Luthers Alcoran being a treatise first written in French by the learned Cardinall Peron, of famous memory, against the Hugenots of France, and translated into English by N.N.P. : the page following sheweth the particular contents of the booke, which consisteth of symbolismes, parallells, identities.

About this Item

Title
Luthers Alcoran being a treatise first written in French by the learned Cardinall Peron, of famous memory, against the Hugenots of France, and translated into English by N.N.P. : the page following sheweth the particular contents of the booke, which consisteth of symbolismes, parallells, identities.
Author
Du Perron, Jacques Davy, 1556-1618.
Publication
[S.l. :: s.n.],
1642.
Rights/Permissions

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.

Subject terms
Huguenots -- France.
Christianity and other religions -- Islam.
Islam -- Relations -- Christianity.
Cite this Item
"Luthers Alcoran being a treatise first written in French by the learned Cardinall Peron, of famous memory, against the Hugenots of France, and translated into English by N.N.P. : the page following sheweth the particular contents of the booke, which consisteth of symbolismes, parallells, identities." In the digital collection Early English Books Online 2. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A36913.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed May 19, 2024.

Pages

The 17. Symbolisme, Concerning the suffering of Christ. CHAP. XVII.

TO proceed further: Mahumet affir∣meth, that Christ did not suffer for Mākind, 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) Mariae blasphemiam. & immoderatam contumeliam infe∣runt, dum eius filium Christu••••. Dei nuncium. se interemisse peribent; Euns ••••im equaquam, sed

Page 62

alterum et milem interfecerunt, quia Deut incen∣prehensibilis & sapens 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, ex∣cept his Diuinity had also suffered. Thus they: annexing this Impossibility of Christs suffe∣ring 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 Sen∣tence of Gods Vniuersall Church, maintay∣ning, that Christ, who had no sinne, became a Sacrifice for sinne. Now that Luther tea∣cheth, that Christ suffered (besides his Cor∣porall death) according to his diuinity, is euident out of Luthers owne words, which are these: Cum(2) credo, quòd sola humana na∣tura 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 Blas∣phemy, since in Christ his Passion, through

Page 63

the coniunction of the Diuinity with the Humanity, an infinit debs was discharged by a finit payment; and yet only infinity of sa∣tisfaction doth truly expiate infinity of sinne.

The same Luther in another place thus writeth: Pertinacissime(3) contra me pugabant, quod diuinitas Christi pati non posset. They conten∣ded 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 Che∣canorius (a Protestant) thus writeth: an∣draas Musculus non veritus fuit palàm dicere &c. Andrew(4) Musculus was not afraid opēly 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 Diui∣nity (which was impossible to doe) did suf∣fer also. O how forgetfull was Luther (with Mahumet) of the words of the Apostle: Re∣conciliati(5) sumus Deo per mortē 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) is an Heresy, which teacheth, that Christs di∣uinity suffered, when his flesh was fastaned vpon the Crosse?

Notes

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.