A14463:1155
A14463:1155
A Christian instruction, containing the law and the Gospel Also a summary of the principal points of the Christian faith and religion, and of the abuses and errors contrary to the same. Done in certain dialogues in french, by M. Peter Viret, sometime minister of the Word of God at Nymes in Province. Translated by I.S. Seen and allowed according to the Queens Majesties injunctions.A Christian instruction, conteyning the law and the Gospell Also a summarie of the principall poyntes of the Christian fayth and religion, and of the abuses and errors contrary to the same. Done in certayne dialogues in french, by M. Peter Viret, sometime minister of the Word of God at Nymes in Prouince. Translated by I.S. Seene and allowed according to the Queenes Maiesties iniunctions.
London: printed by Henry Bynneman? for Abraham Veale, 1573
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.
M. Doest thou mean by this that the divine nature of Jesus Christ, is in stead of a soul to the human nature?
M. DOest thou meane by this that the diuine nature of Iesus Christe, is in stead of a soule to the humaine nature?
P. If the divine nature were in stead of a soul to the humane nature, and that Jesus Christ had no very humane soul, he should be no true and perfect man.
P. If the diuine nature were in stead of a soule to the humane nature, and that Iesus Christe had no very humane soule, he should be no true and perfect man.
M. For what cause?
P. Because that the principal part of man, which is the soul, should be wanting in him: for this cause, I have said heretofore that Jesus Christ was very man, compounded of a very humane body and a very humane soul.
P. Bicause that the principall parte of man, whiche is the soule, shuld be wanting in him: for this cause, I haue saide heretofore that Iesus Christ was very man, compounded of a very humane body and a very humane soule.
M. Thou hast said heretofore that Jesus Christ was the eternal word of God.1 Now Saint John saith that that word which is very God eternal, became flesh.
M. THou hast saide heretofore that Iesus Christ was the eternall worde of God.1 Now Sainct Iohn saith that that worde whiche is very God eternall, became flesh.
Pe. What meanest thou by that? Doest thou think that the same word of God was converted into flesh, in such sort that it was no more the eternal word of God, but flesh, and that the Son of God, which is that word of God, being God before that time, did so become man, that he is no more God, but man only?
Pe. What meanest thou by that? Doest thou thinke that the same worde of God was conuerted into fleshe, in suche sorte that it was no more the eternall worde of God, but fleshe, and that the Sonne of God, which is that word of God, being God before that time, did so become man, that he is no more God, but man only?
M. Thou hast given me well to understand by that which thou hast even now said of the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, that we may not so think of him: but because Saint John maketh mention but of the flesh, when he saith,1 that that word became flesh, a man might think that he spake, but of the body and not at all of the soul, but that this word of God united with the body, was to it in stead of a soul.
M. Thou hast giuen me well to vnderstande by that whiche thou hast euen now said of the diuinitie and humanitie of Iesus Christ, that we may not so thinke of him: but bycause Saincte Iohn maketh mention but of the flesh, when he saith,1 that that word became flesh, a man might thinke that he spake, but of the body and not at al of the soule, but that this worde of God vnited with the body, was to it in stead of a soule.
P. If Saint John had meant so, he would rather have said as it is elsewhere said in the holy scriptures, that Jesus Christ had taken the seed of Abraham, to wit our flesh, and not the Angels.
P. If Sainct Iohn had mente so, he wold rather haue said as it is elsewhere said in the holy scripturs, that Iesus Christe had taken the séede of Abraham, to witte our flesh, and not the Angells.
M. Why is it then that he maketh ⟨p. 167⟩mention but of the flesh, seeing that it is the least and most vile part of man?
M. Why is it then that he maketh ⟨p. 167⟩mention but of the flesh, seing that it is the least and most vile parte of man?
P. I can yield unto thee chiefly two reasons.
P. I can yeld vnto thee chiefly two reasons.
M. Which is the first?
P. It is because the holy Scriptures do take oft times a part for the whole.1 And therefore it taketh now the flesh & now the soul, for the whole man complete.
P. It is bycause the holy Scriptures do take oft times a part for the whole.1 And therefore it taketh now the flesh & now the soule, for ye whole man complete.
M. Which is the second reason?
M. Which is the seconde reason?