A14463:1958
A14463:1958
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.
MATTHEW. How is it that men do eat the flesh of Jesus Christ, and do drink his blood, as thou hast even now said? It is to be understood that the bread and the wine be transubstantiate and converted into them, or else that they be joined and united with the bread and the wine.
MATHEVV. HOw is it that men do eate the flesh of Iesus Christ, and do drinke his bloud, as thou hast euen nowe saide? It is to bée vnderstoode that the breade and the wine be transubstantiate and conuerted into them, or else that they be ioyned and vnited with the bread and the wine.
P. For the first, there is no reason either to think or say, that the bread and the wine be converted or changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
P. For the firste, there is no reason eyther to thinke or saye, that the breade and the wine be conuerted or chaunged into the body and bloud of Iesus Christe.
M. For what cause.
P. Because that if the bread & the wine did not remain still in the supper, bread and wine, in their proper substance, ⟨p. 326⟩they should not be the signs of the body & of the blood of Jesus Christ, but if they were converted into the same, they should be the self same thing, the which they ought to signify and represent unto us.
P. Bycause that if the bread & the wine did not remayne still in the supper, bread and wine, in their proper substance, ⟨p. 326⟩they shoulde not be the signes of the body & of the bloud of Iesus Christe, but if they were conuerted into the same, they shoulde be the selfe same thing, the which they oughte to signifie and represente vnto vs.
M. What inconvenient should there be in that?
M. What inconueniente should there be in that?
P. There should be this inconvenient in it, that the supper should be a Sacrament without sign, and so should it have no Sacramental sign, without the which the Sacraments may not be Sacraments.
P. There shoulde be this inconuenient in it, that the supper should be a Sacramente withoute signe, and so shoulde it haue no Sacramentall signe, without the which the Sacramēts may not be Sacraments.
M. Howe understandest thou that?
M. HOwe vnderstandest thou that?
P. Thou must note that a Sacrament, cannot be a Sacrament except it have at the least three things, which are of the proper substance of all Sacraments.
P. Thou must note that a Sacramente, cannot be a Sacramente excepte it haue at the leaste thrée things, whiche are of the proper substance of all Sacramens.
M. Which are these three things?
M. Whiche are these thrée things?
P. The first is the word of God, which is the foundation of all the Sacraments.
P. The firste is the worde of God, which is the foundation of all the Sacraments.
M. And the second?
M. And the seconde?
P. The visible and material signs such as God hath ordained by that very word.
P. The visible and materiall signes such as God hath ordeyned by that very word.
M. And the third?