A17662:715
The Institution of Christian Religion
The institution of Christian religion, written in Latin by master John Calvin, and translated into English according to the authors last edition. Seen and allowed according to the order appointed in the Queens majesties injunctionsThe institution of Christian religion, vvrytten in Latine by maister Ihon Caluin, and translated into Englysh according to the authors last edition. Seen and allowed according to the order appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions
London: printed by Reinolde Wolfe & Richard Harison, 1561London: printed by Reinolde VVolfe & Richarde Harison, 1561
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.
And this observation shall do no small service to assoil many doubts, if the readers do fitly apply it. For it is marvellous how much the unskilful, yea some not utterly unlearned, are cumbered with such forms of speech, which they see spoken by Christ, which do well agree neither with his godhead nor with his manhood: because they consider not that they do agree with his person wherein he is showed both God & man, & with the office of Mediator. And it is alway easy to see, how well allthings hang together, if they have a sober expositor, to examine so great mysteries with such devout reverence as they ought to be. But there is nothing that these furious and phrentike spirits trouble not. They catch hold of those things that are spoken of his manhood,1 to take away his Godhead: and likewise of those things that are spoken of his godhead to take away his manhood: and of those things that are so jointly spoken of both natures, that they severally agree with neither, to take away both. But what is that else but to say, that Christ is not man, because he is God: and that he is not God, because he is man: and that he is neither man nor God, because he is both man and God? We therefore do determine that Christ, as he is both God and man, consisting of both natures united, though not confounded, is our Lord and the true ⟨p. 89⟩son of God, even according to his manhood, though not by reason of his manhood. For the error of Nestorius is to be driven far away from us, which when he went about rather to draw in sunder, than to distinguish the nature, did by that mean imagine a double Christ. Whereas we see that the Scripture crieth out with loud voice against it, where both the name of the son of God is given to him that was borne of the Virgin,2 and the Virgin her self is called the mother of our Lord. We must also beware of the madness of Eutiches, lest while we go about to show the unity of the person, we destroy either nature. For we have already alleged so many testimonies, & there are every where so many other to be alleged, where his Godhead is distinguished from his manhood, as may stop the mouths even of the most contentious. And a little here after I will adjoin some testimonies, to confute better that feigned devise, but at this present, one place shall content us.