ad Mahumetâ— some nyne hundred yeares since or more to wit within some fifty or more yeares after S. Grogery the Great Mahumet first appeared to the World and planted his Religion Which his Religion hath euer from that time continued euen to this day without any Interruption Now Lutheranisme in compare hereof is of so late a date as that being first broached by Luther it is not past one hundred yeares since it was first heard off According to which my speaches we find that Bucer the Protestant doth stile Luther Primum (1) Bucer in Epistâ—an to 1536. ad Episcop Hereford Apostolum purioris Euâ—ligeliâ—â— the first Apostle of the Reformed Religion Another Lutheran thus writeth 〈◊〉 (2) Georgius Milutus in Augustan Confess explicat art 7. â—ntecessâ—â—â— Lutherus in â—fficiaâ—â—bersset c. If Luther had any Predecesso 〈…〉 and function then there had been 〈…〉 of â—uthers Reformation In like manner a thirâ— confesseth in this sort It is impudency (3) Schâ—ussenberg in Theolog Caluinist l. 2. fol. â—10 toâ—maintaine that any learned men did bâ—â—ld the doctrine of the Ghospell in Germany before Luthers dayes A fourth thus writeth Iâ— is â—ridiculous (4) Bernard Morgenstern Erect de Eccles pag. 145. to thinke that before Luthers dayes any had the purity of the Ghospell considering it is euidenâ—â—â—â—â—he whole World that before Luthers time all Churches were drowned in more then a â—yâ—mtriâ—â— darknes To contract this pointâ—â— Luther himselfe thus boasteth hâ—â—â— of i◠〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 primò â—â—â—gainâ—â— audemusâ— gloriari We dare vaunt that Christ was first 〈…〉 The 6. Parallell Touching Vniuersality of Mahumetisme and Lutheranisme CHAP. VI. ANother Prerogatiue is to be dispersed through many Nationâ— Countries For this respect also is Mahumetisme superiour to Lutheranisme For Mahumetisme possessed in former Ages as also at this present as aboue I haue declared a part of Persiâ— Tartaria India Asia Minor Arabia Mauritania Bathory c. Wheras Lutheranisme is confined and circumscribed as it were within most narrow Precincts of England Scotland some small parts of France some parts of Flanders some parts of Germany of Denmarke of Sweueland of Traâ—siluania Which Religion as yet neuer did set foote our of Europe The 7. Parallell Concerning Vnity of doctrine in Mahumetisme and Lutheranisme CHAP. VIII THe third Prerogatâ—â—e shal be Vnity in Doctrine Certaine it is that in the Turks dominions Wherein Mahumetisme hath been first planted and in which the same Religion at this day reigneth there hath been and still is Great Vnity in that Religion And hence it proceedeth that in those Nations subiect to the Turke there are very few or no Bookes written among themselues wherein any diuersity of Fayth or Points in religion is maintayned and defended for if any such were written the Historiographers of their Countryes Nature and Religion would make some relation of them would not passe so great a matter ouer in silence Therfore it followeth that the Mahumetans and Turks with a ioynt consent for the most part preach and practize the same points of Religion without difference or contradiction among themselues Now how far distant our New Ghospell is from Vnity it is a world to obserue into how many Sects Lutteranisme is deuided and distracted The first disagrement among them is their Account of (1) Touching the retecting of these bookes See Luther in Prafat in Epist. Iacobi c. Kempnitius in Euchiridio p. â—â— Adanius Praucisâ—â— in Margarita Theol. p. 448. The Centuvists cent 1. l. 2. c. 4. Bullinger vpon the Apocalypâ— c. 1. Canonicall Scripture Luther and such as are most linked to him in obseruaÌ„cy do reiect as Apocryphall the booke of Wisdome the second Epistle of Peter as els where I haue noted the second and third of Iohn the Episle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps All which Bookes are commonly acknowledged for Canonicall Scripture by the Swingliani Caluinists Their disagrements (2) Touching their mutual reprehensions herein see Osiander his reprehensions mentioned by Luther in Colloq Mensal â—idis Germ. sol 145. So also Beza in respons ad defâ—â—l responâ— Cast allouis Also Beza in Testam 1556. in prafas Hospintaâ—â— in â—istoria 8â— cram part 〈◊〉 tera fol. 183. Moliâ—aus in â—ua Translatione noui Testam part 12. fol. 110. Castatio in defens Translâ—t pag 170. Secondly are touching the Translation of such Bookes of Scripture which they all acknowledge for Canonicall The Translators of it to wit Luther Swinglius Oâ—colampadius Caluin Biza Castalâ—o in great acerâ—ity of Words do reciprocally charge one anothers Translation with sacriledge corrupting the sense of the Holy Ghost with making the Tent to leapâ—vy downe with actually changing the Tent sinally with sacrilegious for all these are their owne Words Ethuicall and wicked proceeding therein Their next disagreement consists among those who in a more restrained sense are called (3) Of this poins see Nicolaus Galiuâ— in Thesibus Hypothesibus Lutherans for their main tayning of the Reall Presence Of these men some are called Osiandrians others Maiâ—rists others Placcians others Adiaphorists others agains Phiquitaries ech of these holding all the rest for Heretikes Another disagreement is betwene the Lutherans so called in a limited sense and the Caluinists Concerning which point we may aduertize you that the Bookes written by the Protestants against the Protestants in matter of fayth only and Religion do amount to seuerall Hundreds as may be gathered out of Iâ—docus Coccius his Thesaurus out of Hospinian in his historia Sacramentaria part altera and finally from the Catalogues of Bookes returned for many yeares past from Franckford Thus farre I hould it conuenient to discourse in generall of the disagreements Vant of Vnity in Fayth â—mong our New Brethren And now I referre to your owne iudgment My Countrimen whether a greaterâ—ble mish resteth vpon the face of Lutheranisms or of Mehumetisme to recapitulate a liâ—â—e if we respect touching fayth and Religion either Antiquity Multitude of Belieuers or Veâ—ity in Doctrine The 8. Parallell Whether Mahumet or the Lutherans stand more chargeable in teaching God to be the Authour of Sinne CHAP. IX I Will now descend to parallell and waigh the particular Opinions or Articles maintained seuerall wayes by Mahumet and Luther and his Schollers and so by conferring them together we may obserue whether Sentence is lesse iustifiable I wil begin with the Questions Whether God be the Authour of sinne or not 's Mahumet teacheth That God is not the Authour of sinne Your first Maysters teach That he is the Authour of sinne That Mahumet or Sergiuâ— did not teach God to be the Authour of sinne I thus prous First we find no such Tenet or Article thereof in the Alcoran But if they had taught this Doctrine that God were the Authour of sinne they would infallibly haue placed is in their Alcorans Which Books they made 〈◊〉 it were to become the Catechisme of
that Generall in the Warrs who bendeth his forces not to strengthen and fortify his owne Cittyes Castells and Forts as not standing in need of any such defence but to demolish and â—uine the Rampiers Fortressâ—â— and Holds of the Enemy Now the Course here to be hâ—â—ldâ—n by me shall be this We obserue that if a Man be tould that he hath some spoâ—s vpon his face occasioned by any vnexpected meanes he presently hâ—iteth to a Glassâ— to see himselfe â—hâ—rin 〈◊〉 And if he find the blemisheâ— to appeare iâ— the Gâ—asse he then acknowledgeth the truth thereof and instantly seeketh to dry and wype them away The like I hâ—â—râ— counsel you to doe O you Hagenâ—â—s of France You are by me in this Treatise â—â—â—â—ged wiâ—â— dâ—ueâ—s â—oales and spoâ—s of Tâ—rcismâ— Glasse your selues in the Turkish Aâ—oran for so iâ— the Booke called wherein the Articles of the Turkish Fayth were first â—â—at downe Yâ— you find therein your owne blemiâ—â—â—s to be exhibited to your sight I meane if yoâ— find thereby that you doâ—â— part with 〈◊〉 Turks in belieâ—â—ng with them diâ—â—â—â— poâ—â—â— of their owne fayth diffeâ—enâ—ly from aâ—â— other Christians as by â—â—â—paâ—ing your Fayth with theirs you shall â—â—nd then â—â—bouâ— to abâ—â—erge all such deformity from the face of your Christian â—â—râ—â—eâ—â—â—on And thus you may make the Turkish â—lâ—â—â—aâ— in part the Gâ—asse of your present Religion The labour I here vndertake will 〈◊〉 suppose appeare in your â—â—dgâ—â—â—â—â—â— to 〈◊〉 â—ore then an Herâ—â—â—eâ—â— â—â—bour and moâ—â— difficultâ— to wiâ— to proue 〈◊〉 whoâ—â— youâ— Mayâ—ters feare 〈◊〉 to 〈…〉 (a) Apolog. Angliâ— God to eâ—â—gâ—â—â—â— the World (3) The Booke stiled Antichristus sâ—â—s Prognosticon sâ—â—is Muâ—di foreâ—â—◠〈…〉 the Scriptures and a (4) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aâ— also 〈◊〉 chiefe Senodâ—â—◠〈…〉 and others so much magnified by you to haue in many points of their fayth wholy ioyned themselues with Mahumet Christs mortall yea immortal Enemy Now if I do assume more in these words then I shall performe for I do expect this Treatise will he ouerlooked with many Aristarchian and censuring Eyes then let me become infamous to my owne Country and euen to the Professours of my owne Religion inglorious and despicable For the more cleare accomplishment of my vndertaken Scene I will not insist in the authority of Gods holy Writ as vnworthily and irreligiously deâ—orted by the pryde of ech of your Priuat spirit neither in any other kynd of proofes aboue rehearsed all which you behould with the eye of scorne and contempt but I will rest only in your chiefe Maisters owne words yet extant to be read in their Writings So as I may here say with our Sauiour De ore (5) Luâ— â—9 tuâ—â—e iudico Sâ—ruâ—nequaem For but read their Sentences by me alledged and compare them with the words of the Alcoran and with the words of diuers Authours recording the doctrine of the Turkish Alcoran Fayth you shall find them in many dogmaticall points for I say not in all most conspiringly to agree Non facies vnâ— nec diuersâ—â—amâ—n And thus your Religion may with some shew of reason be called Turkish Hugenotisâ—s or Hugenotish Tâ—rcisme Now whiles you â—â—ad their words in their Bookes remember that the Pennâ— is the soules secondary Tonque deliuering without voyce or sound its mentall Language Thus you shall rest assured that it is most true that so they did write though most false what they did write And thus I referre you to the impartiall Witnesses of your owne Eyes And in regard of this great consociation and affinity of Luthers doctrine with Turcisme it is lesse to be wondered that the great Turk as Manlius (6) In loc com pag. â—16 the Protestant relateth demaunding of the Christian Eâ—perours Embassadour of what yeares Luther was wished he had beene yonger and promised him to be his good Lord. In retaliation of which proffered kyndnes we may presume that Luther was more easily inuited to write thus in the Turks fauour To warre (7) Luther tom â— Wittenb in aâ—â—ers damnas per Lâ—oâ—em Art 34. fol. 100. where we thus read Praeliari aduersus Turcas est repugâ—are Dâ—visâ—taâ—ti iâ—i quitates nostras â—eâ— illos against the Turke is to resist Gods visiting our Iniquities And more (8) Luth. in Explicat Art â—4 He that hath eares let him heare and abstaine from the Turkish Warrs whiâ—â— the Popes name preuaileth vnder Heauen O sacred and holy friendship contracted betweene the Turke and Luther And thus by allusion we may here say Facti (9) Luc. â—3 sunt aâ—ticâ— Herâ—des Pilatâ—s But to returne to the Treatise I haue entituâ—ed it Luthers Alcoran not because Luther did particularly first dogmatize all the points wherein the Nouellists of these tymes conspire with the Turke and Mâ—â—â—â—â—t but in that he did first broach many of them And the râ—â—t were after taught by Swinglius Caluin Beza and others all Luthers Proselyâ—s and schollers and all descending originally from the Ioynes of Luther Now the denomination of a thing is commonly taken à praestantiorâ— And according hereto throughout this Treatise I take the words Lutheran and Lutheranâ—sme in a generall sense as comprehending all the followers of Luther and such doctrines as were first taught by Luther or after by his followers though I grant the forsaid words in a strict acceptance haue reference only to those men who more peculiarly sweare fealty to Luther and to Luthers doctrine in some points different from that or the Swingiâ—ans and the Caluinists Here I will demand after your diligent perusall of this small Worke is Turcisme 〈◊〉 false religion How then can Hugenotisme be true Is Hugenotisme a true Religion How then can Turcisme be false Such an indissoluble knot of doctrine shall you find in many points betweene these two sects Therefore you must be forced either to abandon Lutherranisme or by imbracing of it withall to imbâ—ace Turcisme and Mahuinetisme What griefe then is it that our noble Country should be conâ—aminated and defiled with such pitch of Blasphemies in this Treatise discouered O Blessed Lewis once King of France Great â—eretofore in Empire and Domination Greater in Vertue and deâ—â—oâ—â—oâ— but now Greatest in thy fruition of the light of the Allmighty since thou now be houldest him Non tanquam (10) 1. Cor. 293 Speculum in enigmars bâ—â—â— facie ad scieno and him all things lntuitiuely Looke vpon France thy deare Country where thou didst once â—ow the care of Soueraingty See how it is torne asunder touching matters of fayth with Apostasy and through a most strict combination in sayth with Mahumet Christs open Enemy I know well that the felicity of thy present State standâ— not compatible with any griefe or sorrow in regard of the Conformity of thy Will to the Diuine Will and permission of the Highest neuerthelesse since Thou and all other Saints now reigning with thee in Heauen through your Scraphicall Charity are become Aduocats
libri c. The Apocryphall Bookes of the New Testament are the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Imaes the second and third of Iohn the second of Peter the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps Thus much to demonstrate that Luther and diuers of his schollars agree with Mahumet in denying most at least of the Epistles of the Apostles And therefore we haue lesse reason to be amazed at that prophane saying of Caluin in dishonour of the Apostles in generall His words are these Apostoli (7) Caluinâ—â— Instit 4. c. l. 9.4 non debent garrire quicquid illis collibitum fuerit c. The Apostles ought not to babble and speake idly of things as it pleaseth them but they are to relate the Commandements of God sincerely We are indeed to belieue the Apostles but this only as they speake out of the Word of God not as they speake from themselues but from the precept and speciall commandement of their Legation Thus Caluin O wonderfull procacity and insolency of Heresy As if the Apostles did somtimes babble and talke idly did speake only of themselues and not as instructed and directed by God The 5. Symbolisme Touching the erring of the Apostles CHAP. VI. THe Turks or Mahumetans as they do not belieue the writings of the Apostles So they hould the Aposties to haue erred in diuers of their Actions since they maintaine that the Apostles had not greater warrant for their not erring in their Actions then they had for their not erring in their Writings The same point is maintayned by seuerall of your first Instructours so great is your conformity with them herein For according hereto Luther sayth of S. Iames speaking of Extreme Vnction I say (8) Luther de Captiuit Babylon cap. de extrema Vnctionâ— thaeth in any place Iames erred in this place especiall bâ—â—e erred c. For it is not lawfull for an Apostle 〈◊〉 â—is owne authority to institute a Sacrament As 〈◊〉 the Apostle would or dared to ordayne a Sacrament without the authority command of Christ our Sauiour In like manner Brentius the Lutheran thus boldly writeth Peter (9) In Apolog Confess cap. de Conciliss the Chiefe of the Apostles and also Barnabas after the Holy Ghost receaued togeather with the Church of Ierusalem erred The Magdeburgians thus prosecute this Point Paul doth (10) Cent. â— l. â— c. 800 â—uâ—ne to Iames the Apostle and a Councell of the Presbyters being celebrated he is induced by Iames and theâ—est that for the offended Iewes he should parisy himselfe in the Temple to which Paulyieldeth which without doubt was no small slip in so eminent a Doctour Finally to oâ—â—â— the like condemnation giuen by our Reformist Whitaker the English Sectary thus hath left written It (11) De Eccles contra Bellar. controu â— q. 4. is manifest that after the descending of the Holy Ghost the Apostles erred in the Vocation of the Gentills And that Peter in like sort erred in manners touching the abrogation of the Ceremâ—â—â—all Law Now where can we find any Mahumetan or Turke all who condemne the Apostles to speake more vnworthily and debasing of them then these alledged Ghospellers haue done The 6. Symbolisme touching the Ghospells CHAP. VII TO proceed Touching the Scriptures which the Mahumetans and our new Gospellers do admit as pure and sacred the Saracens or Turks I euer meane the Mahumetans agree with the Lutherans in the manner reason and custome of Proceeding with the said Scriptures The sole Reason why the Mahumetans do not admit the New Testament as now it is though they allow of it they say as it was first giuen by Iesus pretending that it hath been corrupted iâ— because (1) Cuspin de relig Turcarum Septem-Castrensis de relig Turcaâ— the Sentences and authorities of the New Testement touching Christ are repugnant to their fayth first inâ—tiâ—uâ—ed by Sergius in the Alcoran so as they make their Mahumetan fayth to be a square where with to measure the Truth or falshood of the New Testament And do not out Euangelists runne in one and the same liue of proceeding According to this it is that Luther in the balancing of the foure Euangelists thus writeth Qui (2) Luth. tom 3. p. aefat in epist Petri. potismuÌ„ maiort prae cateris studio docent c. Such Euangelists are the chiefest who more carefully teach then other Euangetists doe that fayth in Christ only without our works doth make vs iust and in state of Saluation Thus Luther lesning the worth of the Euangelists according as they seeme more to impugne his conceyted doctrine of Iustification by fayth only Againe the Centurists in reiecting with Luther the Epistle of Iames giue this reason saying The Epistle of Iames is countrary to the doctrine of the Apostles because (3) Cent. 2. c. 4. p. â—6â— it maketh Abraham to be iustifyed not by fayth only but by Works In like manner Beza reiecteth those words as surreptitious in Luke 22. This is the Chalice the New Testament in my Bloud which shal be shed for you (4) Beza in annotat in â—a Lucae because as Beza sayth The words in the Greeke Copyes confirme the Reall Presence in the Sacrament Thus we obserue that both the Mahumetans and the Lutherans do iointly make the Religion which they professe the foundation oâ— ground-work why they do disauthorize such or such Bookes of Scripture not reputing them to be the Word of God A strange and retrograde proceeding for since fayth and Religion is to receaue its approbation from Scripture here with he Mahumetans and the Lutherans the Scripture is to take its force and authority from fayth it selfe that fayth I meane which euery particular Sectary whether Mahumetan or Lutheran shall in his owne priuat iudgment hould to be true The 7. Symbolisme Touching the Ancient Fathers CHAP. VIII FRom the authority of the Scripture let vs descend to the authority of the ancieÌ„t Fathers of the Church of God All whom we shall fynd to be equally reiected and contemned by the Mahumetans and the Lutherans Yea Luther his Offpring before they will lend a fauorable eare to those Sentinalls of Gods Church for the good of their owne soules will soner endanger their owne Saluation they bearing themselues therein with such desperate resolution wherewith Cato did of whom it is recorded Occidii se Cato ne diceretur Caesar me seruauit And first touching the Fathers We find Mahumet in his Alcorans thus to disualew them (1) Azoara 13. Increduli minime adoranies c. The Christians are incredulous not worshipping God when they are required to giue credit to the Commandements of God and to his Legate or Mesienger videlicet Mahumet for they say se nolle imitaâ—â—â— quicquam nisi quod Patres imitati sunt They will not iâ—ntate others in any thing but in what the Fathers haue imitated But to this is obiected Virum Patres non nisi veram fidem semper â—eâ—uerunt
cum anno 15â—3 Trinity one very God haue mercy vpon us Ad also he further sayth The Word (7) Luth. in Postill maiore Basiâ—eâ—e aâ—ud Heruagium in euarrat Euang. Dom. Trinity is but an huâ—â—â—ne Inuention and soundeth coldly And hereupon it is that (8) Calu. epist 2. ad Polonos extat in his tract Theol. pag. 796. Caluin following Luther he in thus writeth Precatio vulgè trita est Sancta Trinitas vnus Deus misérere nostrâ— mihi non placei That Prayer Holy Trinity c. is very vulgar and pleaseth me not And in â—egard of this former doctrine and as not acknowledging Christ to be Consubstantiall to his Father Luther belcheth out these blasphâ—â—uous words Anima (9) Luth. in lib. contra Iacobâ—â— Lacoâ—â—â—â—ons 2. Wittemberg edit antâ—o â—351 mea odit Omâ—usion optimè exigerunt Aâ—iani nevocem illem prophanant noâ—am regulis fidei statut liceret My Soulâ—â— hateth the word Homâ—ousiâ—s or Consubstantialis and the Arians deseruedly insisted vpon that this Word should not be inserted in the rules of fayth Finally from hence it riseth that Luther expungeth out of his duch Bibler that markable passage of sacred Scripture in proofe of the Trinity There (10) 1. Ioan. 5. are three which giue witnes in Heauen the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are One. And according to this doctrine of Luther it proceeded that the Protestant Deuines (11) In Synod Vilnae habis anno 1589. of Lituania enacted by Synodicall authority that the Word Trinity thould not be vsed any longer So crosse these men are in doctrine to the ancient Apostolike Fayth teaching Christ to be God and Consubstantiall with his Father and that the diuine Maiesty (12) Bernard did send the Word into the World and yet retayned with him the Word Concerning Caluins dislike besides what is aboue said of the doctrine of the Trinity and consequently of Christ being God it is more fully discouered by his interpreting of all chiefe places of Scripture produced by all Antiquity in proofe of the Trinity with the Ariahs and against all other Christians He thus by his false commenting of them main â—â—yping that they are wrongfully alledged in defence of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity I will here insist in some few particulars And first that markable place â—l (13) Iohn 10. and the Father are Vnum one thing this stigmaticall Apostaâ—â— thus paraphrazeth Abusi sunt hoc loco Veteres vt prâ—barent Christaine esse Patri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The antient Doctoure haue abusiuely alledged this place to proue Christ to be Consubstantiall to his Father Neque enim Christus de Vnitate substantia disputat sed de Consensis For heare Christ disputeth not of the Vnity of substance but of Consent Againe where it is said The Lord (15) Genes c. 19. rayned vpon So dome and Gomorâ—â— fire from the Lord Caluin thus anoideth this restimony by saying (16) Caluin in Gones c. 19. Quod Veteres Christs diuinitatem hoc testimonie probare conati sunt minimé firmumestâ— It is noc solid and firme to proue from this Testemony the diuinity of Christ as the Fathers attempted to haue done In like sort Where it is said Thou (17) Hebr. 1. Psalm 2. are my somne hodie this day I haue begotten thee Which place is produced not only by the Fathers but euen by the (18) Heb. 1. Apostle to proue Christs diuinity yet Caluin thus shifteth it of saying Scio (19) Caluin in Psalm 2. hunc locum de aetorna generatione Christs c. I know well that this place is expounded by many of the eternall Generation of Christ who touching the Word Hodie in this teâ—â— haue â—uer subtily disputed To oâ—â—it diuers other (20) Touching the word Eloim in Gâ—nes c. 1. and out of the Psalm 33. passages of Scripture vrged by the Fathers in proufe of the Trinity where we read that most â—â—â—uinâ—ing Text There be three (21) 1. Iohn c. â— which giue testimony in Heauen the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three be One Caluin thus auoydeth the force thereof by saying Quòd dicit Tras esâ—e Vnum ad EssentiaÌ„non refertur (22) Caluin in 8. Ioan. c. 5. sed ad CoÌ„sensum poâ—iuÌ„s Where the Apostle sayth that Three are One these words are not to be referrad to the Essence but rather to Consent Thus we see how Caluin thereby to conspire with Mahumet the Turks and the Arians in denying the Blessed Trinity Christ to be God hath poysoned the chiefest and most forcing passages of Gods Word euer anciently produced for proofe of that supreme Mystery with his most wicked expositions of them A Point so cleare that Aegidius (23) Hunius in his books entituled Caluinus Iâ—daizaâ—â— Huunius the Protestant chargeth Caluin with Iudaisme for such his pestilent deprauing of the former sacred Texts of Scripture O Impiety scarsly piacular since he who created the World is here not acknowledged by the World Mundus (24) Iohn 1. per ipsum factut est mundus euni non cognouit The 17. Symbolisme Concerning the suffering of Christ. CHAP. XVII TO proceed further Mahumet affirmeth that Christ did not suffer for MaÌ„kind since he sayth that Christ did not suffer death at al. Thus did Mahumet euen wound and crucify Christ of new in teaching with Eutiches that Christ was not wounded or crucified at all For thus we read in the Alcoran iudaei (1) Azoâ—â—â— 1â— â—â— Mariae blasphemiam immoderatam contumeliam inferunt dum eius filium Christuâ—â— Dei nuncium se interemisse perâ—ibent Euns â—â—im â—equaquam sed alterum et â—milem interfecerunt quia Deut incenâ—prehensibilis sapâ—ens eum ad se migrare fecit The Iewes do offer blasphemy and immoderate contumely to Mary whiles they say they did put to death Christ her sonne being the Messenger of God for him they killed not but another like to him for God being incomprehensible and wise caused him to leaue the World and remooue to him From whence we infer that since Christ according to Mahumets doctrine did not dye at all that therefore in his iudgment he dyed not for the Redemption of Mankind Luther and his followers do at least in words grant that Christ did corporally dye But they further teach that his death of Body could not nor did redeeme the World except his Diuinity had also suffered Thus they annexing this Impossibility of Christs suffering according to his Godhead since true Diuinity is impassible And thus potentially they teach with Mahumet that Christ did not redeeme the World contrary to the Sentence of Gods Vniuersall Church maintayning that Christ who had no sinne became a Sacrifice for sinne Now that Luther teacheth that Christ suffered besides his Corporall death according to his diuinity is euident out of Luthers owne words which are these Cum (2) Luther in
doctrine in himselfe besides his espousing of a Votall Nunne thus speaketh of himselfe and of his owne incontinency Quam (8) Luth tom Wittenb de Matrimon fol. 119. non est in meis vitibus c. It is no more in my power to be without a Woman then not to be as Man He further thus confesseth of himselfe I haue (9) Luth. in colloq Mensal â—ol 526. been almost furious through the rage of lust and desire of a Woman And yet more particularly I am burned (10) Luther tom 1. Epist Latin fol. 334. ad Philippum with the great sire of my vntamed flesh c. Eight dayes are past during which tyme I did neither write pray or study being vexed partly with temptations of the flesh c. Did euer Sergius disgorge such fifth touching his owne sensuality To proceed Sergius as not belieuing in Christ coÌ„temned the Sacraments of Christ and therefore maketh litle or no mention of them in the Alcoran Luther admitteth some Sacraments yet writeth so hearth mishly and irreuerently of them as that his sinne is litle lesse in wrongfully reaching of them then is the sinne of Sergius in not belieuing them at all For Hospinian thus speaketh of Luther Lutherus cousque (11) Hospin 1. histor Sacrament pars aliera fol 14. progreditur vt diceret Sacramentum verum futurum etiamsi à Diabolo conficeretur Luther proceeded so far as that he maintayned a Sacrament to be true and effectuall although it were celebrated and ministred by the Deuill-Would Sergius haue euer vttered such blasphemous Words against any Sacrament if he had been perswaded they had been first instituted and ordayned by God The next point of which we will discourse is how Sergius esteemeth of the Old Law and of Moyses and what Luther deliuereth of Moyses First then we find Sergius thus to write in the Alcoran Deus (12) Azoara â— pius misericors prius Testamentum vetus deinde Euangelium rectas vias hominibus tradidit God being holy and mercifull did first deliuer to men as two right wayes the Old Testament and then after the Ghospell And according hereto a writer of the Turkish Religion thus speaketh Nullum (13) Cusanus in cribratione Alcorani l. 8. c. 2. l. 2. c. 24 l. 3. c. â— Prophetarum contradicit sed approbat libros à Deo fidelibus traditos scilicet legem Moysis c. Sergius and the Alcoran do not contradict any of the Prophets but approue the Law of Moyses the Pentateuchus c. But doth not Luther your I doll speake of Moyses in another dialect and of diuers parts of the Old Testament For first you know that Luther with his faction impugneth the writings of diuers Prophets of the Old Testament Hence it is that Luther holds many Bookes thereof not to be Scripture but Apocry phall to wit the first and second of Esdras Toby the Booke of Wisdom Ecclesiasticus the Machabees and some others Now touching Luthers acerbity of writing against Moyses obserue what followeth Habuit (14) Luther tom 3. Wittenberg in Psalm 45. fol. 42. fol. 412. tom 3. German fol. 40 41. Moyses labia sed in facunda impedita irata in quibus non est Verbum Gratiae Moyses had his lipps vnpleasant stopped and angry in the which there is not one Word of Grace but of Angar death and sinne c. If you collect all the wisdome of Moyses c. you shall sind it to be in the sight of God either Idolatry or Hypocriticall Wisdome or at most the Wisdome of Wrath. Againe Moyses habuit labia diffusa felle ira Moyses had his lipps full of Gall and anger Away therefore with Moyses Blush you not hereat My Countrimen to see how vnworthily prophanely Luther with reference to Sergius censureth of a great Part of the Old Testament and particularly of Moyses I will conclude this Parallell betweene Sergius and Luther that dreaming for a tyme that the doctrine of Gods Church was corrupted at Sergius first breaking out and also at Luthers reuolt as Sergius and Luther do teach auerring their owne Mission or Vocation to haue been in regard of the reformation of the supposed corrupted fayth of God in those tymes I say imagine all this as true I then auerre that Sergius broached his Religion in a more conuonient time and place then Luther did For first touching the tyme whereas Sergius and Luther do iointly teach as abous is intimated that at the tyme of Gregory the Greas being a thousand yeares since all the true Religion of God was corrupted or rather exiled out of all Countries Now Sergius at that very time by the appointment of Mahumet did first restore the Church of God as he presumed to its primitiue fayth Therefore I say it ineuitably followeth vpon Mahumetâ— Principles that Sergius reformed the Church in a more conuenient and profitable time then Luther did who some â—â—ne hundred yeares after Sergius began his Reformation during all which ages the Church of Christ according to Luthere doctrine wanted this reâ—lauration to its former Purity Now touching the Places which receaued the presumed benefit by both their risings and appearance to the World Sergius planted his Religion by the strength of Mahumet in many most vast NatioÌ„s which at his first spreading of his doctrine were infected with diuers Heresyes of the Arians Nouatians Manichees Eunomians Eutichians Nestorians the which besides some other Heresies had inuaded at that tyme Asia Syvin Arabis Egypt and Affrike Whereas by the comming of Luther admitting he had instituted a true Religion only England Scotland some parts of Germany and of France haue receaned benefit thereby So great a difference there is touching this imaginary benefit to the Church of God procured by the seuerall Commings and preachings of Sergius and Luther Thus far I haue thought good to proceed in the libration of Luther with Sergius where we see that in diuers points of Impiety Luther equalls Sergius in others much transcends him The 3. Parallell Touching the dignity of Christ. CHAP. IV. WE will in this place touch the worth and dignity of Christ and will observe how differently Mahumet and Luther with his Attendents do speake of Christ whereby we may lament the Vnforâ—â—â—ate and Caâ—icuâ—ar dayes in which we liue to see Mahumet and his Sect not belieuing in Christ surpasse in prayses of Christ our Gospellers who say they belieue in Christ True it is that Mahumet did not belieue in Christ as in his Redeemer yet marke how reuerently he writeth of Christ and compare his words with the Words of your first Instructours Thus then we find Mahumet to teach of Christ in his Alcoran Iesus Maria (1) Azoara 5. â—â— 12. Thus fuis Dei Nuncius Spiritus Virbum Dei caliâ—â—s Immisum Cui Dei legato omnis deâ—ent credera And againe in another place of the Alcoran Iesus â—uit Sapienita Verbum Patris