New Page

New Testament and with a knowledge of Christ.
7. The Scripture sometimes shows things as we can see them, sometimes as they are in
themselves, in their reality before God. This is particularly true for the commandments and the promises.
8. Everything that happened to the Jewish nation has to be interpreted as an example.
9. Gods speaks to us according to our human nature, and He has secrets that He does not
share with us. It is a sin to deal with these.
10. The law and the gospel should not be confused.
It is clear from this scheme that the treatise is burdened with repetitions since the first and the
seventh, and again the third, the sixth, the eighth and the tenth belong closely together. On the other hand,
the line of reasoning departs from the itemized principle within the individual themes. Thus the list cannot
really reflect how rich the treatise is in ideas because, as we shall see, sometimes the reflections under the
pretext of the principle are more important.
The passages discussing the relationship of the Old and New Testaments connect, of course, most
organically to the whole of Rövid útmutatás. Treating the subject with special favour, this is how the
author introduces the third, the longest item: +Because this third article is very important for the true
understanding of the Holy Scripture, I shall write more amply about it and keep to this order in writing."94
After the above it will be no surprise that it is not really ampler writing but translation since this
lengthy part relies in its entirety on Restitutio. Nearly every sentence is literally translated from three
chapters of De legis et evangelii ac Iudaei et Christiani differentiis so that after the original it takes
subtitles as well: The difference of the Old and New Testaments, The Law contains the truth of the body,
the Gospel that of the soul, In the Law the truth of action, in the Gospel that of faith. It relies more heavily
than the parallel chapter of De falsa et vera on the first chapter, while in the case of the other two he
merely translates a few statements deemed to be of crucial importance, such as: the Jewish nation was
given only the external truth, peace on earth, in the law it was lawful to enumerate deeds, in the gospel it
is not. He does not completely adopt Servet's doctrine of justification, and using a formulation different
from Servet's he declares that the elect from among the Jews were saved because they looked upon the
spiritual in the corporeal and were looking forward to the fulfillment by Christ. Since a detailed
demonstration of the adoptions, however, would be too lengthy and full of repetitions, we take two
examples that show that the translator sometimes made changes with regard to Christology.
+They were wearing veils so that +... there was cover before them, so they could
none of them could see the splendour of not see the glory of Christ's face, Eliah covered his face
Christ's face. Eliah covered his face with with the robe, 3.Re. 19. Moses did the same Ex. 3. who
his robe lest he should see Christ's face afterwards could see only his back part through the gap
(3Reg.19). Moses did the same (Ex.3), in the rock, because its fulfillment looked to the future.
who through the covered hole could not Ex., 34."96
see Christ's face, only his back
(Ex.33)."95
+Then for the same reason Moses +When afterwards this Moses spoke to the sons
himself put a veil on his face so that the of Israel, he covered his face lest they should see its
sons of Israel should not see this splendour, because they should not understand the
splendour of Christ on his face: hence inner essence and secret of the laws, indeed, Moses did
also the veil of the letters lest they
34