A14463:2023
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. But if the bread and the wine do not change their substance, and neither be transubstantiated, converted nor changed into the body and the blood of Jesus Christ, may not then the body ⟨p. 335⟩and blood of Jesus Christ be well joined to them in their own proper substance & nature?
M. BVt if the breade and the wine doe not chaunge their substaunce, and neyther be transubstantiated, conuerted nor changed into the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Chryste, may not then the bodie ⟨p. 335⟩and bloud of Iesus Chryste be well ioyned to them in their owne proper substāce & nature?
P. There are among those which reject the false doctrine of transubstantiation, by the which we have been sometime taught, that the very substance of the bread and of the wine was changed into the very substance of the body & of the blood of Jesus Christ, which are of the opinion that thou now settest forth.
P. Ther are among those which reiect the false doctrine of transubstantiation, by the whiche we haue bene sometyme taught, that the very substāce of the bread and of the wine was chaunged into the very substance of the body & of the bloud of Iesus Chryst, which ar of the opinion yt thou now settest forth.
M. And why do they rather follow that opinion than the other?
M. And why do they rather folow yt opinion than ye other?
P. Because that they know well that opinion to be too gross. And therefore they have recourse to that other manner of presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, in the Supper, whereof thou haste now made mention.
P. Bicause that they know well yt opinion to be too grosse. And therfore they haue recourse to that other maner of presence of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste, in the Supper, whereof thou haste now made mention.
M. And what inconvenient findest thou in that opinion?
M. And what inconueniente fyndest thou in that opinion?
Peter. I find not much less therein than in that of Transubstantiation.
Peter. I fynde not muche lesse therein than in that of Transubstantiation.
Math. Thou canst not say at the least but that they which follow it, do take from the Supper the signs of the bread and of the wine, for so much as they join them with the body and the blood of Jesus Christ, the which they signify.
Math. Thou canste not saye at the leaste but that they whiche followe it, doe take from the Supper the signes of the breade and of the wyne, for so much as they ioyne them wyth the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Chryste, the whiche they signifie.
Peter. No more are they also ⟨p. 320⟩so greatly different in other matters to them that maintain transubstantiation, And therefore may we lawfully call the opinion of such men, consubstantiation.
Peter. No more are they also ⟨p. 320⟩so greatlye different in other matters to them that mayntain transubstantiation, And therfore may we lawfully call the opiniō of such men, cōsubstantiation.
M. What understandest thou by this word of Consubstantiation?
M. What vnderstandest thou by this word of Consubstantiation?
P. As they which have forged the transubstantiation do understand by the same, a changing of substance into an other, even so by the name of consubstantiation, a man may understand the conjunction of divers substances together.
P. As they which haue forged the transubstātiation do vnderstand by the same, a changing of substance into an other, euen so by the name of consubstantiation, a man may vnderstande the coniunction of diuers substances togither.
M. Declare unto me then wherein they do agree, and wherein they do differ.
M. DEclare vnto me then wherin they do agrée, and wherin they doe differ.
Peter. For the first, if they do understand that the body and the blood of Jesus Christ be with the bread and the wine, in their own nature and substance, and by a natural, corporal and material manner as the bread and the wine are there, they agree therein with the error of transubstantiation.
Peter. For the first, if they doe vnderstande that the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Christe bée wyth the breade and the wine, in their own nature and substance, and by a naturall, corporall and materiall maner as the bread and the wyne are there, they agrée therin with the erroure of transubstantiation.
M. It seemeth to me that they draw well to one point, saving that they make no transubstantiation ⟨p. 321⟩nor change of the bread and of the wine, into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
M. It séemeth to mée that they drawe well to one poynte, sauing that they make no transubstantiation ⟨p. 321⟩nor chaunge of the breade and of the wine, into the body and bloude of Iesus Christ.