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.

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) 1.1 est substantia necessa∣rio 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) 1.2 dic illis Christianis, Deum vnum ess••••ecessariò omnibus, qui nec genuit, nec generatus est, nec ha∣bet 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 can∣not borrow his Nature from another. Now to apply this: The Protestants teach, that Christ hath his diuine nature from him∣selfe, and not of his Father: So teach Caluin(3) 1.3 and Beza,(4) 1.4 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 di∣uine Essence from his Father; and by con∣sequence, 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 Nic•••••• 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, & ••'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 Tri∣nity; in which most Reuerend Mystery (to speake in the Churches Idiome) God re∣mained that, which afore he was, and assumed that, which afore he was not•• suffering neither com∣mixture, 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 Poloni••, which Men are Protestants refined, or sublimated: Illi(5) 1.5 aiu•••• Deum vnum in Essentia, tri•••••• in Personi••, 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 C••rb••••••s, the God

Baal, Moluch &c. Did euer Mahumet, or Ser∣gius eructate out of their impure breasts such poyson, as the Arions of these tymes (com∣parting with Mahumet) and all originally Protestanis, haue done?

Notes

• (1) 1.1

  Azoara, 27.28.
• (2) 1.2

  Azoara, 40. & 53.
• (3) 1.3

  Caluin in examin. persi∣diae Valentini Geneilis, ex∣ta•• in eract. Theolog. pag. 77••.
• (4) 1.4

  Beza contra H••∣chusium.
• (5) 1.5

  Osiander C••••••. ••6. pag. 26••.