de vita obitu Clarissimi Viri Theodori Bezae the Protestant recordeth the battaile of Druce and sayth that Bezâ— was there present euen armed with weapons encoraging the souldiers to fight for the defence of their Religion We further may reade how it is registred that the (13) In the History of France written by Iohn de Serres Protestants of France treated touching peace partly as humble subiects partly as armed men lyke to such who beg an Almes with their naked swords in their Hands Now to shew who were the Battefeu's in all these Rebellions and Insurrections I will produce the Words of the French Ministers themselues who in their Assembly did see forth certaine Canons printed at Berna Anno 1572. where we thus read in the third Canon In euery Citty all shall sweare that they and their Posterity shall not violate but obserue the Points following Canon 40. Vntill it shall please God in whose hands are the Harts of Kings to change the hart of the French Tyrant c. In the meane time let euery Citty chuse an ancient Magistrate to gouerne them as wel in warre as in peace c. Let all Captaines and Leaders neuer lay downe their weapons as long as they shall see their Aduersaries to persecute the doctrine of Saluation c. And yet further If God shall vouchsafe to raise another Prince to take reuenge of our Aduersaries Sinnes and to deliuer his People they are then to subiect themselues to that Prince as to another Cyrus sent to them from God c. Thus we see how our French Ministers do indoctrinate their Proselytes in the mystery of Rebellion and Treason against their lawfull and naturall Princes and this only in maintenance of their innouations in Fayth first disseminated by Luther and his Schollers But here let me vse an introuersion and reflex vpon my owne Country How much then O France art thou departed from thy selfe In former times our owne forces vnited with a true coniunction of mynds made vs not only formidable to other Nations but also aduanced our state to that largenes of Empire which at this day it enioyeth But since your Gospell My Countrimen first got on wing what secret molitions what proditious what euisceration and disbowelling of your owne deare Country hath this viperous brood of your Reformed Religion attempted But I will stay my selfe in discoursing of my owne Country any further I am loath to be offensiue to neighboring Princes either aliue or dead Neuerthelesse before I end this Parallel I cannot but in few words touch vpon one Act of immanity perpetrated by Elizabeth heretofore Queene of England vpon the Queene of Scots Mother to Iames at this present King of England a peacefull mercifull and learned Prince This foresaid Queene to whom Nature and Fortune had contributed much but Grace and Vertue nothing This English Semiramis a fitting branch of such a Stemme exercized an vnheard vnhumanesse and ferocity by putting to cruell death the forsaid most worthy Catholike Princesse who in her youth was maried to our Prince Dolphine of France Concerning whom only Vertue and Doscent came in not to plead for for that must not be admitted but to accuse her In which most barbarous Act a Woman did butcher a Woman The Regnant her next Successour The annointed Gods annointed finally a Queene a Queene But as vn willing to soule my Pen any further in this most dishonorable subiect I will passe to the next Paralleâ—â— Only I here referre the Reader to obserue the cruell barbarous proceedings of Miâ—humet against Christians and of those of the reformed Religion against their owne Brâ—thren against their Catholike Princes as also against their Catholike Neighbours which done I hope it will appeare that our New Ghospellers though perhaps they do not fully equall Mahumet in immanity and cruelty yet are not many degrees short to him therein And heere I would not be reputed to be of that seuere iudgment as to charge all the French Protestants with disloyall minds against their Catholike Princes No God forbid For I do hould diuers of them trusty and faythfull though not for such acknowledged by all other Catholiks So many counterfeite Iewells make the true suspected The 12. Parallel Whether Mahumetisme or Lutheranisme more inclines their Belieuers to Vice and Sinne CHAP. XIII IN this place I will compare the doctrine of Mahumet with the doctrine of Luther and his Ospring And so see whether of them stand more changeable in lesning of Vice and sinne as not reputing it hurtfull to mans Saluation To begin then with Mahumet We find him as aboue I haue shewed thus to teach in his Alcoran Vâ—ores quotiescunque (1) Azoera 8. placuerit duas scilicet tres aut quatuor ducite Et cum contingerit eaâ— non diligere vnam pro alia mutare licet Take as many wiues as you will either two or three or foure And if it happen that any of them you shall not loue it is lawfull to change her for another Wherein Mahumet I freely confesse warranteth the perpetrating of sinne though he might make a shew though falsly of securing this his wicked Position by his owne vnlawfull doctrine of Polygamy to which doctrine Brentius the Protestant affoardeth great liberty as elswhere is made manifest The like lustfull doctrine Mahumet teacheth in another passage of his Alcoran saying Omnes (2) Azoare 43. mulieres iua manui per emptienem suppositas amitaetuae materieraeque filias omnes item bonas mulieres tibi volenti gratis succumbere captentes licitas constituimus We ordaine that it shall be lawfull for thee to lye with all such bond slaue women which thou shalt redeeme by bying also it shal be lawfull for thee to haue the vse of the body of the daughters of thy Aunts either by the Fathers syde or the Mother syde yea of all sayre Women which couer to prostitute themselues to thee willingly These two are the two chiefest passages in the Alcoran for the patronizing of sinne Now let vs looke into the doctrine of our New Gospellers obserue how they teach that Sinne as if it were but an intentionall Notion of the Mynd is in no sort preiudiciall to the Soule First then Luther doth thus strangely oracle in defence of sinne As (3) Luther 〈◊〉 loc com class 5. pag. 27. nothing doth iustify but fayth so nothing sinneth but vnbeliefe Againe A Christian (4) Luther tom 2. Wittenb de Captiuit Babilon fol. 74. or baptized Man is so rich as that he cannot loose his Saluation by any Sinne how great soeuer vnlesse he will not belieue And Luther yet more No (5) Luth. in sermonibus worke is disallowed or condemned by God except the Authour thereof be disallowed According to which most licentious doctrine Beza thus writeth Dauid (6) Beza in respons ad Act. colloq Montisbelgâ— pag. 44. 48. by his adultery and neurther did not loose the Holy Ghost and
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
Confess maiore de caena Domini credo quòd sola humana natura prome passa est c. When I do belieue that only the Humane Nature suffered for me Christ is a Sauiour of a vile and small account and needeth also a Sauiour for himselfe an execrable Blasphemy since in Christ his Passion through the coniunction of the Diuinity with the Humanity an infinit debs was discharged by a finit payment and yet only infinity of satisfaction doth truly expiate infinity of sinne The same Luther in another place thus writeth Pertinacissime (3) Luther l. de Concil par 2. contra me pugâ—abant quod diuinitas Christi pati non posset They contended most pertinaciously with me for that they maintained the diuinity of Christ could not suffer And Musculus a great Lutheran agreeth with Luther herein of whom Siluester Checanorius a Protestant thus writeth andraas Musculus non veritus fuit palà m dicere c. Andrew (4) In dialog de corruptis moribus v triusque partis Art 3. fol. 5. Musculus was not afraid opeÌ„ly to say That the Diuine Nature of Christ which is God was dead together with the humane Nature vpon the Crosse Thus did Luther and his scholler conspire with Mahumet in frustrating the Redemption of the world by Christ seing Luther would not grant his Corporall death preuayled any thing except his Diuinity which was impossible to doe did suffer also O how forgetfull was Luther with Mahumet of the words of the Apostle Reconciliati (5) Rom. 5. sumus Deo per morteÌ„ filij eius We are reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne And how far distant was his iudgment from S. Austins iudgment herein who writing of Heresies in generall particularly recordeth this opinion of Luther in these words There (6) August com â— de Haeresi ad Quodvult Deum Haeres 73. is an Heresy which teacheth that Christs diuinity suffered when his flesh was fastaned vpon the Crosse The 18. Symbolisme Touching the second Person in the B. Trinity CHAP. XVIII TO passe yet further touching the Second Person of the most Sacred Trinity This is an Azoara in the Alcoran Deus (1) Azoara 27.28 est substantia necessario existens eui impossibile est vt naturam aliunde mutuetur God is a necessary substance to whome it is impossible to take or borrow his Nature from another And againe in another part of the Alcoran we thus find set downe Constanter (2) Azoara 40. 53. dic illis Christianis Deum vnum essâ—â—ecessariò omnibus qui nec genuit nec generatus est nec habet quidquam simile Mantaine constantly to those Christians that God is but one to All who hath neither begot or is begotten and who hath not like to him From these passages of the Alcoran we fynd that according to Mahumet God cannot borrow his Nature from another Now to apply this The Protestants teach that Christ hath his diuine nature from himselfe and not of his Father So teach Caluin (3) Caluin in examin persidiae Valentini Geneilis extaâ— in eract Theolog. pag. 77â— and Beza (4) Beza contra Hâ—chusium besides many others And the mayne Reason why these Protestants teach that Christ hath not his Essence of his Father but of himselfe is taken our of the former Azoara in the Alcoran and in that respect borrowed from Mahumet To wit because God cannot borrow or take his Nature from another And thus we see how our Ghospellers conioyne with Mahumet in denying Christ as God to haue his diuine Essence from his Father and by consequence admitting Mahumets ground to be true which also is their ground that Christ is not God Which Blasphemy of theirs is wholy repugnant to the Nicâ—â—â— Councell and Athanasius his Creed Both which teach that Christ taketh his Diuine Nature from his Father and that he is God of God Behould here O you my Countrimen how these Blasphemies haue begun a pulluler â—'enracener entrerous and how your chiefe Doctours by way of necessary Inference grounded vpon Mahumets Alcoran do deny Christ to be God and therein do deny with Mahumet the most Blessed rudeuided Trinity in which most Reuerend Mystery to speake in the Churches Idiome God remained that which afore he was and assumed that which afore he was notâ— suffering neither commixture nor diuesion But to returne According to what is aboue deliuered Osiander the Protestant had iust reason thus to exprobrat the Reformed Arians of these dayes in Poloniâ— which Men are Protestants refined or sublimated Illi (5) Osiander Câ—â—â— â—6 pag. 26â— aiuâ—â— Deum vnum in Essentia triâ—â—â— in Personiâ— esse commentum Antichristi c. These reformed Arians teach that to say God is One in Essence but three in Person is a fiction of Antichrist And that it is the three headed Câ—rbâ—â—â—s the God Baal Moluch c. Did euer Mahumet or Sergius eructate out of their impure breasts such poyson as the Arions of these tymes comparting with Mahumet and all originally Protestanis haue done The 19. Symbolisme Touching the ouerthrow and implicite deniall of Christ his Passion CHAP. XIX YEt further to discourse touching the supreme Mysteries of Christ. Mahumet in his Alcoran teacheth as aboue is shewed that Christ did not suffer death vpon the Crosse (1) Azoara 〈◊〉 but one like vnto him did suffer Well Luther (2) Luther lib. quod Verbe Domini firmiter stant and the Lutherans (3) Kempniâ—ius 2. part Examin c. 4. â— 13 Illyricus lib. de mystica Sacramentali extrema praesentia Corporis Domini in Caena with ioint consent maintaine that the Body of Christ through its hypostaticall and inseparable Vnion with the Diuinity is in all Places True it is that the Deity is euery where yet no where but in it selfe And that Gods immensity is such as that it includeth in it selfe euery thing and yet is included in euery thing But howsoeuer this he notwithstanding certaine it is that the doctrine of the Vbiquity of Christs body and humanity maintained violently by Luther and others doth vtterly ouerthrow all the mysteries of Christ and particularly of his Death and Passion and thereby it makes our Nouellists to ioyne hands with Mahumet in Vertually denying the said Mysteries For once granting that Christs body is in all places then followeth it that it was in the Virgins wombe after its byrth or death That it was in the graue before Christs death and after his Resurrection Finally that it was vpon the Crosse after it was taken downe and in Heauen before its Ascension Thus we obserue that this doctrine of Vbiquity taught by Luther wholly destroyeth and frustrateth the Mistery of our Sauiours death and Passion Therefore I conclude that Luther and the Vbiquitaryes do ioyne and agree by ineuitable deductions taken from their owne doctrine with Mahumet in implicitly denying that Christ did really and truly suffer death for the Saluation of Man
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
Meâ—â—tas Princeps Fuit Des Speritus mens grincepiumque caput omnium bominum Iesus the sonne of Mary was the Messinger and spirit and Word of God He was sent from Heauen and him as the Legate of God all men ought to belieue Againe Iesus was the Wisdome and Word of the Father and the very spirit and mynd of God and the beginning head of all Men. Now according to these Passages of the Alcoran Theodorus Bibliander the Protestaâ—t thus writeth of the doctrine of the Turkes Primus (2) Bibliander in praefas Alcoran pag. 3. maximus eâ—ror Turcarum est quod Trinitatem in Vnitate negâ—â—t c. Christium â—ec Dei filâ—um â—â—c Deum esse credunt sed Propheâ—am bonum veracissimum omnâ—s meudacij alque peccati immunem The chiefest and greatest errour of the Turks is that they deny the Trinity in the Vnity They belieue that Christ is neither the Sonne of God nor God but that he was a good and most true Prophet and free from all lyes and sinne Thus we se how honorably and magnifically Mahumet did teach of Christ and so accordingly the Turkes do belieue of him euen at this day But now let vs obserue in what contrary Idiome of speach altogether depressing the dignity of Christ our Aduersaries do speake And to passe ouer as aboue touched how Luther and his Schollers will not acknowledg their Redemption from Christ except his diuine Nature suffered in which their phantasticall and conceated dognea they much dispretiate and vnderualew the worth of the Humanâ—ty of Christ First then whereas Mahumet aboue stileth Christ to be Supientia Verbum Patris Dei Spiritus Mens And all this Mahumet did vnderstand of Christ as he was Man for as we read in the former Azoara's he did not acknowledge Christ to be God Now Christ being in the iudgment of Mahumet the Turkes the Wisdome and the Word of the Father as also the Spirit and Mynd of God it vnauoydably followeth that Christ as Man in the iudgmeÌ„t of Mahumet did know all things and was free from all Ignorance as also did not stand subiect to any sudden vngouerned perturbations of the Mynd such as after ought to be corrected which correction vertually implyeth in it selfe a former sinne since otherwise we should be forced to grant a thing most absurd and no lesse derogatory from the Maiesty of God that the Wisdome the Word the Spirit and Mynd of God and He whom God commandeth all men to heare as aboue we noted out of the (3) Azoarâ— 11. 18. Alcoran did stand obnoxious to Ignorance to disordered Passions yea to sinne it selfe Now this inference being ineuitable let vs see how your Forefathers in opposition hereto stand guilty in charging Christ as man with Ignorance Thus then we find one of them to teach Christas (4) Bucerus in Luc. â— So Caluâ—â— â—s Hâ—rm c. 11. â—b infantia non fuit gratia consummatus sed aniâ—i doth us reluâ—i cateri homiâ—es adoleuit vsu factas quiâ—diâ— sapientior 〈◊〉 vs puerulus igâ—orauia lâ—berâ—â—is Christ from his Infancy was not consuenmate with Grace but did increase a other men doe in the guilts of the Soule He was made by vse daily more wise so that he labored with Ignorance as a litle Child The same doctrine is taught by Beza (5) Baze in respons ad act colloq Montisbelg part 1. p 147. 148. and by one Willettus (6) Willet in Synops pag. 599. 600. an English Doctour All which Iâ—nouatours sucked their poyson touching the supposed ignorance of Christ from Luther their Great Cham who thuâ— writeth in one place Christus sicut non (7) Luther in Concion de Natali Domint tractans locum Marci â—5 de illo die quoliâ—et tempore omneâ— vidis audius â—â—gue sensâ—◠〈◊〉 itaetiam corde non omnia sâ—mper â—gnâ—uâ— c. As Christ at all times did not see heare vnderstand all things so did he not know all things in his Hart but so much only as the Lord vouchsafed him to know To proceed fuâ—â—her When Christ prayed in the Garden Marloretus the Protestant sayth Voceus (8) Marloret in Math. 2â— edidit sine rations sine spiritiâ— With whom Caluin agreeth in these Words Christus metu (9) Caluin in cap. â— Matthat perculsus c. Christ being streken with feare did wauer among seuerall flouds of Temprations with change or vicisâ—tude of desires And this is the reason why he praying in the Garden against death Moxsibâ— fraenum iniâ—cit Putrisâ— imperâ—â— subâ—jciens votum illud subitè el sum castigâ—uit râ—â—ocauit did presently bridle that his desire and submitting himselfe in the Will of his Father did instantly correct land recall that his Petition or desire as suddenly falling from bim And further Caluin in the same plaâ—e more enlargeth himselfe saying Non fuit hac meditatâ— Christi Oratia sâ—d vis impâ—â—â—â—â—â—loris subitam ei vacem â—â—torsie cur statim addita fuit correctio Eadem whementia praesentem calestis decreti memoriam illi abstulit This prayer of Christ meaning If 〈◊〉 be possible let this Cup passe from me was not premeditate but force and violence of Griefe did extort this sudden Word from him the which he presently corrected The same vehemency of dolour did take from Christ the present remembrance of the Celestiall decree Thus far Caluin Where we may gather from those former words in him Subitâ— clapsum castâ—gauit recouauit As also those other Non fuit meditata oratio cui statim addita suit Correctio And againe eadem veâ—ementia praesentem â—alestis decreti memoriam ei abstulis thaâ— Caluin doth charge Christ not only with Ignorance and Forgetfulnes or Inconsideration but euen with Sinne since that is only a sinne which standeth in neede of Correction and reuocation But to close vp with Caluin This (10) See the Records of Noyon in France and Sâ—blusâ—enbur Theol Calu. 2. fol. 7â— Sodomiticall Fugitiue for my Pen cannot at this present affoard him better termes entred in to that height of Blasphemy as that he thus taught Christus (11) Caluin 〈◊〉 2. Instie c. 16. §. 10. dires in â—nima orucietus damnati perditi hoâ—inis pertulâ—â— Christ did suffer in his soule the earefull â—oxations of a damned and lost Man And thereupon Caluin teacheth that Christ (12) Caluin vbi suprà â—â— 11. was not secuâ—e of his oâ—ne Saluation reprehending the Catholike for teaching the Contrary in this manner (13) Caluin vbi suprà ◠1â— â—â—ic 〈◊〉 quidam indocts clamitant me atrocem facere Chrissto iniurtam quia minime consentaneum fuerat Christum de antmae salute timere Here now rise vp certaine ignorant lewd fellowes exclayming against me that I offer to Christ an atrocious iniury seing they say it is not agreable to him to feare the Saluation of his owne Soule The said Caluin the more