A14461:1183
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.
Eusebius. For that thou […] thy self so much, that we have no witness of the Scripture, how wilt thou the• 1excuse Zipphora, the wi•e of Moses, who circumcised her son Eleazar, in Moses own presence, how hath then Moses pe•••itte• the same?
Eusebius. For that thou 〈…〉 thy selfe so much, that we haue no witnes of the Scripture, how wilt thou the• 1excuse Zipphora, the wi•e of Moses, who circumcised hir sonne Eleaser, in Moses own presence, how hath then Moses pe•••itte• the same?
- 1The example of Zipphora. Exo. 4. f. 25.
Theophilus. The example is not like, but rather against thee, then for thee. For first, thou seest that Moses did not esteem the circumcision so necessary, as you esteem the baptism: sith that he made so small account to circumcise his •onne, although that he had more express commandment, th•• we have of baptism: Furthermore, notwithstanding that that place is very obscure, because that Moses rehearseth the history •o short and briefly. Yet nevertheless i one do examine it throughly, one shall not find that that example can be better applied, then to the isping of the circumcision and of the Saaees. For that which is written, that the Lord or his Angel, came before him and assaulted him, minding to kill him. […] ently declareth that the Lord was ang, because that Moses, notwithstanding that he had the e and the occasion to circumcise his son, hath not done such diligence as he ought to have done. Wherefore the Lord punished him. But as soon as the child was circumcised, he was delivered from that danger, and the Lord did not pursue him any more: But there is an other reason, when the Infants do dye, and that there is no negligence, nor default in the parents. As touching that that Zipphora did the office to circumcise, & not Moses, we must consider that then Moses could not do that, because that he was pressed and grieved by the hand of God, who would have killed him. Wherefore, for to save his life, Zipphora