A Christian Instruction Containing the Law and the Gospel, Exposition 1 · Dialogue 7
The ſeuenth Dialogue is of the redemption and of the perſon of Ieſus Chriſte.
Of the vvorke of the redemption, and of the things that are to be conſidered in the perſon of Ieſus Chriſt.
MATHEVV.
Act. 4. b.SEing it is ſo that we cannot finde ſaluation but in Ieſus Chriſte, nor by none other meane, but by faithe in him, declare vntounto me nowe what it is that we ought to beléeue of him, to the ende that our faith may be ſounde towards him.
P.
Thou entreſt now into the ſecond worke of God, the whiche we hauehave called the worke of the redemptiō.
M.
I vnderſtand it well ſo. And therefore expounde to me the principall points that we hauehave to conſider in the ſame.
Peter.
We hauehave there chiefly three.
M.
Whiche be they?
P.
The firſte is concerning the perſon of Ieſus Chriſt, the ſeconde concerning his office, and the thirde touching his two commings.
M.
What hauehave we to conſider touching his perſone?
P.
Thrée pointes.
M.
Which be they?
P.
The firſte is touching his diuine nature.
M.
And the ſeconde?
P.
Touching his humane nature.
M.
And the thirde?
P.
Concerning the vnion of the two natures.
Of the faith of the Chriſtians concerning the diuine and humane natures of Ieſus Chriſte.
M.
WHat muſt we beléeue of his diuine nature?
P.
That he is very God without beginning and withoute ende, of one eſſence with the father, and that he is his eternall word & wiſedome.
M.
And cōcerning his humane nature?
P.
That he is very man, hauing a very mans bodie, of our fleſhe, of oure blend & bones, & a very humane ſoule as other mē hauehave, and that he was made in eueryevery point like vntounto vsus, ſinne excepted.
Hovv the diuine and humaine natures vvhichwhich are in the perſon of Ieſus Chriſt, do not make two Ieſus Chriſts, but one only.
M.
Apoca. 1. b. 21 b. 22. c. Prouerb. 8. c. Iohn. 1. a. Rom. 9. a. Iohn. 1. b. Matth. 2. d. Luke. 1. c. 2. a. Galath. 4. a. 1. Timo. 3. d. Philem. 2. a. Ephe. 5. c. Hebr. 2. b. c. 4. d.WHat canſt thou yet ſay of the vnion of theſe two natures, beſide that whiche thou haſt alredy ſpoken when thou handledſt the office of mediatoure of Ieſus Chriſte?
P.
It is that they be ſo vnited togither, that they remayne alwayes in their very naturall, in one very perſon.
M.
What meaneſt thou thereby?
P.
That being ſo vnited, they make vsus not two Ieſus Chriſtes, to witte, the one God and the other man, but one only, whiche is very God and very man togither, in one onelyonly perſon, euen as the body and ſoule of man make one onelyonly mā, and one only perſon, and not twaine.
M.
This vnion of theſe two natures thē is very neceſſarie to oure ſaluation?
P.
Thou maiſt well know that, as well by that which we hauehave alredy ſayd touching this matter, as by the office whiche was aſſigned vntounto Ieſus Chriſt by his father. For there is no one Ieſus Chriſt, whiche being but only God, coulde hauehave ſaued man, nor coulde hauehave dyed for them: and an other being but only man, might dye for them, but coulde not hauehave power to ſaue them, nor to beare the iudgement of God for their ſinnes.
VVhether the diuine nature be in Ieſus Chriſt in ſtead of the ſoule, or elſe that he hath a very humane ſoule.
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 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.
Bicauſe that the principall parte of man, whiche is the ſoule, ſhuld be wanting in him: for this cauſe, I hauehave ſaide heretofore that Ieſus Chriſt was very man, compounded of a very humane body and a very humane ſoule.
How the eternall worde of God became fleslie.
M.
THou haſt ſaide heretofore that Ieſus Chriſt was the eternall worde of God.Iohn. 1. b. Now Sainct Iohn ſaith that that worde whiche is very God eternall, became fleſh.
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 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,Hebr. 2. d. 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 Sainct Iohn had mente ſo, he wold rather hauehave 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 mention but of the fleſh, ſeing that it is the leaſt and moſt vile parte of man?
P.
I can yeld vntounto thee chiefly two reaſons.
M.
Which is the firſt?
P.
It is bycauſe the holy Scriptures do take oft times a part for the whole.Geneſis. 6. b. c Eſay. 40. b. Luke. 3. b. Ioel. 2. f. Act. 2. c. Eze. 18. c. Roma. 13. a Eſay. 40. b. 1. Peter. 1. d. Iohn. 1. b. And therefore it taketh now the fleſh & now the ſoule, for ye whole man complete.
M.
Which is the ſeconde reaſon?
P.
It is that when the holy Scripture doth vſe the name of fleſhe, to ſignifie the whole man, ſhe vſeth that manner of ſpeach, to admoniſh men of the infirmities that are in them, to the end they may vnderſtande that they are but men mortall, and not Gods immortall.
M.
Hath Sainct Iohn had regarde therevnto, whē he ſaid that the Sonne of God was made fleſhe?
P.
There is no doubt of it. But it is in an other regarde. For albeit that Ieſus were very god as touching hys diuine nature, & that he toke our fleſh without any ſpot of ſinne when he was made mā, & that he hath vnited his diuine nature with the humane nature, yet for al yt he was ſo exempte frō all ſin, yt notwithſtāding he wold be ſubiect, without ſinne, to al ye infirmities and miſeries, wherevnto men are ſubiecte bycauſe of theyr ſinnes.
M.
Thou meaneſt then, that thys worde of fleſh emporteth all that ſame, and that it doth better expreſſe in what manner and to what condition and ende the ſonne of God did take our nature to him and was made man,Matth. 8. c. 9. a. 11 c. 16. d. 17. b. 18. b. 16. d. 24. b. c. d. 2…. e. 26. a. b. c. Hebr. 4. d. than if he had ſpoken otherwiſe.
P.
It is euen ſo, and therefore he doth alſo call himſelfe ſo oftentimes the ſonne of man, to giuegive vsus to vnderſtande that he is not only a very naturall man, deſcended of the race of Adam, of the which al others are deſcended, but alſo that he made himſelfe ſubiecte to all the miſeries and neceſſities of man, whervnto men are ſubiect, always excepted any ſpotte of ſinne.
Of the conception of Ieſus Chriſt, and of the nature of his fleſhe.
M.
NOwe ſéeing that that humayne fleſh which Ieſus Chriſt hath taken for vsus, is exempte from all ſinne, where is then that he toke it? Did he bring it from Heauen with hym, or elſe did he take it vppon the Earthe?
P.
When thou confeſſeſt that hée was conceiued of the holy Ghoſt, and borne of the virgine Mary, thou confeſſeſt that he toke it vppon earth, in the wombe of that holye virgin.
M.
But coulde he not hauehave paſſed thorow the womb of the virgin with a heauenly fleſhe, withoute taking any thing of hir fleſhe?
P.
If he had brought from heauen that fleſh which he hath, and that it were a fleſh of a heauenly and diuine nature, which he ſhould not hauehave taken in the wombe of the virgin, and of the proper fleſhe and bloud of hir, we could not ſay truly that ſhe had conceyued and borne him, and conſequently that he were very man of oure proper fleſhe and bloud, whiche we hauehave of oure firſt father Adam.
VVherevnto the genealogie of Ieſus Chriſte, according to the fleshe, dothe ſerue vsus.
M.
I Thinke S. Mathew and S. Luke woulde giuegive vsus to vnderſtande that whiche thou ſayeſt, when they did wryte the genealogie of Ieſus Chriſt,Matth. 1. a. b the which is broughte foorth by S. Matthewe, euen from Abraham, and by S. Luke from Adam euen to Ieſus Chryſt.
P.
They hauehave had regarde to that whiche thou ſayeſt in déede,Matth. 1. a. b. Luke. 3. g. but they would ſhew further, that he was the true Chryſt, and the true Sauiour and redéemer that was promiſed to Iſraell, bycauſe that hée was deſcended of the lyue of thoſe of whome the holy Ghoſte hathe foreſpoken by the mouthe of the holy patriarches & Prophetes, that he ſhoulde deſcende.
Of the woorkes of the holye Ghoſt in the conception of Ieſus Chriſt.
M.
Luke. 1. c.BVt if he hauehave taken his fleſhe of the line and of the proper fleſhe of men, who are all ſinners, howe could he be more without ſinne in his fleſhe, than other men?
P.
The angel hath anſwered this difficultie when he ſayd to the virgin that ſhe ſhould conceiue the ſonne of God by the power and workyng of the holye Ghoſt.
Mathevve.
What meaneſt thou by that vertue and working of the holie Ghoſt?
P.
I meane that the holy Ghoſt wrought in that conception ſo by hys diuine power, that the fleſhe whyche Ieſus Chriſte tooke of the Virgine Marie, was in ſuche ſorte ſanctifyed, that he dyd purifie and exempt it from all ſinne, and from all the corruption, whereby the whole nature of man is corrupted, bycauſe of ſinne that is naturally in it.
Of the true ſubſtance of the bodie of Ieſus Chriſte.
M.
WE may not then imagine in Ieſus Chryſte, a bodie that is ſo heauenly and diuine, that it is not a very mans bodye, of verie humane fleſhe and ſubſtance, but wée muſt beléeue in déede, that he is of verye humane ſubſtaunce as wée are.
Pet.
Thou concludeſt verye well: And in lyke ſorte alſo, wée maye not imagine, that this humane bodie of Ieſus Chriſt, is a bodie only in apparance as a fantaſme, as ſome heretikes hauehave affirmed auncientlye. For if hee hadde not taken a verye mans bodie, wée coulde hauehave no hope of Saluation by him.