputations, by Master Peter Viret. Deuided into three partes, dialogue wise: set out with such grace, that it cannot be, but that a man shall take greate pleasure in the reading thereoff. Translated out of French into English, by Iohn Brooke of Ashe
London: printed by Thomas East, 1579
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.
good right, this here is accounted for Apocrypha. And although there were no other reason, for to diminish his authority, but the excuse which the author of the said book made in the end of his work, that ought to suffice thee. Read the last Chapter and thou shalt see it by experience. If he had been certain through the spirit of GOD, that all that which he hath written, proceeded from him, as the Prophets and Apostles have done, wherefore should he excuse himself both of the stile, of 1the manner of writing and of the faults that he might have committed? If he had been always inspired with the same spirit, by which the Prophets and Apostles have spoken, he would have spoken surely and in the authority of God, as those who without excusing themselves have ⟨p. 218⟩said: The Lord hath spoken it. And Saint Paul with what authority speaketh he affirming that the Gospel which he hath preached was so certain, that although 2an Angel came down from heaven, for to bring any other unto you, he ought not to be received, but accursed. Learn then Eusebius to discern the books of the holy Scripture, form the others: and think not that the church hath holden for Canonical, that second book of the Maccabees, but as a book which was not altogether to be rejected, and of which it might serve the Church, for declaration of the Scriptures, because of the histories contained in the same, which do give a certain opening, for the intelligence of the antiquity, as the histories of Joseph do. Yet nevertheless if one mark them well, it shall be easy to judge, that the first and the second are not all of one author: not only by the diversity of the stile, […] also because that in the second, are reiterated some bistories, and many things which already have been entreated •• in the first, and a great deal better then they are in this. If one do find in any other book worthy to be credited of the old or new Testament, any like place unto that which thou hast alleged, the argument should have some colour by the show that the other would give unto it. But forasmuch as it is alone, his witness is not sufficient, as it should be in the one of the others. For God is as much to be believed by one only witness as