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
City perswaded him to be subiect himselfe to the Turkish Emperour and craue assistance of him In like sort we Frenchmen or rather we Franco-Turca in the Rebellion to the yeare 1568. made a Petition to the Turke for ayde against our owne Soueraigne King and Country giuing our reasons thereof to the Turkish Embassadour in these Wordes Quia (8) In literii Constantinop scriptis ad Venetum Patricium in fine libri de furoribus Gallisis fides Protestantiam Turcicae erat quà m simillima Because the fayth of the Protestants was most lyke to the Turkish fayth As also in that the Protestant Princes of Germany fauouring the Turkish Emperour might hinder all the designes of the Roman Emperour These were the Reasons in particular Which said French Men did thus promise the Turke in the forsaid Petition Sefore (9) In lit Constaâ—s â—bâ— suprd semper paratissimos ad turbas in Galia Germaniaque concitandas c. That they would euer be most ready to cause Combustions and Troubles by incensing the Communalty in France and Germany whensoeuer the Turkish Emperour should hould is conuenient Such is the diabolicall and Hellish malice of Heresy thus taking part with Misbeliefe Infidelity and Miscreancy against our most ancient and Apostolicall Roman Fayth Which course must needs seeme the more deplorable if we call to mynd that our Kings through their piety constant professing of the true Religion haue most deseruedly purchased the Title of Reges Christianissimi Why then should not their subiects in imitation of their Vertue be stiled Subditi Christianissimi But alas their state is far different from this For how can those men be truly called Christianissimi who are scarse at least imperfectly Christiani For doth Nature euer afford a Superlatiue without a Positiue The Reasons of the frienshippe betweene the Turke and some Lutheran States CHAP. XXX IN this place we will penetrate a little into the Reasons and Grounds why our New Gospellers the Chiefe Lay-Professours of the Reformed Religion do beare such a fauorable Aspect to the Turks and their Princes This we shall find to proceede from Certaine Principles of the Protestants doctrine of which some aboue are briefly touched Which being belieued do euen dispose the mynd for the full entertayning of Turcisme in generall and consequently do beget in their Wils a well-wishing to the Turke in temporall Affaires against all Professours of the Catholike Roman Fayth For our New Brethren do so corrupt and disualew the Articles of the most B. Trinity of the Incarnation of Christ of his Passion and merit thereof in all which Mysterious Passages Mercy did draw God from Heauen to Earth that he might therby draw man from Earth to Heauen with their pernicious false and pestilent Scholia's as that the next step is vtterly to deny those supreme dogmaticall Articles and Positions of fayth and so by imbracing Miscreancy to rise vp absolute Turks or Iewes And according to this my assertion we find AEgidius Hunnius a most forward and eminent Lutheran to confesse no lesse Which Hunnius did write a booke against Caluin bearing this Title Caluinus Iudaizans Hoc est Iudaica Glossae corruptelae quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate deitate Christi Spiritus sancti cum primis autem vaticinia Prophetarum de Aduentu Mesâ—iae Natiuitate eius Pasâ—ionâ— Resurrectione Ascensione ad Caelos Sessione ad dextram Dei detestandum in modum corrumpere non abhorruit Wittembergae anno 1593. Thus in English Caluin playing the Iews that is The Iudaicall Glosses Corruptions by the which Iohn Caluin hath not been afraid detestably to corrupt the most cleare places and testimonies of the Holy Scripture touching the glorious Trinity the Deity of Christ of the Holy Ghost and particularly the Prophecies concerning the Aduent and Comming of the Messias his Natiuity Passion Resurrection Ascension to Heauen and sitting at the right hand of God Another Protestant writeth in like sort a booke entituled Antiparaeus Hoc est Refutatio venenati scripti à Dauâ—de Paraeo editi in defensionem stropharum corruptelarum quibus loannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae Testimonia de Mysterio Trinitatis nec non Oraculâ— Prophet arum de Chrâ—sto detestandum in modum corrupit Francosurti Anno 1598. Thus Antiparaeus that is A Refutation of the virulent writing made by Dauid Paraeus in the defence of the impostures and Corruptions by the which Iohn Caluin derestably depâ—â—neth the most euident Testimonies of the Scripture touching the Mystery of the Trinity as also the Oracles of the Prophets concerning Christ A third Protestant thus stileth his booke written against Calâ—in Alberti Graueri Belluns Ioannis Caluini Iesu Christi That is the Warrs betweene Caluin and Iesus Christ written by Alberius Grauerus printed at Brapta 1598. To be short a Fourth Protestant writeth a Treatise bearing this Inscription Oratio de Incarnatione filij Dei contrâ— impâ—os blasphemos Errores Swinghanorum Galuinistarum Tubingae 1586. An Oration or discourse of the Incarnation of the Sonne of God against the wicked and blasphemeus Errours of the Swinglians and Caluinists Now the Swinglians and Caluinists thus writing against the most supreme Articles of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. do they not open a sluce to their Readers for the absolute deniall of the said sacred Mysteries And once denying them what then remaineth for the last tincture dye of their sayth but to become a Turke a Ieâ— or an Atheist This former point is made no lesse euident by the seuerall Testimonies of the more sober and temperate Protestants For Yacobus Andraeas thus complaineth Minime mirandum est ex Caluinianis c. We (1) Andraas in â—raefas vefucat Apolog Danaei are not to wonder that of the Caluinists in Poland Transsiluanis Hungary and in other places some imbrace Arianisme others Mahumâ—iisme to whose impiety the doctrine of Caluin prepareth the way Thus this Protestant And Pelâ—rgus a Protestant thus writeth Non (2) Pelargus in Admonis do Arianâ—s t is Caluiniâ—m Caluinianos in pluriâ—nis Scripturae expositionibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 labâ—rtose â—â—tendam I will not spend much tyme in â—hewing bow Caluin and the Câ—luinists in many â—â—positious of Scripture do play the Iewes and the Arians Now from this former source it sâ—ringeâ—n that a booke was written by a Scholer of Luther the Argument or Subiect whereof was in the frontispisce deliuered in these words Admonitie ex Verbo Dei quòd Caluinistae non sunt Christiant sed cantum Indaei Mahumetani baptizata An Admonition out of the Word of God that the Caluinists are nos Christians but only Iewes and Mahunistans Christened And an other famous Lutheran being Supeâ—intendent of the Church of Raceburg thus fully pronounceth of this point Caluinistae (3) In libâ— entituled Dae Theologiâ— Caluinist libritres Francoforts
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
Whether the Fathers did euer hould the true faych Thus Mahumet in his Alcoran But now let vs see how Luther and the Lutherans euen tread vpon the ancient Fathers with greater contempt of Words and contumelies then euer Mahumet did To begin with Luther who in these words dischargeth his shot against the Fathers in generall The (2) Luth tom 2. Wittenb an 1551. lib. de seruo arbitrio Fathers of so many Centuries haue beene blind and most vnskilfull in the Scriptures and if they did not correct and alter themselues before they dyed they were neither Holy men nor belonging to the Church But Luther comming to censure particular Fathers even shooteth hayle-shot against them in this manner In the writings (3) Luther in colloquijs mensalibus cap de Patribus Ecclesia of Ierome there is not a word of true Fayth in Iesuâ— Christ and per fect Religion Tertullian is very superstirious I am persuaded that Origen was long since accursed I make small rekoning of Chrysostome Basill is not to be much regarded he is wholy and meerely 〈◊〉 Monke I prize him not of a barre Cyprian is but a shallow and weake deuine Finally against Austin and Cyprian he thus vaunteth I (4) Lutherâ—â—m 1. contra Regeâ—â— Angliafol 344. care not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians opposed themselues against me With Luther to omit the like censures of other Lutherans Melanctâ—on runneth in full chase thus baâ—king Presently (5) Melanth in 1. Cor. c. 3. from the Infancy of the Church the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerting Iustification by fayth augtriented Ceremonyes and coyned peculiar Worships O how distant in the iudgment of these Nouelists who haue bouche ouuerie gorge desployà e an open mouch and full of gause from the iudgment of S. Austin deliueredin this his Sentence Quod (6) Aug. to J. contra Iâ—â—lian l. 1. c. 5. Patres credunt credo quod tenent teneo acquiesce istis requiesce à me The 8. Symbolisme Touching generall Councells CHAP. IX AS Mahumet reiected the Fathers in particular so also he reiected the authority of the ancient CouÌ„cells consisting of many hundred Fathers gathered together in one place for the disquisition and search of Truth in matter of Religion According to this my Assertion we find no mention of any authority ascribed to Generall Councells to be made in the Alcorans Neither would Mahumet admit the authority of any one Councell celebrated either before or in his dayes euen betrampling with contempt the first Councell (1) Septemcastrens defide relig Turcarum of Nice which was about some three hundred yeares before the being of Mahumet since by that Councell his blasphemy of denying Christ who is God before all time but Man in tyme to be God the Sonne of God was particularly condemned How do our Aduersaries compart with Mahumet in contemning all Councells For doth not (2) Brent in Apol. Confes Wittem cap. de Concilijs Brentius charge euen the said Councell of Nice with seuerall Errours In like sort Caluin a ftirmed that the Fathers of that Councell were (3) Caluin de verae Ecclesreformat inter opuscul pag. 480. fanaticall Musculus that they were (4) Musculus in loc com de Ministrâ—s p. 19â— Ã Satana in stigati But Vâ—banus Regius the Protestant insimulateth all generall Councells within this his Censute Quod omnia (5) Vrb. Reg. 1. part oper in inter pret loc com de Ecclesia fol. 51. Concilia parniâ—â—â—â—â— lapsa sunt luce clarius est It is more câ—earâ— then the sunne that all Councells haue most fowly erred And Beza sortably maintayneth that Primis (6) Beza in his preface of the New Testam anno 1587. isque optimis Ecclesia temporibus Satan Episcoporum coeâ—â—â—â—bus praefuit Euen in the very first and best times Satan did gouerne and preside ouer the Councells and Bishops But Peter Martyr to the end he would not be short to his former Brethren in so pious a worke thus sharpeneth his rafory tongue against all Councells in generall (7) Peter Marâ— l de votis pag. 47â— At long as we insist in generall Councells so long we shall continue in the Papists Errours Did euer any Child beare greater resemblance in face to his Father then our Euangelists do carry to Mahumet in doctrine herein Thus we find that though the Errour of contemning Generall Councells in these our tymes be not properly Luthers yet it is of Luther I meane defended by those who are the descendents of Luther So litle do these New Brethren regard the words of the Euangelist recorded of the Councell of the Apostles and implicitly of all other lawfull Generall Councells Visum (8) Act. 15. est spiritui Sancto Nobis The 9. Symbolisme Concerning Traditions CHAP. X. MAhumet and his followers ascribe such perfection to the Alcoran as that they (1) Cusantis in cribatione Alcorain l. 1. 2. Richardus Ordiâ—is Praedicat in confutat legis Saracen made it the boundaâ—y of their Religion belieuing or giuing credit to nothing which was not found expresly set downe therein not performing any thing not written therein So much they sleighted the force of all Traditions though most ancient And hereupon we find an Authour in these patricular words to discourse of this point Est in Turcarum (2) Beinbus â—â—slor Vâ—gnet l. 4. legibus vt quae sua lingua scripta non sunt ea praestari non est necesse And do not our New Euangelists so admirt the written Word of God and yet but that of the written Word which themselues hould for his Word at that they euen spit at all Traditions which haue not their expresse warrant from the said Word Vpon this ground their maine Throrame is That nothing is to be belieued but what the Scripture euidently teacheth And therefore whereas S. Basill sayth Some (3) Basil de spiritu Sancto c. 27. things we haue from Scripture other things from the Apostles Traditions both which haue like force to godlines as also whereas Epiphanius writeth We (4) Epiphan haeres 61. must vse Traditions for the Scripture hath not all things and therefore the Apostles deliuered certaine things by wryting and certaine by Tradition Now I say these Sentences are so displeasing to Reynoldus an English Protestant as that he thus speaketh of these two foresaid Fathers I (5) Reynoldus in his Conclusions or Thesibus take not vpon me to correct them but let the Church iudge if they haue weighed this point with aduice and consideration In like manner whereas Chrysostome most clearely speaketh in defence of Traditions in this sort The (6) In 2. Thessâ—l Homil 4. Apostles did not deliuer all things by Wryting but many things without writing and these later are to be as much credited as the former doth not Whitakerus condemne this sentence in the dialect of his said brother and Countriman Reynoldus
shall the memory of the Actions of this baroarous King continue And heere may well take place that Sentence of Cicero Salamina shal be soouer forgotten before the shings done in Salamina be forgotten The 2. Parallell Betwene Sergius and Luther CHAP. III. I Will in this next place ballance Sergius and Luther togeather In discoursing whereof I will more fully spread enlarge my selfe that so the implety of Luther being in part layd open to the eye of others they may the more willingly be induced to haue a loathing and hatred of the Heresyes first in our Age ventilated by him For if the Conduite or Pipe be foule and muddy can the water which streames through it be cleare and sweet And to begin Sergius and Luther were the first Apostles so to stile them of their Religions The first of Mahumetisme or Turcisme the second of Lutheranisme or Hugenotisme They both as aboue is touched briefly were Monks leauing with breach of solemne Vow their Monasteries though in a different manner For Sergius through his miscariage was cast out of it But Luther voluntarily and therefore with greater impiety did relinquish his Monastery and thereupon yoaked himselfe with a professed Nunne so vshering his Vocation with the sinne of Sacrilegious Adultery Both of them secured their molitions had Attempts vnder the Wings and safegard of temporall Princes Sergius vnder Mahumet and Luther vnder the Duke of Saxony Both of them had for their Maister and Instructour in planting their seuerall Fayth the Deuill so as the words of our Sauiour might truly take place in either of their plantations Qui (1) Math. 11. seminauit ea est diabolus Sergius had him originally but not immediatly since humane respects of pleasure and the like were to him a forcible allectiue inuiting him to his after Apostasy But Luther had the honour and fauour forsooth to be instructed by the Deuill both originally and immediatly The (*) This disputation betweene Luther and the Deuill is confessed by Hospinian the Protectant in Hist Sacram. part altera fol. 131. As also by Manlius Luthers Scholler in loc com and by Morton in Apolog. Cathol part 1. l. 9. c. 21. Deuill by that meanes Catechizing this his Proselyte to abandon his Catholike Religion by telling him that by saying daily Masse he committed Idolatry To which and other of the Deuills arguments he yealded This his Conference with the Deuill is so certaine and vndoubted as that Luther himselfe as not being ashamed of enioying such a Maister very solemnly deliuereth it in these his owne Words It (2) Luther tom 7. Wittenberg anno 15â—8 de Missa â—ngulari fortuned that at a certaine tyme about Midnight I was suddenly awaked from sleepe then Sathan began this dispute with me saying Hearken right Reuerend Doctour Luther Thou knowest thou hast for the space of fifteene yeares celebrated priuate Masses euery day but now what saist thou if such Masses were horrible Idolatry Haec illo dicâ—ute The Deuill thus speaking did vse voce forti grani a strong and base Voyce I did burst forth into a sweate and my hart began to beate and tremble Thus Luther himselfe hereof and through force of this colluctation and dispute with the Deuill he renounced his Priesthood and instantly began to stamp from the same origin the rest of his Heresies but this auet vne impudence effrenêe trop audacicuse arrogance most shamlesly and bouldly Here then I demaund Who first denyed the doctrine of Priuate (1) Luth. de abrogandâ— Missa priuatu Masse and Priesthood The Deuill and Luther Who first denyed (2) So Sleydâ—n witnesseth of Luther l. 26. fol. 232. Pardons The Deuill Luther Who first denyed Papall (3) Luther in captiuit Babil tom 2. fol. 68. Iurisdiction and Monasticall (4) Luther de Votis Monain tom 2. Wittenberg lyfe The Deuill and Luther Who first denyed Foure (5) Luth. tam. 2. fol. 63. Sacraments The Deuill and Luther Finally who first denied Free-will (6) Luther de seruo arbitrio iâ— tom 2. fol. 424. Iustification by Works and seuerall Parts of Canonicall (7) Luther in praefat in Euist lacobi Scripture The Deuill Luther Since than the Deuill Luther were so intrinsicall and in ward friends and that Luther became so seruiceable an Achates to the Deuill as publikly to preach and maintaine whatsoeuer the Deuill did dictate vnto him I leaue to your owne iudgments my Countrymen of the Reformed Religion what hope you can haue of your soules Saluation in imbracing and belieuing the damnable doctrines first inuented by the Deuill and Luther in their afore mentioned solemne Conference But to returne Sergius and Luther did vnanimously contemne the ancient Fathers of Christ his Church that therby as prestiming the Errours of those Fathers they both vpon this ground with greater considency might vrge a Reformation of the supposed Errours in our Catholike Religion as is aboue said Sergius his dislike of the Fathers is discouered in the thirteenth Azoara aboue set downe Luther to omit many other vnworthy aspersions and reproaches cast vpon them by him thus writeth The Fathers (3) Lath tom 〈◊〉 Wiâ—â—onbâ—â—â—o 1991 〈◊〉 seruo arbiâ—rie 〈◊〉 â—â—â— of so many Ages or Centurios haue been wholy blynd and most vnskilfull in the Scriptures and haue erred during all their lyse tyme and except they were amended before they dyed they were not to be accounted Sainis nor belonged to the Church In which Censure Luther deliuereth his mynd in farre greater acerbity of speach then we find Sergius in writing the Alcoran to haue done To passe on Sergius and Luther did iointly write lasciuiously and â—ustâ—ully Sergius thus decreeth in his Alcoran Muheres (4) Azoara 8. quotrescunque placuerit duas sciâ—ces ant tres aut quaetuor ducite c. But is Luther any whit short to Sergius herein Read what followeth Si non (5) Luth. Jâ—â—â—n de Mâ—â—riâ—â—io vult Vxer aus non possit veniat Ancilla If the wyfe either will not or by impotency cannot let the mayd come in her roome He further teacheth That a Man may mary another woman if his owne Wyfe be fled from him And then vpon this ground Luther thus concludeth A man (6) Luth. tom â— Wiâ—â—an berg fol. â—â—â— may haue ten or more wises sâ—â—l from him and all yet liuing Luther further proceedeth thus teaching Polygamy (7) Luth. in Propofit de bigamia 〈◊〉 15â—8 propes â—2 65. â—â— is no more disanulled or abiegated then is the rest â—f Mayses Law And it is free as being neither commanded nor forbidden Thus far of Luthers doctrine agreeing with Sergius touching the firme of Carnalicy Now wheras Sergius and Luther aboue thus write only speculatiuely and by way of Instruction Yet here we find a differeÌ„ce betweene Sergius and Luther For touching the personall Incontinency of Sergius we find but litle or nothing written Whereas Luther as willing to incorportie his former