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 Preface of the Authour. CHAP. I.

MY Deare Countreymen of France. You, who vauntingly style your selues, De la Religion re∣formée, and, De la way•• Eglise de Iesus Christ; of the reformed Religion, and of the true Church of Iesus Christ, (thus laying for your owne Honour, such specious and fayre colours vpon the foule graine of your owne Fayth:) You (I say) cannot be ignorant (I presume) how I haue endeuored by my particular congresse with diuers of your Religion, as also by my seuerall Writing•• (according to my abi∣lity) to pull you out of the myre of your present Errours (too myld a word) your present Heresies (yet ouer languide) your presen•• Blasphemies; but all in vayne.

For when I drew forth my proofes from the ••orce of Reason (bearing in Mans soule the stamp of Gods owne(1) 1.1 Seale) from the authorities of the Ancient Fathers, from O••cu••••••icall Councells, from the long hand of tyme, and vnnitermittee. Apostolicall

Tradition, from the stupendious miracles exhibited for greater confusion of your In∣nouations; and lastly from the most sacred, and inuiolable authority of Gods holy Writ∣ten Word; You to all this giue vs this yaw∣ning, and heedles answere: To wit, that the priuate Spirit of och of the Faythfull (a∣mong which number, you ambitiously range your selues) is to ballance and poyse the waight of all the forsaid proofes; and euen to Oracle forth the meaning of the holy Ghost in the said Venerable Scriptu∣res. O Circulation strange, and incredible! For you hereby do aduance the priuat iudg∣ment of Monsieur Plessis Mornay (heretofore my Antagonist, and a great Arche of your Church) of Monsieur Casanbon, Monsieur de Mo∣••in, or some other such obscure Terrae filius, aboue all authorities, aboue all Tribun••lls, aboue all seates of Iudicature: Which Pri∣uate spirit. & preiudice of iudgment in you, are the Remor••'s, or lets, staying and flow∣ing you from further sayling into the dee∣pest Mysteries of Christianity.

Therefore seeing this former Course of disputing can preuayle nothing with you, ••••am at this tyme forced to proceede ano∣ther way, and to imitate 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 ••uine the Rampiers, Fortress••••, and Holds of the Enemy. Now the Course here to be

h••••ld••n by me, shall be this.

We obserue, that if a Man be tould, that he hath some spo••s vpon his face, occasio∣ned by any vnexpected meanes, he present∣ly h••iteth to a Glass••, to see himselfe ••h••rin 〈◊〉〈◊〉 And if he find the blemishe•• to appeare i•• the G••asse, he then acknowledgeth the truth thereof, and instantly seeketh to dry, and wype them away. The like I h••••r•• counsel you to doe (O you Hagen••••s of France.) You are by me in this Treatise ••••••••ged wi•••• d••ue••s ••oales, and spo••s of T••rcism••; Glasse your selues in the Turkish A••oran (for so i•• the Booke called, wherein the Articles of the Turkish Fayth were first ••••at downe.) Y•• you find therein your owne blemi••••••s to be exhibited to your sight; I meane, if yo•• find thereby, that you do•••• part with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Turks, in belie••••ng with them di•••••••• po•••••• of their owne fayth, diffe••en••ly from a•••• other Christians (as by ••••••pa••ing your Fayth with theirs you shall ••••nd,) then ••••∣bou•• to ab••••erge all such deformity from the face of your Christian ••••r••••e••••••on? And thus you may make the Turkish ••l••••••a••, in part, the G••asse of your present Religion.

The labour I here vndertake will (〈◊〉〈◊〉 suppose) appeare in your ••••dg•••••••••••• to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ore then an Her••••••e•••• ••••bour; and mo•••• difficult•• to wi••, to proue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who•••• you•• May••ters feare 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to 〈…〉〈…〉(a) 1.2 God to e••••g•••••••• the World(3) 1.3 fore•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 the Scriptures, and a(4) 1.4 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a•• also 〈◊〉〈◊〉 chiefe Senod••••••, 〈…〉〈…〉, and

others (so much magnified by you) to haue in many points of their fayth, wholy ioy∣ned themselues with Mahumet, Christs mor∣tall, yea immortal Enemy. Now, if I do as∣sume more in these words, then I shall per∣forme (for I do expect this Treatise will he ouerlooked with many Aristarchian, and censuring Eyes) then let me become infa∣mous to my owne Country, and euen to the Professours of my owne Religion, in∣glorious, and despicable.

For the more cleare accomplishment of my vndertaken Scene. I will not insist in the authority of Gods holy Writ, (as vn∣worthily, and irreligiously de••orted by the pryde of ech of your Priuat spirit;) neither in any other kynd of proofes aboue rehear∣sed (all which you behould with the eye of scorne, and contempt,) but I will rest only in your chiefe Maisters owne words, yet ex∣tant to be read in their Writings: So as I may here say with our Sauiour, De ore(5) 1.5 tu•• ••e iudico, S••ru••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, recor∣ding the doctrine of the Turkish Alcoran & Fayth, you shall find them in many dogma∣ticall points (for I say not in all) most con∣spiringly to agree: Non facies vn••, nec diuers•• ••am••n — And thus your Religion may with some shew of reason be called, Tur∣kish Hugenotis••s, or Hugenotish T••rcisme.

Now whiles you ••••ad their words in

their Bookes, remember, that the Penn•• is the soules secondary Tonque▪ deliuering without voyce, or sound, its mentall Lan∣guage: 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 won∣dered, that the great Turk▪ (as Manlius(6) 1.6 the Protestant relateth) demaunding of the Christian E••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) 1.7 against the Turke is to resist Gods visiting our Iniquities And more:(8) 1.8 He that hath eares, let him heare, and abstaine from the Turkish Warrs, whi•••• 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) 1.9 sunt a••tic••, Her••des & Pi∣lat••s.

But to returne to the Treatise. I haue en∣titu••ed it, Luthers Alcoran; not because Luther did particularly first dogmatize all the points, wherein the Nouellists of these ty∣mes conspire with the Turke, and M••••••••••t; but in that he did first broach many of them▪ And the r••••t were after taught by

Swinglius, Caluin, Beza, and others, all Lu∣thers Prosely••s and schollers; and all descen∣ding originally from the Ioynes of Luther. Now the denomination of a thing is com∣monly taken à praestantior••: And according hereto, throughout this Treatise, I take the words, Lutheran, and Lutheran••sme in a gene∣rall sense, as comprehending all the fol∣lowers of Luther, and such doctrines, as were first taught by Luther, or after by his fol∣lowers; 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 Swin∣gi••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 indisso∣luble knot of doctrine shall you find in many points betweene these two sects▪ Therefore you must be forced either to a∣bandon Lutherranisme, or by imbracing of it, withall to imb••ace Turcisme, and Mahuine∣tisme. What griefe then is it, that our noble Country should be con••aminated, and de∣filed with such pitch of Blasphemies, in this Treatise discouered?

O Blessed Lewis, once King of France; Great ••eretofore in Empire, and Domination; Greater in Vertue and de••••o••••o••; but now Greatest in thy fruition of the light of the

Allmighty; since thou now be houldest him, Non tanquam(10) 1.10 Speculum in enigmars, b•••••• facie ad scieno; and him all things lntui∣tiuely; Looke vpon France thy deare Coun∣try (where thou didst once ••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 stand•• not compatible with any griefe, or sorrow, in regard of the Confor∣mity of thy Will, to the Diuine Will, and per∣mission of the Highest; neuerthelesse since Thou, and all other Saints now reigning with thee in Heauen, through your Scraphi∣call Charity are become Aduocats for vs poore miserable Wormes, during our exile in this Vale of Misery, forbeare not the•• to powre out daily thy Vills of Iucense (A meane thy Prayers) before his diuine Ma∣iesty; Besiege his eates with thy vninter∣rupted Oraisons, that so he would be plea∣sed to withdraw his scourne from this one most deare Country; and that he would mollify the obdurate Hates of those men therein, who introduce Nouelty, vnder the tecture of Truth, and change Christ his Gos∣pell into the Turkish Alcoran. Pray (O pray) most glorious Saint, that his our famous Idation may be wholy induced & brought backe to that Apostolicall and Prim•••••••• Eayth, which then reigned in it when tho•• ••ignedst ouer it; it th•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Moone (as it were) of its owne resplendent Honour.

But to recall my selfe: It seemes to me, I perceaue some of you (Hugeno••s) who are plus fiues, que religueux, more subtill, then re∣ligious, looking vpon these leaues with the eye of liuour and malignity; saying, the indignity and wrong, by comparing our reformed Religion with Mahumetisme, or Turcisme is infus••••••••ble; since we belieue in Christ, in the Trinity, the Writings of the New Testament, that there are the Sacraments of Baptisme, and the Lords supper &c. from all which the Turks do disclaime. To this I answere seuerall Wayes.

First I compare you with the Turks in some Points only of your sayth, not in all: Therefore the comparison here made is no further to be extended, then is by me inten∣ded. Secondly, I grant, you belieue these su∣preme Points in generall, but you haue cōmonly annexed in your beliefe of them so much poyson, touching some Circum∣stances of the said Mysteries, as that it hath vitiated, and corrupted the whole Ma••te of your Beliefe, and then that saying, here houldeth: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, False beliefe is plainly worse, then misbeliefe, or Infidelity.

Thirdly, I make a Comparison in this Trea∣tise, only of Hugenotisme or Protestancy, with Turcisme: But the former sublime Articles of Christian Religion you do not belieue, as you are Hugen••ts, or Protestants, but only as

Catholiks, or at the most as Christians; since from our Catholike Church only you re∣ceaue your beliefe of them. For thus Luther acknowledgeth: We(11) 1.11 confesse, that vnder the Papacy there is most of the Christian Good, yea rather all the Christian Good, and that from thence it came to vs. And Whitakerus (a Protestant Doctour of England) sayth no lesse in these his Words: The(12) 1.12 Papists haue the Scriptures, and Baptisme &c. And these came to vs from them.

Now, these former Points (I say) you belieue not as Protestants, or as Professours of your reformed Religion. The reason hereof being, because you are Protestants in respect (and not otherwise) of your Deniall of the affirmatiue Catholike Points, where∣by you deuide your selfes from the Catho∣like Roman Church; as in denying the Sa∣crifice of the Altar, Prayer for the dead, praying to Saints, Peters Supremacy, and his Successours &c. Finally in denying other positiue, and affir∣matiue Articles of our Catholike Religion, wherein by such your deniall you dissent from vs; And in regard of your first Mai∣sters protesting to deny the said Points, ac∣cording to their Confession of Fayth exhibited at Augusta, they were then first stiled Prote∣stants, as your owne Sleidan(13) 1.13 and other Protestant(14) 1.14 Historie graphers haue re∣corded. And thus far in solution of your former suggested Crimination (if any of you should suggest it) and in further war∣rant of my vndertaken Mothed in this Treatise.

It may by further viged by some of you (especially of such as be illiterate) that you do not giue your consent, and beliefe to such blasphemous doctrines, wherein your Grand-marster do agre with Mahumet, and the Turke; yea that you do not, as much as heare of some of these their agreements, or of the wicked Positions, where with Lu∣ther, Swinglius, Caluin, and such others stand charged in this Treatise; and that therefore it is iniustide and wrong in me, to in simu∣late you within the beliefe of such impious doctrines, I take away this your poore E∣uasion in this sort: I grant it may be true, that you haue not heard of many wicked Tenets of your owne Brethren, produced hereafter by me; neuerthelesse you with an inuolued, and implicit Fayth do belieue them to be ••••••e.

The reason hereof is, because you giue in grosse such affiance and credit to Luther, Swingliues &c. as that what Religion they haue taught to be true, the sme you belieus to be true: But these men did diuulge with the same authority, the blasphemies and wicked assertions here related, with the which authority they did teach such other points of Protestancy and Hugenetisme, to the which you give an ••••••••sse, and explicit affent. And thus whiles you belieue other Protestanticall points to be true, only by reason of the authority of your ••••st Maisters teaching them you are therefore by force of the same authority, to belieue what false

doctrines soeuer your foresaid Instructours haue disgorged out in the it Writings; since they were warranted with the pretext of equall security of not erring in all their writings. And therefore hence I conclude, that euery one of you, who do acknow∣ledge Luther, and the rest here alledged, for your prime Catechizers or Doctours in your sayth, doth stand guilty of all their blasphe∣mies vented out by them, in that by force of the reason aboue deliuered, you poten∣tially, and implicitly belieue the said Blas∣phemyes. Thus farte hereof.

Well I will draw to an end of this my Fieface (which shall serue in place of a for∣mall Epistle Dedicatory) putting you in mind, that your Proge••itours haue so comported themselues in their first stamping the Prin∣ciples of their fayth as that they may be said partly to stand in competency with Mahumet, and Sergius (Mahumets Scribe, or Penman) whether should transcend, and surpasse the one the other in impiety of do∣ctrine. A miserable Emulation!

One thing yet before I end, I will adde; which is, if it can be proued, that you of the Reformed Religion do partake but in any one point only (as I will make it euident; that you do in fourty) with the Turks, dif∣ferently from the beliefe of all true Chri∣stians, and of Gods Vniuerfall Church, (you by this meanes declyning, le grand chemin battu de la foy Catholique, & Orthodoxe, the high beaten way of the Catholike, and or∣thodoxall

sayth) then it clerely followeth that your fayth cannot be perfect, and suffi∣cient to Saluation. For fayth is supernatu∣rall; and infallible; But who erreth in any one point of fayth (since such a Man re∣lyeth not vpon God reuealing, and the Church propounding, the two necessary Meanes for the obtayning of a true & profitable fayth:) This man (I say) may possibly erre in any other point; and then by necessary infe∣rence he cannot be a Member of the true Church; for to speake in S. Cyprians Dialect:(15) 1.15 Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi; incor∣rūpta est & pudica.

Now with this I referre you to the peru∣sall of this discourse, wherein I do apply to the diseases of your soule, Paracelsian Physick (as I may say) since the Ingredients thereof will either (perhaps) presently cure you, or presently dispatch you; for vpon your reading and serious pondering of it, it may be, you will shake of your present fayth of Hugenotisme, or els (which God preuent) wilbe more corroborated in Mahumetisme; so precipitating your selues into the infer∣nall Abysme of miscreancy, and Infidelity.

Ia. Card. Peron▪

Of the Method houlden in this Treatise. CHAP. II.

THe prescribed Method, which I intend to take in these ensuing leaues, is first, to exemplify in ma∣ny particular Articles of Beliefe, wherein Mahumet and the Turks do agree with Luther and the Lutherans; concerning which I am to prefixe this Caution. To wit, that as by Luther, and the word Luthe∣ran, I vnderstand also the Swinglians, and the Caluinists, (though I grant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and abusiue) seing they all originally were be∣got by Luther, though now through tract or tyme they be branched forth into seuerall distinct families: So in like manner I take these words following promiscuously; I meane, Mahumet, Sergius, the Mahumetaus, the Saracens, the Turks, Mahumetisme, Saracen••sme, and Turcisme; all comprehending one and the same Religion, first sprung by Mahumet and Sergius, and only varying in appella∣tion through diuersity of Places, & Tymes.

Well then to proceed. This Agreements of Mahumetisme and Luthera••isme, I call Sym∣bolisme. This Word Symbolisme is taken from naturall Philosophy, where it is peculiarly applyed to the agreements of seuerall Ele∣ments in seuerall qualities: Thus the Ayre (for example) in its heate Sy••holizeth, and

agreeth with the fire; in its moysture, with the Water. After I haue displayed fourty Points (most of them Articles of fayth, and the rest necessary Circumstances, attending the Turkish, and Lutheran Religion) where∣in these two Religions do conspire and a∣gree, I then in the second Part of this Trea∣tise do particularize twenty Points of fayth, and inferences, or deductions from thence, in which I compare the Lutherans with the Mahumetans, or Turks; wherein it is made euident, that the Positions, and Articles of the Lutherans, and their answerable practise of them are at least equall, if not more wic∣ked, and lesse iustifiable by force of all Rea∣son, then the contrary Tenets of the Mahume∣tans, and Turks. These my librations and waighings of these seuerall Points I terme Parallels; because I compare togeather the said Points or Articles, as seuerally maintai∣ned by them; as also I compare togeather the seuerall first Inuentours of Mahumetisme, and Lutheranisme.

After the end of both these two Parts of this Treatise, I subnect (as an Appendix) a Discourse, which may serue, as a Second Glasse to you of the Reformed Religion, wherin you may behould threescore of your owne Posi∣tions or dogmaticall Points of faith, and o∣ther Accessories thereof, to haue been who∣ly condemned for Heresies, by the ancient Fathers of Christs Primitiue Church; and the maintayners of them to haue been ••••anded, and anathematized for cursed He∣retiks.

These wicked Positions I call in this place, so many Identitio••••; seing they are the same erroneous doctrines without any va∣riation, heretofore exploded for old Here∣sies, and now imbraced of new, and reuiued by our Sectmaisters of these dayes. Now by all these seuerall Passages of this litle Work, we may obserue, that although the true Church of Christ hath been forced to be embroyled with Mahumetisme; and antient∣ly condemned Heresies; yet she neuer par∣taked with Mahumetisme, or the said Here∣sies in any one point of their Wicked Para∣doxes; no more then Eternity, though it co∣existeth with the tyme past, and the tyme fu∣ture, is neither the tyme past, nor the Tyme future.

Thus much touching the method by me holden; Only I end with this premonition once for all; That whereas I do mention (by way of Reprouall) often the words, Protestancy, and Protestant, in this discourse, and Appendix, my meaning is, that therby I vnderstand, and take Protestancy only for such points of fayth, which the more ear∣nest, violent, and fiery Protestants and Calai∣nists maintayne (this their doctrine being the same with Hugenotisme, and the belieuers of it, the same with you Hugenots) not ex∣tending these two former words to such Articles of fayth, or to the Professours ther∣of, which the more learned, graue, and sober Protestants do hould and belieue.

The Particular Passages of the Alcoran, alledged in this Treatise, according to the Order, as they do occurre in this Booke: Of which Passages diuers are se∣uerall tymes vpon seuerall occasions re∣peated, and urged. And heere we are to note, that the different Passages of the Alcoran are distinguished (as by so many Sections, or Paragraphs) by the word, Azoara 1.2.3. &c. CHAP. III.

• Azoara 5. DEus pius, [ 1] & misericors, priùs Testamen∣tum Vetus (videlicet legem Moysis & Psalterium) demceps Euangelium, re∣ctas Vias hominibus tradidit.
• Azoara 13. Increduli, & minime Deum (videlicet absque Filio & Spiritu Sancto) adorantes, cum postulan∣tur praeceptis à Deo positis, suo{que} legate (Mahu∣meti) fidem adhibere; Aiunt se nolle quicquam mutari, nisi quod Patres imitati sunt. Quibus ta∣men fit Obiectio: Vtrum Patres semper non nisi re∣ctam sidem tenuerunt?
• Azoara 1. Sciendum est geueraliter, quoniam omnis rectè ••iuens, beni{que} gestor; Iudaeus, seu Christianus, seu l••ge sua relicta in aliam tendens; Omnis scilicet

• Deum adorans, indubitanter diuinum amorem assequetur.
• Azoara 61.62. & seqq. Per Ventos inflantes, & Nubes, [ 4] & Naues ae∣quore currentes, & Angelos Nuncios; per montem Synai, & domum superné aedificatam; per stellam respertinam; per stellas retrogradas, & combustas; per noctem, & auroram iuro, quod non sum Daemo∣niacus, aut Magus, sed Dei Opermi nuncius, qui nihil erre nihil ex proprio velle loquor, nisi tantùm quod est mihi diumitus mandatum.
• Azoara 12. Increduli sunt qui lesum silium Mariae, [ 5] Deum esse dicunt, cum ipse Dominus dicat; In Dominum Deum meum, & vestrum credite.
• Azoara 19. Confundat Deus Christianos [ 6] qui Mariae filium loco Dei venerantur; cùm ipsis praeceptum sit, non nisi vnum Deum venerari.
• Azoara 12. & 20. Iudaei Mariae blasphemiam, [ 7] & immoderatam contumeliam inferunt, dum eius filium, Christum Dei nuncium se interemisse perhibē: Eum enim ne∣qu••quam, sed alterum ei similem interfecerunt; quia Deus incomprehensibilis & sapiens, cum ad se migrare fecit.
• Azoara 27.28. Deus est substantia necessario existens, [ 8] cui im∣possibile est, vt naturam aliunde natuetur.
• Azoara 4.9. & 53. Constanter dic illis Christianis, Deum vnum esse necessariò omnibus, qui nec genuit, nec genera∣tus est; nec habet quicquam simile.

• Azoara 13. O Iesis fili Mariae, tu persuades hominibus, [ 10] ni te, matrem{que}tuam, duos Deos habeant, & vene∣rentur.
• Azoara 8. Vnore quotiescumque placuerit, [ 11] duas scilicet, tres, aut quatuor ducite &c nisi timueritis eas nul∣latenus pacificare posse; Cum contingerit vobis eas non diligere, vnam pro alia mutare licet.
• Azoara 5.11. Iesus Mariae filius, [ 12] fuit Dei Nuncius, & Spiri∣tus, & verbum Dei caelitus immissum; Cui Dei le∣gato omnes debent credere.
• Azoara 12. Iesus fuit Sapientia, [ 13] & Verbum Patris, & Messias, & Princeps; Fuit Dei Spiritus, & mens, principumque, & Capus ommum ho••••num.
• Azoara 31. Omnium mulierum optimae Mariae, [ 14] abomnibus intactae, animam suam Deus insufflauit.
• Azoara 31. Spiritus Dei intrauit Mariam, [ 15] & Iesum ex ca genuit.
• Azoara 76. Maria aliquid inali, [ 16] siue malitiae non operatae est.
• Azoara 5. Maria fuit omnibus vtris, [ 17] & mulieribus splen∣didior, & mundior, & purior; soli{que} Deo perseue∣ranter student.
• Azoara 4. Angelui Gabriel ad Virginem Mariam a Deo missus est, [ 18] narraturus ••am (quamquam Virginem)

• ...Dei tam••n Omnipotentia filium concepturam.
• ...Azoara 43.Omnes mulieres tuae manui per emptionem sup∣positas, & Amitae tuae▪ Matertera{que} filias; [ 19] Omnes item bonas mulieres tibi volenti gratis succumberé cupientes, licitas constituimus.
• ...Azoara 10.De Dei promissionibus in Lege, [ 20] & Euangeli•• propositis, non est disputandum.
• ...Azoara 20.Emina, mater Mahumetis, [ 21] testabatur filium Mahumetem nec in vtero, nec in partu vlli•••• sibi dolorem fecisse.
• ...Azoara 74.Nuntium vobis affero, [ 22] de Nuntio post me ventu∣ro, cui nomen Mahumetus.
• ...Azoara 63.Tanti spatij interuallo, [ 23] quantum sagitta his discurreret.
• ...Azoara 54.65.66.In Paradiso fideles habebunt hortos, & fontes, [ 24] vestientur sericis & purpura; puellas habebunt cum oculis claris & immensis, quorum ••lbugines candi∣dissimae, & pupillae nigerrimae.

Thus far of these passages of the Alcoran; where it is to be obserued, that one and the same Azoara, is vpon different occasions se∣uerall times alledged, as aboue I aduertized. And it is to be further obserued, that besides the forsaid Passages of the Alcoran aboue alledged, there are also produced many Te∣stimonies, and Authorities of seuerall graue Writers, whose Bookes treat of the Alcoran,

or of the Religion, Manners, and Customs of the Turks or Mahumetans, whose sentences are here alledged against the Lutherans, ei∣ther by way of Symbolisms, or Parallels. The names of which Authours I haue thought conuenient here to set downe.

• 1. Theodorus Bibliander in Praefatione Alcorani.
• 2. Cusanus in Cribratione Alcorani.
• 3. Richardus Ordinis Praedicatorum in confu∣tatione legis Saracenae.
• 4. Septem-castrensis de fide, & Religione Tur∣carum.
• 5. Christopherus Richerius, de moribus Turca∣rum, ad Franciscum Galliae Regem.
• 6. Cuspinianus de Religione Turcarum.
• 7. Postille de la Republique des Tures.
• 8. Bellanius des singularités.
• 9. Chronica Saracenorum.
• 10. Munsteri Cosmographia.
• 11. Georgensis de Turcarum Moribus.
• 12. Theueti Cosmographia.
• 13. Literae Constantinopoli scriptae ad quendam Venetum Patricium.

Extant in fine libri, de furoribus Galliae.

Of Symbolismes in generall. CHAP. IV.

BEfore we come to dissect the parti∣culars, wherein our Reformists, and the Turks do cōspire, I hold it much conducing to our purpose (thus ob∣seruing Method perhaps in breach of Me∣thod)

to shew what agreements they haue in Generalities; Some of which Generalities are hereafter discoursed of more particu∣larly.

The 1. Symbolisme.

First then we find, that he who first com∣posed the Turkish Alcoran, was Sergius, an Apostata Monke; for though by the authority and commandement of Mahumet (a tempo∣rall Prince) yet by the peculiar industry, wit, and labour of Sergius, the Alcoran (al∣most a thousand yeares since) was framed & deuised.

In like sort, the First dogmatizer of the Reformed Religion was Luther; first a Monke, but after forsaking his Religion, coyned your Ghospell. Thus both of them were first Votaryes; and both of them after be∣came forsakers of their first imbraced Ca∣tholike Religion, and burst out into open Renegado's, or Apostata's.

The 2. Symbolisme.

The second generall Course, wherein Sergius, and Luther do interleague, is their mutuall condemning of the Church of Christ for the former ages. And this their condemnation is Lapis angularis in the edi∣fice both of the Alcoran, and of your Gospell; the which stone except it had beene first placed, Sergius and Luther could neuer haue raised the walls of their future buildings, nor could haue declined the confessed

Note, and Marke of Heretiks. Now accor∣ding to this my Assertion Mahumet liuing in the age of S. Gregory the Great, or presently after, charged those tymes with Incredu∣lity, and want of true Beliefe; and therfore gaue out,(1) 1.16 That he was sent by God to restore the Church to its purity in doctrine: And ans∣wearably some twenty yeares after the death of the said S. Gregory: he began his re∣stauration of the former supposing erring Fayth.

The very same tymes of S. Gregory, your chiefe Sectaries do condemne of Antichri∣stianisme, and Idolatry (so conspiringly they agree with Mahumet, touching the tymes of the first imaginary decay of true Christiani∣ty.) For doth not Hospinian the Protestant thus write: Gregorij(2) 1.17 Magni aetate &c. In the age of Gregory the Great, all kind of superstition & Idolatry did (as a Sea) ouerflow, and ouerwhelme the Christian World? And Symon de Voyon(3) 1.18 (our Countriman) sortably auerreth, that when Bonifacius (who succeded Gregory) was stalled in the Papall Chayre, then was the whole world ouerwhelmed in the dreggs of Anti∣christian filthines, abominable superstition, and traditions of the Pope. With these former Se∣ctaries. Iunius(4) 1.19 the remarkable Nouellist, and Bullinger(5) 1.20 agree. Finally Hutterus the Protestant placeth the first decay of the fayth in the same tymes, saying: Libenter(6) 1.21 concedo Idolomaniam &c. I freely grant, that the Popish Idolatry hath inuaded almost the whole earth, for these last thousand yeares. Thus we

see, that Mahumet, and the Professours of your Gospell do vnanimously iumpe in the tyme, when (according to their conceits) the Church of God began to decay, through the professing in its members of a false Re∣ligion.

The 3. Symbolisme.

The third point, wherein I will insist here, is that as Sergius, without any calling, or Vocation, laboured to ouerthrow the Chri∣stian Religion then professed: Euen so your Predecessours scorning all ordinary Mission, and Vocation, assumed the charge of refor∣ming the Church of Christ. And accordin∣gly hereto(7) 1.22 Aretius, and(8) 1.23 Duneus (two Protestants) maintaine; That Luthers Cal∣ling was extraordinary. In like manner Cal∣uin discoursing of this point, thus confes∣seth: Quia(9) 1.24 Papa tyrannils &c. Because through the tyranny of the Pope, the true Course of Ordination was dissolued, therfore we needed a new help; and therefore this function, which the Lord hath imposed vpon vs, was altogether extraordi∣nary. In the same dialect speaketh your Pa∣triarch of our neighboring Towne of Ge∣ne•••••• (Beza(10) 1.25 I meane) for being expostu∣lated of his owne, and other (his Associats) Calling, for their reforming of the Roman Church, and planting of their Innovations, peremptorily he affirmed, their Calling to be Extraordinary.

So fully do Mahumet, and Sergius sympa∣•••••••• with our still Gospellers, in maintay∣ning

the Church of God to begin to be Erroneous, about the tyme of Gregory the Great, and in promiscuously vendicating to themselues (with contempt of all lawfull Vocation, and Mission) an extraordinary peculiar calling, for their first sowing of their Blesphemies, and Heresyes. This was the proceeding of your first chiefe Maisters, whome their owne learning (for that they were learned it cannot be denied) thus em∣bouldened to stampe their Errours, by am∣bitiously pretending a Miraculous Vocation. But we are the lesse to meruaile thereat, since Learning oftentimes makes men proud, and Pryde begets Heresy: and this is the vnex∣pected, and lamentable Gradation, bet∣wene Learning and Heresy.

But to proceed in this vngratefull com∣bination and Coniunction; In which who had the aduantage ouer the other, I referre to the iudicious; seing where the Ballance is eauen, there the least graine doth cast it.

Mahumet after he had by the industry & policy of Sergius, inuented, and pretended a reformation of the Roman Church, did instantly thereupon(11) 1.26 shake off the yoake of Obedience and Loyalty towards Is••••∣clius the Emperour, and did draw diuers Prouinces from him, euen by force and o∣pen Rebellion, subiugating them to his owne power. In all which said Prouinces he after planted his misbeliefe, and Infide∣lity. Thus did Sergius become Mahumets De∣dalus, in making him Wings for his high

soaring. And did not Luther treade (accor∣ding to his power) in the same tract with Mahumet? For after he had seasoned the Germans with his Nouellisme, he presently Foedere Smalcaldico, taught his Proselyts and followers, to rise in rebellion against Char∣les their Emperour. And wheras the Ger∣mans were obliged by Oath to the Obe∣dience of the Emperour, Luther and the Lu∣theran Deuines (to free them of all such feares and scruples) decreed by solemne Sentence, that, Quia(12) 1.27 Caesar Religioni &c. Because Cesar did threaten an overthrow to Reli∣gion, and the liberty thereof; therefore he gaue iust cause, why the Lutherans did vis••••g against him with safe and good Consciences. And thus Luther first planting his Religion by the sword, and open Rebellion, no lesse then Mahumet did, caused such combustions, insurrections, and bloudy warrs throughout all Germany, as that himselfe thus vauntingly speaketh thereof; Videor(13) 1.28 mihi. videre Germaniam in sanguine nature &c. Christus ••••••us viuit & reg∣nat, & ego viuo, & regnabo. But touching the Warrs waged by the Lutherans and the No∣uellists of this age, originally for the ad∣uancement of their Heresies, I cease here further to discourse of; since in a more con∣uenient place hereafter, I will more fully enlarge my selfe.

Thus far now to shew the great associa∣tion, and affinity, which the Turks & your Ghospellers haue in the foundation, and enlarging of both your Religions. To wit,

First, that the Broachers of Turcisme, and Hugenotisuse were Apostata Monkes. Secondly, that they mutually agreed in equally con∣demning the Vniuersall Church of Christ, euen from such a peculiar Age, or Century. Thirdly, that the sowers of both their Reli∣gions did promiscuously enallege to them∣selues an extraordinary Vocation. Finally, that they maintayned, and increased both their Religions (once disseminated) by the sword and trayterous rebellions. And thus did these former Wretches thinke good to stampe their wicked doctrines (though to their owne eternall damnation) chiefly (a∣mong other allectiues) that they might be spoken of in after tymes. Madmen! who couet at so high a pryce to enioy a little Ayre, after they cease breathing: Landantus(14) 1.29 vbi non sunt, torquentur vbi sunt.

You will I hope (O You my Countrimen) disclayme (at least in words) from Mahu∣metisme; and can you then imbrace your owne Ghospell as diuine, since it is impos∣sible, that Truth and Faisbood should indiffe∣rently be seated vpon the same Beginning. Basis, Ground worke, and Foundations?

The 4. Symbolysme, touching the writings of the Apostles. CHAP. V.

HAuing laid downe aboue the ge∣nerall foundations, whereupon Sergous & Luther raised the Mount of their promiscuous Errours; It remaynes now to descend to the particular Heresyes by them indifferently maintay∣ned, which they wrought vpon the Anuile of their owne priuate Iudgments. And first, though Mahumet in his Alcoran admitted the Old Testament, and the Gospells; yet as making no mention of the Epistles of the Aposties, or of the Apocalyps, he wholy discā∣noneth, and excl••deth them. For thus Ma∣humet writeth in his Alcoran:(1) 1.30 Deus pius & misericors p••••ils Testamentum Vetus, (videlicet le∣gem Moysis & Psalterium) deinceps Euangelium, rectas vias hominsbus tradidit: God being pious and mercifull, first deliuered to men (as the right wayes) the Old Testamen (to wit, the Law of Moyses and the Psalter) then he af∣ter deliuered the Ghospell; From whence we see, that he pretermitteth all the other Writings of the Apostles. Now in this point our new Euangelists do ioyne with Mahu∣met and Sergius, by their expunging, and o∣bliterating most parts of the writings of the Apostles.

To begin with Father Luther, who spea∣king

of the Epistle of S. Iames, betrampleth it in these Words: The Epistile of Iames is(2) 1.31 con∣tentions swelling strawy, and vnmorthy an Apo∣stolicall spirit. In like sort. Luther re••••••cteth as Apocryphall the booke of the Apocalyps euen by the ••udgment of Bullinger the Protestant, thus writing Martin(3) 1.32 Luther hath (as it were) wounded this booke (meaning the Apo∣calyps) with a sharp Preface set before his Edition of the New Testament in Dutch; For which his course taken therem, graue and literate men are displèased with him.

To proceed further:(4) 1.33 Kempnitius (a chiefe Lutheran) peremptorals hud••••ateth, & con∣demneth the second Epistle of Peter, the se∣cond, and third Epittle of Iohn, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Iames, the Epi∣stle of Iude, & the Apocalyps; stiling all these Apocryphall: further assirming, That these Bookes(5) 1.34 haue not testimony for their authori∣ty. With Kempuitius, Adamus Francisci (the Protestant) thus agreeth saying: Apocryphi(6) 1.35 libri &c. The Apocryphall Bookes of the New Te∣stament, 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 Mahu∣met, in denying most (at least) of the Epi∣stles of the Apostles. And therefore we haue lesse reason to be amazed at that prophane saying of Caluin, in dishonour of the Apo∣stles in generall. His words are these: Aposto∣li(7) 1.36 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 inso∣lency of Heresy. As if the Apostles did som∣times babble, and talke idly, did speake only of themselues, and not as instructed and di∣rected 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 Apo∣sties to haue erred in diuers of their Actions; since they maintaine that the A∣postles 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 seue∣rall 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) 1.37 thaeth in any place Iames erred, in this place especiall. b••••e erred &c. For it is not lawfull for an Apostle 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••is owne authority to institute a Sacrament. As 〈◊〉〈◊〉

the Apostle would, or dared to ordayne a Sacrament, without the authority, & com∣mand of Christ our Sauiour.

In like manner, Brentius (the Lutheran) thus boldly writeth: Peter(9) 1.38 the Chiefe of the Apostles and also Barnabas (after the Holy Ghost receaued) togeather with the Church of Ierusalem erred. The Magdeburgians thus pro∣secute this Point: Paul doth(10) 1.39 ••u••ne to Iames the Apostle, and a Councell of the Presbyters being celebrated, he is induced by Iames and the••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 o•••••• the like condemnation, giuen by our Reformist, Whitaker (the En∣glish Sectary) thus hath left written: It(11) 1.40 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 man∣ners, touching the abrogation of the Cerem••••••all Law. Now where can we find any Mahu∣metan or Turke (all who condemne the A∣postles) 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 Scrip∣tures, 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 Ma∣humetans 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, i••, because(1) 1.41 the Sentences and authorities of the New Testement touching Christ are repugnant to their fayth, first in••ti••u••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 wri∣teth: Qui(2) 1.42 potismū & 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 Lu∣ther 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 do∣ctrine of the Apostles, because(3) 1.43 it maketh A∣braham 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 shalbe shed for you;(4) 1.44 because as Beza sayth, The words in the Greeke Copyes confirme the Reall Presence in the Sacrament.

Thus we obserue, that both the Mahume∣tans. and the Lutherans do iointly make the Religion, which they professe the founda∣tion o•• ground-work, why they do disau∣thorize 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 iudg∣ment hould to be true.

The 7. Symbolisme, Touching the Ancient Fathers. CHAP. VIII.

FRom the authority of the Scrip∣ture, let vs descend to the authority of the anciēt 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 fauo∣rable 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 di∣ceretur, Caesar me seruauit.

And first touching the Fathers. We find Mahumet in his Alcorans thus to disualew them:(1) 1.45 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 imita•••••• quicquam, nisi quod Patres imitati sunt; They will not i••ntate others in any thing, but in what the Fathers haue imitated. But to this is obiected: Virum Patres non nisi veram fidem sem∣per ••e••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 Fa∣thers with greater contempt of Words, and contumelies, then euer Mahumet did. To be∣gin with Luther, who in these words dis∣chargeth his shot against the Fathers in ge∣nerall: The(2) 1.46 Fathers of so many Centuries haue beene blind, and most vnskilfull in the Scrip∣tures, and if they did not correct and alter themsel∣ues before they dyed, they were neither Holy men, nor belonging to the Church. But Luther com∣ming to censure particular Fathers, even shooteth hayle-shot against them in this manner: In the writings(3) 1.47 of Ierome there is not a word of true Fayth in Iesu•• 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) 1.48 care not, if a thousand Austins, a thousand Cyprians opposed themselues against me.

With Luther (to omit the like censures of other Lutherans) Melanct••on runneth in full chase, thus ba••king: Presently(5) 1.49 from the In∣fancy of the Church, the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerting Iustification by fayth, aug∣triented Ceremonyes and coyned peculiar Worships. O how distant in the iudgment of these Nouelists (who haue bouche ouuerie & gorge desployàe, an open mouch, and full of gause) from the iudgment of S. Austin, deliueredin this his Sentence: Quod(6) 1.50 (Patres, credunt, credo; quod tenent, teneo; acquiesce istis, & re∣quiesce 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 Coū∣cells, consisting of many hundred Fathers, gathered together in one place, for the disquisition and search of Truth in mat∣ter of Religion. According to this my As∣sertion,

we find no mention of any autho∣rity, ascribed to Generall Councells to be made in the Alcorans. Neither would Mahu∣met admit the authority of any one Coun∣cell celebrated either before, or in his dayes; euen betrampling with contempt the first Councell(1) 1.51 of Nice, which was about some three hundred yeares before the being of Mahumet, since by that Councell, his blas∣phemy of denying Christ (who is God be∣fore all time, but Man in tyme) to be God, & the Sonne of God, was particularly con∣demned.

How do our Aduersaries compart with Mahumet in contemning all Councells? For doth not(2) 1.52 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) 1.53 fanaticall: & Mus∣culus, that they were(4) 1.54 à Satana in stigati. But V••banus Regius (the Protestant) insimulateth all generall Councells within this his Cen∣sute: Quod omnia(5) 1.55 Concilia parni•••••••••• lapsa sunt▪ luce clarius est: It is more c••ear•• then the sunne, that all Councells haue most fowly erred. And Beza sortably maintayneth, that, Primis(6) 1.56 isque optimis Ecclesia temporibus, Satan E∣piscoporum coe••••••••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 for∣mer Brethren in so pious a worke, thus sharpeneth his rafory tongue, against all Councells in generall:(7) 1.57 At long, as we insist in

generall Councells, so long we shall continue in the Papists Errours.

Did euer any Child beare greater resem∣blance in face to his Father, then our Euan∣gelists do carry to Mahumet in doctrine herein? Thus we find, that though the Er∣rour 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) 1.58 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) 1.59 made it the bounda∣••y of their Religion; belieuing or giuing credit to nothing, which was not found expresly set downe therein; not per∣forming any thing not written therein; So much they sleighted the force of all Tradi∣tions, though most ancient. And hereupon we find an Authour in these patricular words to discourse of this point: Est in Tur∣carum(2) 1.60 legibus, vt quae sua lingua scripta non sunt, ea praestari non est necesse.

And do not our New Euangelists so ad∣mirt the written Word of God (and yet but that of the written Word, which them∣selues 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) 1.61 things we haue from Scripture, other things from the Apo∣stles Traditions, both which haue like force to god∣lines; as also whereas Epiphanius writeth: We(4) 1.62 must vse. Traditions, for the Scripture hath not all things; and therefore the Apostles deliuered certaine things by wryting, and certaine by Tradi∣tion: Now I say, these Sentences are so dis∣pleasing to Reynoldus (an English Prote∣stant) as that he thus speaketh of these two foresaid Fathers: I(5) 1.63 take not vpon me to cor∣rect 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) 1.64 Apostles did not deliuer all things by Wryting, but many things without wri∣ting; and these later are to be as much credited, as the former; doth not Whitakerus condemne this sentence in the dialect of his said bro∣ther, and Countriman Reynoldus, saying: I(7) 1.65 reply, that this is an indiscr••et and rash speech, and not worthy so great a Father? A point so euident, that the said Whitakerus(8) 1.66 doth in∣simulate (and with all reprehend) these

ensuing Fathers, within his supposed er∣rour of maintayning Traditions; to wit, Da∣mascene, Eusebius, Leo, Basill. Austin, Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrysostome, and Epiphanius. How can these Protestants decline the force of that sacred Testimony of the Apostle: Tene∣te(9) 1.67 Traditiones &c. Hould fact the Traditions which you haue receaued, either by Word, or by Epistle?

The 10. Symbolisme, Touching the not Necessity of Fayth in Christ. CHAP. XI.

THough the Turks do reuerence Christ, as a holy Brophet, sent by God to reforme the world in do∣ctrine yet doth their Alcoran teach, that a man not belieuing in Christ may ob∣taine Saluation; Thus doth Mahumet and his followers deny the Necessity of Christs byrth; whose corporall byrth begot our spi∣rituall byrth, and his being borne in body, procureth vs to be borne in Soule; & thus is his Incarnation the cause (as I may terme it) of our Spiritulization. But to proceede. This is one of the Azoaraes in the Alcoran: Sciendum(1) 1.68 est generaliter, quoniam omnis recte piuens, Iudaeus, se•• Christianus, seu iege suâ relict•• inaliam tendent, omnis scilicet Deum adoram in∣dubitanter diuinumtamorem assequotur: It is ge∣nerally to be knowne, that euery man li∣uing well, whether Iew, or Christian, or

leauing his owne law and religion, imbra∣ceth another; that is, euery Man adoring God, shall infallibly obtaine the Loue of God, and consequent∣ly Saluation.

Diuers markable Forefathers of yours do teach the same; for according to this do∣ctrine Swinglius thus writeth: Ego certé(2) 1.69 malim si optio detur, Socratis, and Senerae sartem eligere &c. I had rather cause (if is were put to my election) the fortune and lot of Socrates, or Seneca, then of any Roman Bishop, or Papisticall Empe∣rour King, or Prince. And hereupon Swinglius (that malheureux Heretique, ou plustost Atheiste) concludeth in particular, that(3) 1.70 Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides &c. are now in Heauen. Neither is Swinglius alone full in this his blasphemy, but Gualterus, Bullingerus, Simlerus, the Tigarine Deuines (all Proteltants) do iointly teach with Swinglius. the Salua∣tion of Heathens, dying Heathens. Which point appeareth not only from their owne(4) 1.71 Sentences hereof, but also by the ac∣knowledgment of Eucharius, a Protestant, whose words are these: Quod(5) 1.72 Socrates, Aristides, Numa, Camillus. Hercules, Scipiones, Catones, & aly Gentile•• comparticipes sunt vi••ae aternae, scribit quidem Swinglius ad Regem Gal∣liae, quem defendunt Tigurini, Bullingerus, Gual∣terus. Hardenburgius &c.

Now the ground-worke & foundation whereupon Swinglius, and the rest do rely; is coincident and the same with the Reason of Mahumet, deliuered aboue in his Alco∣ran; And is expressed by Swinglius in these

words: Ethnicus,(6) 1.73 si piam mentem domi foue∣rit. Christianus est, etiamsi Christum ignoret; A Heathen, if he haue a good mynd or Conscience, is a Christian, though he be wholy ignorant of Christ. I en•• in further displaying this blasphemy, being desirous to know, how Swinglius and his Associats can breake through that most strong and inuincible Sentence of the E∣uangelist: There(7) 1.74 is not anyother name vnder Heauen (meaning the name of I sus Christ) giuen to men wherein we must be saued.

But now giue me leaue (my Countrimen) to expatiate a litle in my discourse. I here demaund, Are they Christians, who affoard Saluation to such as are not Christians? If such as belieue not in Christ, can be saued, in vaine then was the second Person of the most B. Trinity incarnated; In vaine did the Ar∣changell Gabriell salute the holy Virgin; in vaine did Christ Iesus spend diuers yeares in reconciling sinners to God; Finally in vaine was he whipped crownd with thorns, buf∣feted vpon the face, suffered many Indig∣nities, and lastly most bitter death vpon the Crosse, by the hands of the wicked Iewes. But alas, are any who professe thē∣selues to be Christians, arriued to that ascent of impiety, as with their misbeliefe & mis∣creancy euen to Crucify Christ againe?

When the Iewes did crucify Christ (which originally did spring from their misbeliefe in him) God to manifest that their flagi∣tions impiety, did worke diuers and stu∣pendious Miracles; for (among other pro∣digious

signes) there was a sudden Darknes made throughtout the whole earth, to a∣dumbrate the spirituall darknes of the Iewes. Then also, there was a Concussion of the Earth, and Scission of the stones, which did imply, that through the Passion and death of Christ (who is cloathed with essentiall Maiesty) men ought to be moued to pen∣nance, and the stony harts of the obdurate to be (as it were) clouen, and cut asunder. Then the Sepulchers did open; signifiing thereby the glorious resurrection of the dead to be wrought by the death of Christ. Finally then the Veyle was rent asunder, by which meanes the Sancta Sanctorum did ap∣peare; intimating therein, that through the Merits, and sufferings of Iesus Christ, all the Saints were after to be admitted, to be∣hould the face of Christ.

Such of you of the reformed Beligion, who by your giuing assent to the former do∣ctrine of Swinglius, do not belieue in Christ, and by your not belieuing in Him (who is the only Authour of Mans Saluation) do crucify him againe, and verify in your sel∣ues the words of the Apostle: Runsum(8) 1.75 cru∣cifigentes sibimetipsis filium Dei: crucifiing againe to themselues the sonne of God; is it any won∣der then, if in this second crucifixion of Christ, a horrible darknes do ouercloud the powers of your Soules? O how truly did Esay prophecy of you, and all such others: Ecce(9) 1.76 teuebrae operient terram, & caligo popu∣los: behould darknes shall couer the earth, and a mist the People?

And haue you not iust reason to suffer a knocking, and renting asunder of your flinty harts, that so through penitency you may say with those, returning from the Passion, Percutiente(10) 1.77 pectora sua? Or how can you hope for a happy resurrection of your Bo∣dies, if you do not confesse, that the most happy resurrection of the dead is the effect of Christ his death? Of lastly, when shall you be admitted to the sight of him, (in whom there is lux(11) 1.78 inaccessibilis) if you will not withdraw the Veyle of your igno∣rance, and pertinacy, which yet remaines interposed betweene your sight, & things most sacred and holy? But let me recall my selfe; I grant the Honour, I beare to my Deare Sauiour, and the atrocity of the former Protestants Blasphemy haue thus far trans∣ported my Penne.

The 11. Symbolisme, That Mahumetisme and Lutheranisme are ingendred of ancient Heresyes. CHAP. XII.

TO passe further:(1) 1.79 Melancthon, Illy∣ricus, Bibliander, and others affirme thus in expresse Words: Alcoranus ex veteribus Haeresibus consuitur: The Turkish Alcoran is wouen, or sewed toge∣ther of the Old Heresies. This these Prote∣stants did affirme, because they perceaued,

that Mahumes and Sergius did hould certaine opinions, condemned for Heresyes by a∣thanasius Austin. Ierome, Gregory, and other an∣cient Orthodoxall Fathers. Thus the Alcoran de∣nieth the Trinity with(2) 1.80 Sabellius; It rea∣cheth with Arius, and Eunomias, that Christ was a mere Creature; With Carpocrates, and Nestorius, that Christ was not God, but only a holy and diuine Prophets with the Mani∣chees, that Christ was not crucified, & with the Donatists it denieth many Sacraments and the Church. Now the reason, why Melan∣cthon, Illyricus, & Bibliander, and others hould these opinions of the former men to be He∣resyes, is, in that they were condemned for Heresies by Athanasius, Austin, Ierome, Grego∣ry, and finally by the consent of the whole Primitiue Church of those dayes.

Here then I say, that it is an inexpugna∣ble Truth, that many Article of Fayth, be∣lieued at this day by Protestants, were in like fort condemned for explorate Heresies (& accordingly ranged in the Catalogue of Heresies) by the foresaid Fathers, I meane, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Austin, ••erome, Gregory, and other pious, and learned Fathers of those Ages. From hence then I irrepliably euict, that Mahumets Alcoran, and the new Gospellers do conspire and agree together in this point; to wit, that the Religion of Mahumes, and our Innouatours are engen∣dred and compounded of diuers ancient comdemned Heresies, though not altoge∣ther of the same Heresies. If then Mahume∣tisme,

and Lutheranisme do agree in this one Commons point, must not their affinity & assotiation be great, since that saying is true: Quae conueniunt in vno tertio, conueniunt in∣c••rse? I meane, that they do agree in this par∣ticular thing, though in some other points different; for I grant▪ that two faces may be a like to a third face, yet dislike in seuerall proportions in themselues.

But now to proue, that diuers Positions maintained by Luther, Swinglius, Caluin, Beza, and other Sectaries of this Age, were ana∣thematized by the former ancient and lear∣ned Fathers, is so easily accomplished; as that seing the proofe thereof ought to pre∣uaile much with any Man, not blinded with Preiudice; I haue therefore seposed a short Appendix, annexed to this Treatise for the demōstrating of the same; In the which the Reader▪ shall find the former ancient Fathers, and others of the same tymes, to be most luxuriant (as I may say) and riotous in condemning many (yea very many) points of Lutheranisme, for most hatefull, & execrable Heresyes.

And thus as this Treatise (as I expressed in the beginning) is the Glasse, wherein you Hugenots of France may behould diuers of your impious Opinions, conspiring alto∣gether with the fayth of the Mahumetans, Sa∣racens, and Turks, so this subsequent Appen∣dix I may well terme your Second Glasse (as I haue intimated elswhere) which will exhi∣bite to you the face of the ancient Here∣syes,

condemned by the Church of God for such, and yet the same Heresies are now en∣tertayned, and belieued by you of the refor∣med Religion. Thus I will furnish you with a double Glasse to see your blemishes the rein. I cannot say with the wise Man, that it is Speculum(3) 1.81 sine macula, seing it is fraught with deformities, partly of the Turks, and partly of the Old Heretiks; all which said scarrs, and sedities do remaine at this day v∣pon the face of your New presumed Ghospell.

The 12. Symbolisme; Touching the Planta∣tion of Mahumetisme and Luthe∣ranisme, is warranted by Scripture. CHAP. XIII.

BVt to goe on forward in shewing your Symbolizing, and agreement with Mahumet, and Sergrus. The next point then, which I will vrge is, that Mahumet and his followers (though this resemblance hath in part been vnfoulded aboue, but in a different māner) do proceed after one and the same way in plantation of their Religions. And First, for the greater honoring (forsooth) of both their Com∣mings and Vocations, there must be cer∣taine Passages of Holy Scripture detor••ed, as though both their Missions to plant the

True Fayth, had been prophesyed in the same Texts of Gods Word. Thus we find(1) 1.82 Sergius, and the Mahumetans to expound a great part of the twenty eight Chapter of Deuteronomy, of Mahumet, wherin are ex∣pressed the benedictions giuen to good men. They also expound that Passage(2) 1.83 in the Gospell, where the graint of seede being cast into the earth, did multiply, & bring forth great store of increase of the spirituall fruit, which Mahumet should cause by planting his Religion.

And are the Lutherans slow (thinke you) in ennobling the breaking out of that ince∣stuous Monke (Luther I meane) by misap∣plication of certaine texts of Scripture? For Illyricus(3) 1.84 maintayneth, that Luther was prophesied in that place of the Apocalyps; to wit▪ of the three Angells flying through the mid∣dest of the Heauens, and prophesying. And other(4) 1.85 Lutherans are not afraid to auerre, that Luther was the chiefe Angell flying through the middest of the Heauens, hauing the e∣ternall Ghospell, of which we reade in the Apocalyps. Thus do the Professours of Mahumetisme, and Lutheranisme indifferently alledge Scripture, to the dishonour of him, who first instituted the Scripture.

The 13. Symbolisme; Touching the further Plantation of Mahumetisme and Lutheranisme.

The next point, wherein they both con∣spired in planting of the Ghospell, was

their mutuall maintayning (as aboue is said) that the true Fayth and Religion of God was wholy decayed, at both their first Commings. For Cuspinianus(1) 1.86 writeth, that Mahumat (as himselfe said)▪ was sent by God, Vt doctrinam ab Apostolorun•• discipulis cor∣rup••am alcorano sue em••ndar••t; That he ••hould reforme in his Alcoran the Euangelicall doctrine, corrupted by the Disciples of the Apostles.

And certaine it is, that Luther proceeds in the same manner. For hauing condemned all the Fathers of the Primiti••e Church, for superstitious (as aboue I shewed,) Il fur si effronté, & esbonté▪ he was so impudent, and shamelesse, as that he assumeth the corre∣cting of their Errours, and replanting the true fayth of Christ to himselfe, in this man∣ner speaking most ambitiously. Non sinam(2) 1.87 Angelo•• de mea doctri••a iudicare: I will not suffer the Angells to iudge of my doctrine. And a∣gaine: Gods(3) 1.88 Work maketh for me, in so much that I regard not if a thousand Aus•••••••• a thousand Cyprians stood against me. Luther vaunteth himselfe to be Christ•• disciple; But where do we find Christs words to be in the lowest degree verified in him, Mitis(4) 1.89 sa••••, & ••umilis cerde?

The 14. Symbolisme, Touching the want of Miracles. CHAP. XIV.

TO proceede: It is confessed, that Mahumet, and Luther so far agreed, that both of them acknowledge, they neuer performed any Miracle for the warranting of their doctrines. And first touching Mahumet, he plainly sayth in his Alcoran, That he neuer(1) 1.90 wrought any Miracle in confirmation of his Religion. And the like defect of Miracles is acknow∣ledged by the Lutherans, to wit, That nei∣ther Luther, nor any other of our Nouellists wrought euer any one Miracle, for the grea∣ter fortifying of their late appearing Fayth. Sorribly hereto diuers Protestant Deuines thus ingenuously speak of Luther:(2) 1.91 Mir••∣culum, quod Lutherus edulit, nall•• nudi••••••••s; We haue not heard that Luther did euer exhibite one Miracle. And if it should be vrged (as a Mi∣racle) the speedy spreading of Eutheranisme in so short a tyme, ouer so many places and Countries; this is acknowledged for no Mi∣racle both by(3) 1.92 Melancthon, and Illyricus;(4) 1.93 who maintaine, that Mahumetisme was from no lesse small a beginning, and yet was more generally for the tyme dispersed, then euer Lutheranisme was I.

The 15. Symbolisme; Concerning the like Protestation of Mahumet and the Lu∣therans, for the proofe of their Reli∣gious. CHAP. XV.

TO conclude, Mahumet and Buther being in extreme want of Mira∣cles in defence of their Religions, were both indifferently forded to fly to their owne pricat Spirtis, and vehe∣ment Protestations, that they were sent by God to correct the Errours of their Tymes. To this (end (as to supply) the want of all Miracles) Mahumet vseth in his Al••or•••• these Protestations and asseuerations: Pe••(1) 1.94 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sufft••nces, & nubes, & naues aquere curre••les, & Angelos nun••io•••• per••••montem Syna••, & donium superne adificatam &c. I sweare by the blou••ing ••••••ds and Cloudes, and by the shipps say∣ling vpon the Sea, by the Angels Gods Mes••••nger•• by the Mount Syn•••• &c. That I am not, Demo∣niacus, possessed with the Deuill, or a Magitian, but the M••ss••••ger of the best and highest God; that I do not erre in any thing, nor speake out of my proper Will but that only I del••••er what is com∣manded me to say from abou••. This is Mahumets vehement, (and withall ridiculous) Prote∣station of the Infallibility and Truth of his Doctrine••

Now let vs see how Luther (for his like

want of Miracles) beareth himselfe herein, who thus boasteth of the doubtlesse cer∣tainty of his Innouations: Scire(2) 1.95 vos v••lo &c. I will haue you all to know, that hereafter I will not vouchsafe you this Honour, as to suffer you or the Angells of Heauen, to iudge of my do∣ctrins; for seing I am certaine of it, I will therefore through force of it, be both your Iudge, and Iudge of the Angells. And further: Certus(3) 1.96 sum dog∣••••a•••• this habere de Caelo; I am assured, that I haue ••ay opinions from Heauen; and my Opinions shall stand, &c.

In like sort Caluin (the chiefe Resiner of Luther) for the like assurance of his do∣ctrine, maketh this vehement Appeale to Christ (see how Heresy masketh it selfe vn∣der the ••••cture of confident zeale) in this for•••• T••(4) 1.97 Christum silium Dei appello, vt nuns, & in ••••trema die facias &c. I appeale to thee Christ being the sonne of God, that thou wouldest make it cleare, both at this time, and at the last day, if euer so great a fury inuaded my iudgment & will, as to infect thy doctrine with any one lye, or imposture. And if thou seest me free and innocent of so hocrible a Cryme, then be thou to me a fayth∣full Witnes, that I haue sincerely, and vnfeignedly professed that doctrine, the which I haue ••earned out of thy most sacred Ghospell &c.

Thus we see, how Luther boast••eth of the inexpugnable Truth of his Fayth; as also how Caluin forgeth his feruerous Appeale to Christ, for the security of his doctrine; and how these Prime Sect maisters ioyne hands with Mahumēt, in making their owne

prestigious, and deceitfull Protestations, &c ••iurations, a sufficient Warram for the first d••uulging of their most impious Heresyes and Blalphemies. So firmely and without the least deuiation, do these and other our Ghospellers, trace the stept of Mahumet herein.

The 16. Symbolisme; Touching the deniall of the Blessed Trinity. CHAP. XVI.

HItherto we haue discoursed chie∣fly of certaine Generalities; wherein Mahumet, Sergius, and the Turks do conspire with Luther, the Luthe∣ran••, and such Nou••••iste of these dayes: We will now descend more punctually to di∣uers dogmatical Christian Mysteries, wher∣in we shall find their like Concordance, & Sympathy.

The first of these shall concerne the most Blessed Trinty. That Mahumet (and in him the Turks) absolutly deny the most sacred, and vndeuided Trinity 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is euident from their fayth professed in the Alcoran••: Behold here, les execrables blasphemes, qu'il auoit von••y in son Alcoran, for thus Mahumet the•••• dog matizeth: Incredi••••(1) 1.98 sunt qui ••••sum fi•••••• Mar•••• De•••••• esse di••••••m, cum ipse Christ•••• d••cat•• in dominum(2) 1.99 Deum me••m & vestra•••• credite, They are incre∣dulous, who say, that Iesus the sonne of Mary is God, seing that Christ himselfe sayth: belieue in my

God, and your God. And its another passage of the Alcoran Mahumet vseth this wicked de∣precation: Confundat(3) 1.100 Deus Christ••••anos, qui Mariae filium loco Dei venerantur, cum ipsis pra∣ceptumsit, non nisi vnum Deum venerare: Let God: confound those Christians, who worship the Sonne of Mary in place of God, seing they are comman∣ded, that they shall worship but one God. A point so euident, that Bibliander thus speaketh her∣of: Primus(4) 1.101 & maximus ••rror Turcarum est, quòd Trinitatem in Vuitate negant: The chiefe and greatest Erro•••• of the Turks is, that they deny the Trinity in the Vnity. And hereupon another Authour writing in confutation of ••••••cis••••e thus sayth: Principalis(5) 1.102 intentio Mahum••ts est▪ persuadere Christum neque Deum esse neq•••• filium Dei.

Now let vs see, how Luther and other Gospellers do accord with Mahumet in the deniall of this suprame Mystery of Christian Religion. We first find Luther to put our of the Letany those words: Holy(6) 1.103 Trinity one very God, haue mercy vpon us. Ad also he further sayth: The Word(7) 1.104 Trinity is but an hu••••••ne In∣uention, and soundeth coldly. And hereupon it is, that(8) 1.105 Caluin following Luther he in, thus writeth: Precatio vulgè trita est, Sancta Trinitas vnus Deus misérere nostr•• & mihi non placei, That Prayer Holy Trinity &c. is very vulgar, and plea∣seth me not. And in ••egard of this former do∣ctrine, and as not acknowledging Christ to be Consubstantiall to his Father. Luther bel∣cheth out these blasph••••uous words: Anima(9) 1.106 mea odit? Om••usion, & optimè exigerunt A∣••iani

nevocem illem prophanant & no••am, regu∣lis fidei statut liceret: My Soul•••• hateth the word Hom••ousi••s or Consubstantialis, and the Arians de∣seruedly 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 mar∣kable passage of sacred Scripture, in proofe of the Trinity: There(10) 1.107 are three, which giue witnes in Heauen, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are One. And accor∣ding to this doctrine of Luther it procee∣ded, that the Protestant Deuines(11) 1.108 of Li∣tuania 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) 1.109 did send the Word into the World, and yet re∣tayned 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 ••••yping, that they are wrongfully al∣ledged in defence of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I will here insist in some few parti∣culars. And first that markable place ••l(13) 1.110 and the Father are Vnum, one thing, this stigma∣ticall

Aposta•••• thus paraphrazeth: Abusi sunt hoc loco Veteres, vt pr••barent Christaine esse Patri 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The antient Doctoure haue abusiue∣ly alledged this place, to proue Christ to be Consub∣stantiall to his Father. Neque enim Christus de Vnitate substantia disputat, sed de Consensis. For heare Christ disputeth not of the Vnity of sub∣stance, but of Consent. Againe, where it is said. The Lord(15) 1.111 rayned vpon So dome and Gomor∣••••, fire, from the Lord; Caluin thus anoideth this restimony by saying:(16) 1.112 Quod Veteres Christs diuinitatem hoc testimonie probare conati sunt, minimé firmumest•• 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) 1.113 are my somne (hodie) this day I haue begotten thee, Which place is produced not only by the Fathers, but euen by the(18) 1.114 Apostle. to proue Christs diuinity: yet Caluin thus shifteth it of, saying: Scio(19) 1.115, hunc locum de aetorna genera∣tione Christs &c. I know well, that this place is ex∣pounded by many of the eternall Generation of Christ, who, touching the Word. (Hodie) in this te•••• haue ••uer subtily disputed. To o••••it diuers other(20) 1.116 passages of Scripture, vrged by the Fathers in proufe of the Trinity, where we read that most ••••••uin••ing Text: There be three(21) 1.117 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 es••e Vnum ad Essentiānon refertur(22) 1.118 sed ad Cōsensum po••iūs, 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 su∣preme Mystery, with his most wicked ex∣positions of them: A Point so cleare, that Aegidius(23) 1.119 Huunius (the Protestant) char∣geth Caluin with Iudaisme, for such his pesti∣lent deprauing of the former sacred Texts of Scripture. O Impiety scarsly piacular, since he, who created the World, is here not ac∣knowledged by the World: Mundus(24) 1.120 per ipsum factut est. & mundus euni non cognouit.

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) 1.121 Mariae blasphemiam. & immoderatam contumeliam infe∣runt, dum eius filium Christu••••. Dei nuncium. se interemisse per••ibent; Euns ••••im ••equaquam, sed

alterum et ••milem interfecerunt, quia Deut incen••∣prehensibilis & sap••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, 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) 1.122 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

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) 1.123 contra me pug••abant, 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) 1.124 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) 1.125 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) 1.126 is an Heresy, which teacheth, that Christs di∣uinity 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) 1.127 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) 1.128 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) 1.129 and Beza,(4) 1.130 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) 1.131 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?

The 19. Symbolisme, Touching the ouer∣throw, 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) 1.132 but one like vnto him did suffer. Well Luther,(2) 1.133 and the Lutherans(3) 1.134 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 howsoe∣uer this he, notwithstanding certaine it is, that the doctrine of the Vbiquity of Christs bo∣dy 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 My∣steries. 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, whol∣ly 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 dedu∣ctions taken from their owne doctrine) with Mahumet, in implicitly denying, that Christ did really, and truly suffer death for the Saluation of Man. And thus though the Deity be finite (to speake in a reserued sense) only in Infinity; so contrarywise by force of this absurd doctrine of Vbiquity, the body of Christ is become infinite, though really and truly but finite, and limitable.

Here now I will giue a parse to my Pen (for the present) in vnfoulding, How Mahumet, and Luther with his brood (with equall forces) labour to annihilate the chiefe Articles touching the Trinity. Only with this I will conclude: That if Matta∣thias, and his sonnes (as is recorded in the(4) 1.135 Machabees) so much lamented to see the Mysteries of their Law prophaned; How much then more ought euery zea∣lous Christian, euen with disconsolate

sighs, and suspirations to mourne, whe•••• they behould the Carcinall Articles of Christianity (of which the former were but Types, and adumbrations) to be by Mis∣creants, and Heretiks promiscuosly betram∣pled vpon, contemned, yea denied? Videte(5) 1.136 si est dolor, sicut dolor iste.

The 20 Symbolisme, Touching the particu∣lar Motiu••s of Mahumets, and Luthers Apostasy. CHAP. XX.

IN this next place, we will take into our Consideration, what Articles of Christian Fayth were the particular Motiues of Mahumets Apostasy; and ob∣serue, whether your spirituall Progenitours do run in the same Tract with Mahumet, or noe.

In the Alcoran, we reade, that Mahumet thus by supposal demaunded: O Iesu(8) 1.137 fili Maria tu persuades hominibus, vi te, Matrem{que} tuam, duos Deos habeant, & venerentur? O Iesus, Sonne of Mary dost thou perswade men, that they may haue, and worshippe thee, and thy Mother, a•• two Gods? Vpon which Azoara. Bibliander maketh this Annotation:(a) 1.138 Mariam pro Deo co∣li obijcit Mahumetes; Mahumet doth obiect, that Mary is worshipped for a God: Bibliander in the same place more plainly speaking in this sort: Constabat(3) 1.139 Diuam Virginem superstitios•• à multis Chri••teaxis celi, quod hodie quògus fi••.

dum eius opem supersti••••o••e implerani: It wareui∣dent that the Holy Virgin was than superstitiously worshipped by many Christians, as also at this day the is, whyles men superstitiously implore her help.

The second Cause or Mahumets Reuolt from Christianity, is deliuered by the fore∣said Bibliander in these words: Quod simulacra venerantur Christiant: Because Christian do worship(4) 1.140 images. The dislike of Mahumet concerning the doctrine of Images, is further witnessed by Septem-castrensis, thus writing: Saraceni(5) 1.141 & Turcae imprimis Imagines om∣nes seu pictas, se•• sculptas, sic detestantur &c. The Saracens, and Turks do so hate all Images, whether they be pictured, or engrauen, that there∣fore they call Christians, Idolaters; Yea they will not seale their Letters with any ••••graum print, or Image.

And are not these two points great stum∣bling Blocks for mens reuolting from the ancient Christian Fayth in these dayes? So firmely do our Innouatours compart with Mahumet, the Saracens, and the Turks in the Causes and Motiues of forsaking the Chri∣stian Fayth. And to begin with the first. Luther(6) 1.142, and Peter(7) 1.143 Martyr charge the Catholiks with Idolatry, committed in saying the Antiphona, beginning thus: Sal•••• Regina, Mater Misericordiae &c. mantayning. that the Catholiks do ascribe heereby that honour to the B. Virgin, which is proper on∣ly to God. In like manner the Protestants through Ignorance, and Malignity insimu∣late the Catholiks within the forsaid crime

of superstition, for their saying the Hymne, directed to the Mother of God▪ which thus beginneth: Aue Maris(8) 1.144 stella, Dei mater Al∣ma &c.

To come to Images. Whereas(9) 1.145 Carelo∣stadius (the Heretike) was the first in this Age, who ouerthrew Images in the Chur∣ches; we find Luther to approue this his fact; only he was displeased, in that for the per∣petrating thereof, Carolostadius did not de∣maund authority, and warrant from him. Melancthon(10) 1.146 in like sort reprehendeth the worship of Images, as superstitious. The Magdeburgenses(11) 1.147 and Caluin(12) 1.148 proceed herein with the same pertinacy. and fro∣wardnes. And answerably to this their do∣ctrine of Images (carleur Theorique, & Pra∣ctique ••'accordent) the custome of such of our times, who did cast of the Roman Religion, was euer most violent and impetuous vpon their first imbracing of Protestancy against Images.

For to turne our eye vpon Flanders, We find Osiander (the Protestant) thus to re∣cord:(13) 1.149 The Low-Countrimen by publiq••e writing renounced all Subiection, and Obedience to Philip their Lord and King; And when aboue foure hundred of them of good ranke, had sued for liber∣ty of Religion, and did not obtains their motion, the impatient people moued with fury and rage, at Antwerp, and other places of Holland, Zeland, & Flanders, brake downs Images &c. And France (my deare Country) I would to God▪ I could not say so much of thee; But it is

otherwise, since diuers Iconemachyes in thee, at their first abandoning of our Catholike Religion practized the like sacriledge. Wit∣nes hereof is the History of France written by a Protestant, who thus relateth:(14) 1.150 The Protestants did grow eager, and violent in all pla∣ces where they had power; They tooke reueng•• vpon Churches, Images &c. Witnesses also hereof is the Towne of Rochell, and all other places in thee, possessed by the Hugenots, who through their (more then Vatinian) fury haue leaft no Images vnbroken, nor Crosse (the remembrance of our Sauiours death for Mankind) vncast downe, and not shiue∣red in peeces.

But to expatiate no further in Examples, and to wynd vp the seuerall threeds of this Paragraph; I conclude, that our Sergius of Saxony (I meane Luther) and his ••pidr••mi, or Followers, did wholy conioyne with Mahumeticall Sergius▪ in making the doctrine of the Honour exhibited to the Mother of God, and of the Worship giuen vnto Images to be (among others) two strong induce∣ments for their abtenunciation of their most Ancient, Catholike, Apo••tolicall, and Romā Religion: May we not ••••inke then, that the punishment of these two Apostati∣call Monkes for such their flagitious pro∣ceedings, are at this present all One?

The 21. Symbolisme; That the Turkish, and Protestant Clorgy do marry. CHAP. XXI.

BVt let vs goe to other points, Who write of the Religion of the Turks, affirms, that the Turkish Priests do marry, & take wyues. For thus one of their Historians sayth: Sacerdotes(1) 1.151 Tur∣cici habent ••xor••s, & vxori liberis, & familia va∣cant. The Turkith Priest•• haue wyues, and all their care and imployment, as about their wyfe, their Children, and family. Yea the Turks are so great enemyes to Virginity, as that the for∣mer(2) 1.152 Historian, and others(3) 1.153 thus re∣cord of Mahumet: Mahumetes multum vrget. ne quis maturâ atate eutra matrimonium degat: Mahumet much presseth, that not any of full and ripe ago, should liue out of the stace of Matri∣mony. Mahumet further teacheth (as ano∣ther Historian recordeth) That, Veluptate••(4) 1.154 corperis futarae faelicitati minime obsunt; The pleasures of the Bedy are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hinderances to future felicity; whi•••• is included in the eight Azoa∣ra of the Al••••ran, touching multiplicity of wiues.

Well now my deare Countrimen of France. Is not all this good Hugen••tis••••••, or Prote∣••tancy? Let vs examine the Particulars. And first touching Marying of Priests, or of Mini∣sters among those or that Reformed Religion; What Minister among them almost (& this

soub••••le protexte, & vaile de la gloir•• d•• Die•• (vn∣der the recture (forsooth) of Gods glory) who is not matried? And how ready are they wrongfully to detor•• in defence of their Mariage those Words of the Apostle, Honorabile(5) 1.155 Connubium in omnibu••? A wife indeed is so inseparable a Character of our new Ministers, as that a Minister without a Woman, is but Halfe himselfe, and wanteth that which conduceth to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. or per∣fect accomplishment of his function. So much doth the Flash dominere in these good men, who vaunt themselues to be All-spirit▪ who indeed liuing in flesh, do also liu•• af∣ter the flesh.

Now touching the aduancement of ma∣riage in all persons without exception, and depressing of Virginity with Mahumet, and Sergius, I•• is most strange to obserue, what the pens of your chiefe Professours haue left written. The first broaches of the vnsa∣very Vessell of your Religion, thus balan∣ceth Matrimony with Virginity saying: If we(6) 1.156 weigh the Nature of Matrimony, and single 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnmaried lyfe in themselues; Matrimony is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gould, and the spirituall state of single lyfe, as Dunge. To whome subscribeth Whitakerus, saying: Virginity(7) 1.157 is not absolutly good, but on∣ly in some respect and manner. And hence it is, that the forsaid Luther more fully thus ex∣presseth himselfe•• He that(8) 1.158 determineth to be without a Woman, let him lea•••• of the name of a man and become a plaine Angell, or spirit. A goa∣tish assertion!

Concerning the other point aboue men∣tioned, where Mahumet decreed, that (if we will belieue the Alcoran) the Pleasures of the Body are no lets to future felicity; It is the very doctrine of Luther, inuested in other words, who ascribeth so much to Fayth, as that no corporall Pleasure (how vnlawfull soeuer) or any other sinne can preiudice a Mans Saluation. His words are these: Tam(9) 1.159 diust est Christianus &c A Christian is so ••ith, as that though otherwise he would, notwith∣standing he cannot loose his Saluation, by any s••nne how great seeuer, except he will not belieue. And hereupon Luther further thus catechizeth his Schollers: No(10) 1.160 worke is dirallowed of God, except the authour, and worker thereof be disallowed. With whom the fornamed Whi∣taker••s accordeth in these words, full of in∣cirement to sinnet Si(11) 1.161 quis actum fidei, ba∣bet, ••i peccatae non nocent: Thus fortably to these mens Ghospell, no pleasure, or sinne (as Mahumet toucheth) can hinder mans fu∣ture Happines: Thus much of these formes Points: And of this last point more fully hereafter.

The 22. Symbolisme; Concerning the con∣iunction of Ecclesiasticall supreme Authority, with temporall Authority. CHAP. XXII.

TO come to other Symbolysms and Agreements, betweene Mahumet & your Grand-Maisters▪ Mahumet to his temporall Authority adioyned spirituall Authority, making himselfe su∣preme(1) 1.162 Head of his Church, (if so I may call it) and by force and violence of such his authority, proposed to his subiect•• and vassa••s only such point•• of fayth (••nd not any others) to be belieued, which he had caused to be set downe in the Alc••ra••▪ Thus making his sword his M••yses, or some new Euange••ist, to ordaine, what was to be belieued, and what not.

And do not most of our Protestant wri∣ters maintaine the same spirituall Authori∣ty in secular Princes? And do not the said secular Princes put the same in execution? True it is, that diuers of your Religion teach, That the first Popes were but as Tu••▪ tours only (so to speake) of the st••te of th•• Church, during the time other Infancy: But to the Temporall Prince they affoard at most absolute Primacy, and Soueraig••••ys ouer the Church: Heare, what Muscul••r (who seemeth, that, il abi•••• pri••••n tincture de

Mahumet, he hath receaued some dye from Mahumet herein) writeth of this point, say∣ing: Confidenter(2) 1.163 asserimus omnens eam potesta∣tem &c We confidently auer, that all that Power, by the which Authenticall Lawes bynding the Con∣sciences of subiects, are constituted whether they be called Ciuill, or Ecclesiasticall Lawes) do neither belong to the Church (that is, to the Multitude of the faythfull) neither to the Ministers of the Word of God, but only to the Magistrate, to whom is gi∣uen Soueraingty, and Command ouer the subiects. And according to this doctrine, almost all Protestant Princes in most Coūtter where they reigne, do challenge to themselues an vnappealable soueraingty & supremacy in all Ecclesiasticall Causes. The first example whereof they tooke of King Henry the eight of that Name, King of England; Who was the first (as elswhere is shewed in this Treatise) that dared to vendicate to him∣selfe Supreme spirituall authority; prescri∣bing what Articles of fayth should be be∣lieued, and what not, as is auer••ed by some Catholike Writers(3) 1.164 of that Nation.

And here we are to obserue, that as Mahu∣met, and temporall Protestant Princes did indifferently erect themselues Heades of the Church, within their owne Ditions, & dominiōs; So also what places of Scripture Protestant Princes (by misconstruing of them) may alledge in warrant of this their assumed Exoticall authority; the very same Text of holy Writ may Mahumet (with as much reason) produce with them in defence

of his pretended Ecclesiasticall Primacy. Thu•• for example, Mahumet may alledg in behalfe of himselfe (through the same con∣struction of them, which the Protestants giue) these Texts (besides others) follow∣ing: Omnis(4) 1.165 Anima Potestati sublimi••ri sub∣dita esse debet; id{que} non propter iram, sed propter conscientiam. Euery soule ought to be subiect to hi∣gher Powers, not only for wrath, but for Conscience sake. And againe: Propter(5) 1.166 De••u•• Regi par••n∣dum est, tanquam praecellents: The King is to b•• obayed, as excelling. Thus we see, that Mahu∣met, and our New Gospellers agree in do∣ctrine, of this strange kind of Supremacy, in the practize of it, and in their proofes, and supposed warrant thereof, out of their mu∣tuall false wresting, and racking of God•• Holy Word. But to the rest.

The 23. Symbolisme; Touching the deniall of Originall sinne. CHAP. XXIII.

THe next Point, in which I will al∣ledg Mahumet, and out New Euan∣gelists fraternal combination, shall concerne their mutuall denying of Originall sinne. We thus reade in the Writers(1) 1.167 of the Turkish History: In Alcoran•• pra∣cipitur Circumcisio, quanquam um a•• expiationem peccati Originalis, quod nullum ••sse arbitrantur Mahumetani. In the Alcoran Circumcision is com∣manded, though not for expiation of Originall sinne,

the which the Mahumetās do not Delieue to be &c.

Now let vs see, if our l••te apearing Gos∣pellers do not iampe in doctrine herein with Mahumet. Swinglius doth thus dictate of this point: Quid(2) 1.168 breutus aut clarius dici potuit, quam Originale Peccatum non esse Pecca∣tum, sed Morbum; & Christianorum liberos propter illum morbum non addici aeterno supplicio? What can be spoken more briefly and clearely, then that which we call Originall sinne, to be no sinne, but a disease, & that the Children of Christians through this disease, are not adiudged to eternall punish∣ment? And furthe••: Morbus(3) 1.169 hic damnatio∣nem nobis afferre nequit; This disease (meaning of Originall sinne) cannot bring damnation to vs. And yet more: Theologi(4) 1.170 nostri Originalem illum morbum peccatum esse dixerunt, sed toto cae∣lo errant. Those our deuines, which call this Origi∣nall disease a sinne, do extremely erre.

Finally to omit many other such like sayings of Swinglius, he concludeth thus: Culpa Originalis(5) 1.171 non vere, sed Metonymice culpa vocatur. Originall sinne is called a sinne, not truly, but only by the figure Metonymia: So great an assotiation there is betwene Mahumet, & Swinglius herein: Whome notwithstanding Beza honoreth with this Eucomion:(6) 1.172 Swin∣glius, insignit ille nostris temporibus Christi Aposto∣lus; The which commendation Beza neuer would haue ascribed to Swinglius, if Beza himselfes had been of a different doctrine from Swinglius in this most weighty point of fayth.

The 24. Symbolisme; That Baptisme is not Necessary. CHAP. XXIV.

AS Mahumet did not belieue, there was any Originall sinne; so also h•• did not thinke, there was any ne∣cessity of Baptisme, so far forth, as it should conduce to the taking away of Originall sinne: the reason being (as is here im∣plied) because Mahumet did belieue, that there was no Originall sinne to be taken away, either by Baptisme, or Circumcision. Now, do not our New Maisters beat the same Path in their Writings with Mahumet▪ Marke (my deare Countrimen) how contem∣ptuously they pronounce of Baptisme, & be ashamed of their Mahumetan Infidelity.

I will begin at the source with Luther; And, Si la fountaine est corru••••pu, que deuien∣dront les ruisseaux: Yf the fountaine be corrupted, much more then are the small riuers thence des∣cending. Luther thus instructeth his Neophyts: Si(1) 1.173 habeas, bene; sin careas, nihil damni; crede, & saluus eris, antequam abluare. Yf thou hast Baptisme, it is well with thee; if thou wantest it, thou sufferest no losse thereby; bel••eue, and thou art saued, before thou be baptized, Swinglius in like sort stretcheth forth his hand, for the sup∣pressing the dignity of Baptisme, saying: Baptismus(2) 1.174 paruulorum externum quiddam, & caeremoniale est &c. Baptisme of Infants is a cer∣taine

externall and Ceremoniall thing, the which (as other externall things) the Church may either worthily and iustly retayne, or omit, & take away.

With these two forteth in doctrine Cal∣uin, thus muttering: At ((3) 1.175 dicum quidam, qui Baptismi necessitatem vrg••ns, periculum esse, ne Infans, qui aegrotat, si absque baptismo decesserit, Regenerationis gratiâ priuetur▪ Mimime vero &c. But such say who vrge the Necessity of Baptisme, that there is danger, if the Child, who is sicke do dye without Baptisme, that he is depriued of the Grace of Regeneration. Not so truly, seing God doth pro∣nounce ouer Infants, euen afore they be borne to be adopted into his partage: Wherefore it follloweth not, that the Children of the faythfull▪ are bap••i∣zed, that thereby they should be first made the Son∣nes of God &c. Thus far Calum. Finally to pretermit many other like sayings, Whi∣takerus thus sleighteth Baptisme: We(4) 1.176 may abstaine from Baptisme with this caution, that no contempt, or scandall do follow thereby.

Can any Mahumetan, or Saracene speake more vnworthily, and depressingly of Baptisme, then all these former Euangelists haue done? Whose iudgments herein ad∣mitting for true, away then with that ad∣monition of our Sauiour: Nisi(5) 1.177 quis rena∣tus fuerit &c. Vnlesse a Man be borne againe of Water, and the spirit, he cannot ••uter into the kingdome of God; As also away with that Sentence of Austin: Baptisme(6) 1.178 washeth one all sinnes, either deeds, Words, thoughts, or Origi∣nall. Thus we find, that Baptisme is, out of

Gods good Prouidence towards vs, one Chiefe preordayned means of mans Salua∣tion, euen feeding the soule with Grace; for as Gods Creation doth (as it were) mother∣ly beare vs, so his Prouidence doth nurse vs.

The 25. Symbolisme; That Polygamy i•• iointly taught by Mahumet, and the Lutherans. CHAP. XXV.

WE thus reade in the Alcoran: Vxores(1) 1.179 quotiescumque placue∣rit, duas scilicet, tres, aut quatuor ducite &c. canisi timuritis eas nulla∣tenus pacificare posse; Cum contingerit vobis eas non diligere. vnam pro alta mutare licet. Take as many wiues, as you will; to wit•• two, three, or foure &c. except you feare they will not liue peaceably togeather; And if it shall chance, that you loue not your Wife, it then is lawfull for you, to change one for another. This point is partly touched els where, by shewing Luthers like doctrine therein. Now in this place I will shew, that Polygamy, or hauing many wyfes at once, is grounded vpon your Gospellers owne Principles; & consequently that the doctrine of Polygamy is iointly taught by them, with Mahumet.

And first, our New Gospellers do teach, that Matrimony is not a Sacrament, but only an Office, or Function of Nature, ordained

for the Conseruation, or perpetuating of Mankind; In respect of which Office or End, it is nor repugnant, but rather conso∣nant, and sutable to Polygamy. For in this sense Matrimony is but a Ciuil Contract; but euery Ciuill Contract by the ioint Con∣sent of the Contractors may be dissolued, and the same, or a like Contract (without any Iniustice to any) may be made againe with others. Secondly, the Protestants gene∣rall doctrine of the Necessity of hauing the Vse of a Woman, most strongly induceth the doctrine of Polygamy.

Now touching the Necessity of the Act of Copulation betwene man and Wo∣man, obserue I pray (besides that aboue said of this point) what your Parent (from whose loynes all you Hugenors are pro∣seminated) speakes hereof Luther then, your first Apostle, thus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••••heth: Quàm(2) 1.180 non est in meis viribus, vt Vir 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sim; tam non est mei iuris, vt absque muliere sim. As it is not in my power not to be a Man; so it is not in my power, to liue without a Woman. And againe in the same place: Verbum hoc, Crescite, & multiplica∣mini, non est praeceptum, sed plus quàm Praecep∣tum. That Sentence; Increase, and multiply, is not a Precept, but more then a Precept, being a diuine Worke, which is not in our power to be hindered, or omitted; but is as necessary, as that I am a Man, & more necessary, then to eate, to drinke, to sleepe, to walke &c.

And speaking in the same place to wo∣men, Luther thus indoctrinateth them: Vt in

manu tua non est vt f••mina non sis; sic nec in te es•• vt absque viro degas. As it is not in thy choice, not to be a Woman; so it is not in thy power, that thou thouldest liue without a Man. For the Counsell or Election is not heere free, but it is Necessary? For Marem feminae, feminam mari sociari oportet, Now then dreaming Luthers doctrine here∣in to be true, doth it not vnauoidably in∣uolue in it selfe the doctrine of Polygamy, if the parties maried, through impotency, or some casuall disease cannot performe the duty of Mariage; or should for a long time be separated in place, the one from the o∣ther; since it is taught (we see) as true, That A Man cannot liue without the vse of a Woman, nor a Woman without the vse of a Man?

The third Ground of our Euangelists, im∣plying the doctr••ne of Polygamy, is the Ordi∣nary doctrine of Diuorce (euen for any small occasion) taught by them, and most fully by Bucer, who much enlargeth himselfe herein. Sortably hereto Bucer alloweth the liberty of diuorce, and marying againe, in case of departure(3) 1.181 of the one party from the other; In case of Homicide,(4) 1.182 or Theft; Or of the Incurable Infirmity(5) 1.183 of the Woman, by Childbirth; Or if the Man proue Lunatike; Or when either party is become vnable to render nup∣tiall duty; In all which cases Bucer(6) 1.184 con∣cludeth, lawfulnes of diuorce and Mariage againe; maintayning the same to be, Verbo(7) 1.185 Dei consentiens; agreable to the Word of God.

Now according to this doctrine of B••∣cer, Luther thus adiudgeth: The(8) 1.186 Magistrats

duty (if the myfe be froward, and will refuse ••er Husbands bed) is to curbe the wyfe, yea to put her to death. This if the Magistrate omit, the Hus∣band must imagine, that his wyfe is stolne away by ••heau••••, or dead; and let him consider how to marry another. Thus Luther, And thus we obserue, that from the former Principles, and Theo∣••••••s of your owne Teachers (to wit, that Mariage is no Sacrament; That it is not possible for a Man to liue without a Wo∣man, or a Woman without a man; & lastly that Diuorce vpon seuerall Cases, and to marry againe is most lawfull) the doctrine of Polygamy is warrantable, and is to be put in practise. From all which it is necessarily euicted, that Luther, and the Lutherans con∣sent with Mahumet and the Turkes, in main∣tenance or defence of Polygamy, or hauing many Wiues at one, and the same tyme. Who obserueth then not here, that the spi∣rit of our Gospellers (of which they do so much glory) like to those things which beget meere Contraries, ingenders corpo∣rall, and fleshly desires?

The 26. Symbolisme; Touching the con∣tempt of the Crosse. CHAP. XXVI.

IN the Alcoran(1) 1.187 we thus read: Iuda•• Maria blasphemiam immoderatam &c. The Iewes do offer great contumely to Mary, when they say, they put to death her sonne Christ

Iesus; for him they did not kill, but another like to him. Now vpon this ground Mahomet, and the Turks, did extremely hate the Crosse•• no•• enduring the signe thereof, or suffering 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Crosse to stand in any place or Nation sub∣iect to them. Our Reformists (though vpon another ground) do no lesse hate the Cross•••• then the Turks doe, as the whole World knoweth, and is aboue in part I haue shewed. Thus Mahumet, and our Reformists do conspire and agree, in presecuting the Crosse with an intestime hatred, though the Reason of this their Hatred be different to them both. And thus the Crosse•• is despised, as being the remembrance of Christs Cha∣rity, dying vpon it; whose graue after the taking downe of his sacred Body from the Crosse, became (as it were) that wombe, from whence, the lyfe of our Saluation did rise.

The 27. Symbolisme; T••••••hing other seuerall points of Fayth. CHAP. XXVII.

I Haue been long in giuing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Concordences, or Harmony, tuned by Mahumet or Turks, and the Prote∣stants; in touch of the strings therof, we can find small iarring, but rather a perfect agrement; I meane, I haue spent many leaues in laying open the particular Symbo∣lismes between them: Therfore for greater

expedition, I will make here a coacetu••∣tion, or heaping together of diuers other Points of Religion, equally defended, taught, and practized by the Turks, and our new Euangelists.

28. First then the flery Protestants do teach that. Christ did not descend after his death vnto Limbus statrum. 29. That, we ought not to bowe at the Name of Iesue. 30. That, Christ did not leaue in the Sacrament his true and yeall Body, to be receiued by faythfull Christians. 31. That, Seauen Sacraments were not insti∣tuted by Christ. 32. That, not any Sacrament doth conferre Grace. 33. That, the Church of God it not free from Errour in fayth. 34. That, there is not any Vniuersality of Grace proceeding from Christs Passion. 35. That we ought not to pray to Saincts. 36. That Priests haue not true Power to remit sinnes. 37. They in lyke manner teach, that there are not any Euangelicall Councells. 38. That the Church of Rome was, and is a false Church. 39. That there is no implicit Fayth; but that all things, which are to be belieued, ought to be expresly knowne by the fayth∣full. 40. That there is no Sacrifice in the New Testament, according to the Order of Melchisedech. 41. That the Church of God is not euer Visible.

Now all th••se points (besides some o∣thers) are tought by our late more refined Euangelists: And in like sort, are they taught by Mahumes, and Sergius. From whence it necessarily resulteth, that Mahumet, Sergins, the Turks, and your new Reformers of Re∣ligion in this age, do wholy agree in be∣liefe,

touching the said Points. Whereupon we are to obserue, that all these Point thus taught by the Protestants, are in themselues but Negatiue, as denying the contrary affir∣matiue Articles to them, taught and belieued by the present Church of Rome.

Now that Mahumet, and Sergius taught the said Negatiue Points with the Protestants. I thus irrepliably proue: Mahumet, and Ser∣gius do maintaine, That the Alcoran(*) 1.188 is the true rule of fayth, or the boundary contay∣ning (within its owne cancells, & limits) the expresse beliefe of all such articles of fayth, which are to be belieued; Yea Mahu∣met ascribes such perfection, and fulnes to his Alcor••n, as that he dareth (by it) to correct the Christian Ghospell it selfe, as supposing it was corrupted by the Disciples of the A∣postles: For thus do some writers record of him: Euangelicam(1) 1.189 doctrinam, quam alioqu•• laudabat Mahumetus, ab Apost••lorum discipulis corruptam, Alcorano suo se emendeturum promi••∣tebat. Mahument did commend the Euangelicall do∣ctrine; notwithstanding he promised to purge i•• of its faults by his Alcoran; which faults, or Errors he said, the Disciples of the Apostles had afore brought in.

Well then, since the Affirmatiue Posi∣tions, contrary to the forsaid Negatiue Points belieued by the Protestants, are not found to be set downe in the Alcoran (for the Alcoran passeth them ouer altogether in si∣lence, as making no mention of them at al:) Therefore euen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and demon∣stratiuely,

it may be inferred, that Mahum•••• and Sergius did not belieue our Catholike Affirmatiue points or Articles; but wholy comparted with our New Euangelists, in belieuing, and dogmatizing the said Nega∣tiue points aboue rehearsed. Adde hereto, that it is euident, that the Turks at this day, agree in beliefe with the precise Lutherans in all those Points. Now, if it be replyed a∣gainst what heere is deliuered, that seing the Catholike, and Affirmatiue beliefe of most of the said Points, doth euer presup∣pose beliefe in Christ, seing they are groun∣ded thereon; That therefore Mahum•••• (as not beliening in Christ) cānot consequently be∣lieue the said affirmatiue Articles, but hould only the Negatiue part in them.

This Answere I auerre to be most defe∣ctiue. For I rest not heere in the Motiue, or Reason, why Mahumet belieueth not the foresaid Affirmatiue Catholike Tenets (since this is impertinent in this place;) but I on∣ly insist in the Conclusion, as the thing hereby chiefly intended (let the reason ther∣of be what it will) to wit, that Mahumat, and our new Euangelists do wholy agree in their Negatiue beliefe of them. Againe, I perceau•• no reason, seeing the Protestants do be∣lieue (at lest, they say, they do belieue) in Christ, but that they might he well pleased (were it not, their Serpentine Malice a∣gainst our Catholike Church, is the chiefe Hinderance) also to belieue the affirmati•••• Articles to their Negatiues; since most of

them haue their foundation, or Basis vpon our Beliefe in Christ, as our Redeemer.

Thus far now of these seuerall fourty Points of fayth, and other Circumstances conducing thereto; In the beliefe of all which it is made most euident, that the Turks, and your Reformed Religion do sympa∣thize, and agree togeather▪ In so indissolu∣ble a knot of Amity, and Association haue Sergius, and Luther (two Apostat•• Monk••) tyed themselues togeather.

Here now (O you Hugen••••s of Fra••ce) I de∣maund of you; Do you meane to perseuer in your Reformed Religion (as you stile it) and yet not to be reputed Turks, in many Points of fayth? With as much probability may a man desire to be an Ethiopian, and yet not to be black; or couet to put his n••ked hand in∣to a ••oat fyer, and withall count to auoyd burning: For it is ou••r ••uident, out of the Premisses, that concerning seuerall Passage•• of Religion, your Beliefe consists in Mith••∣liefe. your Fayth in Infidelity, and your C••e••d•• in Miscreancy; you making the Turkish Al••••∣ran your Catechisme, for your instruction in many Points thereof. O ••••l••ssed I••••••my, we ••eer•• want thee, to deliu•••• this ••••gicall and mournfull subiect, i•• thy accustome•• Thr••••••s, and Lamenrations?

An Answere to an Obiection, That the Catholiks do agree with the Turks in the doctrines of Sacrifice, and Vowes. CHAP. XXVIII.

MY presaging thoughts do proba∣bly foretell; that some of your Chiefe Ministers of France, rea∣ding this Treatise, with a scorne∣full, or subriding Eye, and suspended nose, will instantly shape an Answere thereto. Or if nor any of them, yet (perhaps) some spiritualized Sectary of Genena (through the conformity of their language with France, and proximity of place) houlding himselfe to be, vn grand Theologien, will vndertake that taske. And in like sort, it well may be, that the Answeater will endeuour to wype away this spot, caused through his Bre∣threns agreement with the Turks in mat∣ter of fayth, by laboring to insimulate vs Catholiks within the said danger, in retor∣ting; That the Papists (as in the foame of their malicious dialect they terme vs) stand no lesse chargeable with maintaining cer∣taine Points of Beliefe with the Turks, then themselues doe: To wit, that there ought to be in the Church of God, a true and reall Sa∣crifice (besides the spirituall Sacrifice of Prayer.) Also, that Religious Vowes are law∣full;

both which points, as we Catholike, so Mahumet at his first rising, and the Turke of these tymes de teach, and practize as pious, and most warrantable.

Heere I say, if any of our Aduersaries, (whosoeuer, or from whencesoeuer) shall endeuour hereby to wound vs, (themsel∣ues being allready wounded) or to hurt vs by the recoyle of out owne Bullet, against this recrimination I thus reply. And first, ad∣mit as true, that we belieue the former in generall Articles with the Turks; yet what is the agreement of the Catholiks, in two or three Points of fayth with this Turks, to be compared to the Reformists agreement with the Turks in fourty Points of Religion and Collaterall dependencies thereon? Secondly, to speake of Sacrifice, and Vowes in particu∣lar, I auer, that euery Religion (either false, or true) in euery place and tyme, had, and haue their Sacrifice, and Vowes annexed to their Woship o•• God. From whence we ga∣ther, that Sacrifice, and Vowes proceed from the instinct and light of Nature; and that to haue Sacrifice, and Vowes is a mayne Princi∣ple implanted in Man by God; and conse∣quently is in it selfe most religious, and warrantable▪

Neither will it au••yle, to auoyde the force of this Answere, to say with(1) 1.190 Ke••p∣ni••••••es, That this Instinct of Nature, is the in∣stinct of Nature as corrupted, which is the source, or too••e or all Blindn••s, and Supe••∣stition. This aduantageth nothing; For al∣though

Nature corrupted is, and hath been the fountaine of Blindnes & Superstition; N••••••••••••elesse, whereas all Countries do agree in one common Principle, this Agre∣ment doublesly ••••••eameth not from the Corruption of Nature, but from the Good o•• N••••ure; That is, i•• ris••th out of that light, which God hath engrafted, and sowed in Natu••••. For what things proceede from Corruption, those are various, and not the sam••, among all m••n. Therefore that God is t•• be worshipped, to be inuocated, to haue Sacrifices (so truly called) and Vowes offe∣red to him, and the like, which were in ge∣nerall among all People, and euer were the same; do rise from the good of Nature. But that there should be many Gods, that Ido•••••• hold be worshipped that men should b•• sacrifi••ed, that Vowes should be made to False Gods, and such like, which are diuersly varied, all these do spring from the Corrup∣tion of Nature.

Thirdly, I say, Sacrifice is congenite, & borne (as I may say) with Religion, as ap∣peareth from the Examples of the first son∣n••s(2) 1.191 of Adam; and after from Nee;(3) 1.192 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fr•••• the Prophets. Therefore their Coniunction is most Necessary. Fourthly, Sacrifice (so properly called) and Vowes are worships in••on••••inicable, and peculiar to God, That i••, they are due only to God; for other kinds of Honours are (in some sort) to be imparted to Creatures; Therefore no•• Religion 〈◊〉〈◊〉 subsist without S••••ifice, and

Vowes. And though Vowes in a secondary manner may be said to be made to Saints, we are to conceaue hereby, that this is but only the subiect of a Vow; wheras the Vow formally, and really is made only to God, as the Chiefe(4) 1.193 Schoolemen do teach. Thu•• much in clearing this retortion, made a∣gainst vs Catholiks.

Now from hence, (to apply it to our Purpose) the iudicious and learned Rea∣der may gather, that we Catholike is ho••l∣ding the doctrine of Sacrifice, and Vowes, do indeed agree with the Turks herein; but not with them as they are Turks, but as they are men indued with Reason; in whose Soules (as in the Soules of all other Men) God euen by the instinct of Nature, and light of Reason, hath indifferently infused the beliefe of the said former Points. And thus if we Catholiks be blynd, and superstitious in these doctrines, (as Kempniti••s suggesteth) yet are we warranted with the like blind∣nes and superstition, not only of Christs primitiue Church (the which point here to shew would be ouer tedious) but euen of all Mankind, as it is incorrupted.

Of the coniunction of the Turkes, and some temporall Christian Stater, against Catholike Princes. CHAP. XXIX.

NOw after I haue sufficiently dis∣played the great Coniunction in doctrine, which our New deuines do beare to Mahumet, and to his of∣spring, the Turks; I hold it conducing to our subiect in hand, in part to lay open to the world (and particularly to you, my Coun∣trimen) the secret combination of mynds both of some Protestant States, and Prote∣stant Ministers, banding with the Turke, a∣gainst the Pope, the Emperour, and other Ca∣tholike Princes, and all originally for matter of Religion; the which motiue most of them make the cementation of their Ami∣ty: So much in these mens peruerted Iudg∣ments, doth the Turkish Religion ouerbal∣lance, and weigh downe in Worth, & dig∣nity the Roman Catholike Religion. By which their Heathnish Proceeding may not our Sauiour (the Institutour of our Re∣ligion) say with Moyses: Cui(1) 1.194 compara∣stis me?

To begin. It is euident and knowne to the whole World, that when they of Hol∣land, for Religion, did first rise against the King of Spayne, diuers Troopes, and Com∣panyes

of their souldiers did beare in their Ensignes, a siluar figure, or stamp of the Moone increasing (being the Armes of the Turkish Emperour) with these French Words insculpted therin: Plus••ost Turcs, qu•• Papaux; That is, We will rather be Turks, then Papists.

In like manner, Erasmus recordeth, that when the Emperour Charles was to wage Warre with the Turkish Emperour, leuelling forces throughout seuerall parts of Germa∣ny; the Lutheran Party, and faction was so far from yealding any help, and succur∣rency thereto, as that they openly proclay∣med their dislike and disaffection of that Action in these word: Malle(2) 1.195 se pro Turca non baptizato pugnare, quàm pro Turca baptiza∣to; They had rather fight in defence of a Turke not baptized, then for a Turke bap∣tized, thereby meaning the Emperour of Germany, and thus preferring only for cause of Religion the Turkish Emperour, before the Christian Catholike Emperour. So deepe an impression had these ensuing Words of Luther (their Proto-pater) made in the Ger∣mans minds; Religio(3) 1.196 Romana magis est Ido∣lolatrica, quam Turcica; Et Pontifex ille magis est periculosus Christi hostis, quàm est Magnus Turca. The Roman Religion is more idolatrous, then the Turkish Religion: & that Pope or Bishop of Rome, is a more dangerous Enemy to Christ, then the Great Turke is.

The lesse wounder their it is, that we find Luther (as aboue is shewed) in one of

his Bookes thus writing: Praeliari(4) 1.197 aduer∣su•• Turcas &c. To fight against the Turks, is it withstand God chastizing our sinnes by them. And more. Let vs(5) 1.198 abstaine from the Turkish War•• as long as the Popes Name preuailes vnder Heauen. And further: Ore* 1.199 cunctos pios Christianos no vilo modo vel in militiam cant, vel dent aliquid, contra Turcas, quandoquide••t Turca dec••es pru∣dentior probior{que} est quàm Principes nostri. And yet the said Luther more fully vnbreasteth his Loue and affection towards the Turke, saying:(6) 1.200 Vi liberé animum meum aper••am; Hoc aperie de me praedico, quòd tam inuitus T••r∣cam gladio inuaderem, quam Christianum fra∣trem. To open my mind freely, I openly confesse, that I would as vnwillingly assault with my sword, a Turke, as any other that is my Christian Brother. Thus Luther, in affection fully equalling a Turke with a Christian. O the monstruous∣nesse of Apostasy!

But to proceed further. The Prince of Condy(7) 1.201 in France in the yeare 1570. being banished France, and retiring himselfe to Basill, and consulting there, how to raise Rebellion against the King of France; The Protestant Ministers of that 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, a∣gainst our owne Soueraigne King, and Country; giuing our reasons thereof to the Turkish Embassadour in these Wordes?

Quia(8) 1.202 fides Protestantiam, Turcicae erat quàm 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 Tur∣kish 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) 1.203 sem∣per paratissimos, ad turbas in Galia, Germania{que} concitandas &c. That they would euer be most ready to cause Combustions and Troubles, by in∣censing the Communalty in France, and Germany whensoeuer the Turkish Emperour should hould is conuenient. Such is the diabolicall, and Hel∣lish 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 sti∣led, 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) Chri∣stiani? For doth Nature euer afford a Su∣perlatiue 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 a∣boue are briefly touched.) Which being be∣lieued, 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 ther∣by 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 Posi∣tions of fayth; and so by imbracing Mis∣creancy, 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 Ioan∣nes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca & testimonia, de gloriosa Trinitate, deitate Christi, & Spiritus sancti; cum primis autem vaticinia Pro∣phetarum, de Aduentu Mes••iae, Natiuitate eius. Pas••ion••, 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 & Cor∣ruptions, 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 Ho∣ly Ghost, and particularly the Prophecies concerning the Aduent and Comming of the Messias, his Natiuity, Passion, Resurre∣ction, Ascension to Heauen, and sitting at the right hand of God.

Another Protestant writeth in like sort a booke entituled: Antiparaeus; Hoc est, Refuta∣tio venenati scripti à Dau••de Paraeo editi, in defensionem stropharum & corruptelarum, quibus loannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae Te∣stimonia, de Mysterio Trinitatis, nec non Oracul•• Prophet arum de Chr••sto, detestandum in modum corrupit. Francosurti, Anno 1598. Thus: Anti∣paraeus; that is, A Refutation of the virulent writing, made by Dauid Paraeus in the de∣fence of the impostures and Corruptions,

by the which Iohn Caluin derestably dep••••∣neth the most euident Testimonies of the Scripture, touching the Mystery of the Tri∣nity, as also the Oracles of the Prophets, concerning Christ.

A third Protestant thus stileth his booke written against Cal••in: Alberti Graueri, Bel∣luns 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, contr•• imp••os, & blasphe∣mos Errores Swinghanorum, & Galuinistarum, Tubingae, 1586. An Oration, or discourse of the Incarnation of the Sonne of God, a∣gainst the wicked and blasphemeus Er∣rours 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 Ie••, or an Atheist?

This former point is made no lesse eui∣dent, by the seuerall Testimonies of the more sober and temperate Protestants. For Yacobus Andraeas thus complaineth: Minime mirandum est ex Caluinianis &c. We(1) 1.204 are not to wonder; that of the Caluinists in Poland, Trans∣siluanis,

Hungary, and in other places, some im∣brace Arianisme, others Mahum••iisme; to whose impiety the doctrine of Caluin prepareth the way. Thus this Protestant. And Pel••rgus a Prote∣stant thus writeth: Non(2) 1.205 tis Caluini••m, & Caluinianos in pluri••nis Scripturae expositionibus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lab••rtose ••••tendam: I will not spend much tyme, in ••hewing, bow Cal∣uin and the C••luinists, in many ••••positious of Scri∣pture do play the Iewes, and the Arians.

Now from this former source it s••rin∣ge••n, that a booke was written by a Scho∣ler 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 In∣daei, & Mahumetani baptizata. An Admoni∣tion out of the Word of God, that the Caluinists are nos Christians, but only Iewes, and Mahunis∣tans Christened.

And an other famous Lutheran (being Supe••intendent of the Church of Raceburg) thus fully pronounceth of this point: Calui∣nistae(3) 1.206 alunt in pectore impietatem Arianam, & Turcicam, quae non rarò suo tempora palam se pro∣dit, & quod Caluinistae hominibus ad Arianismum, & Mahumetismum fenestram & ianuam ape∣riunt, nostri Theologi publicis libris demonstra••••∣runt. Vz. Our Deuines haue demonstrated in their publike writings, that the Caluinists do nou∣rish in their breast the Arian, and Turkish Impie∣ty, which often vpon fit occasion discouers it selfe. And that the Caluinists do open the Window, and Dore to Arianisme, and Mahu••••tisme, our de∣uines

haue demonstrated also in their publike Wey∣••ings. But inough of this point.

Of certaine Eminent Caluinists, who for∣saking their Christianity, became open, and blasphemous Turkes. CHAP. XXXI.

AS in this first Part of this Trea∣tise, I haue shewed, first, That the Turks, and our New Gospellers, who haue been (Préscheurs sedi∣tieux, & dignes d'vn chastiment tres-rigoreux) seditious fellowes against the Church of God, and worthy of seuere punishment, do a∣gree in forty points touching fayth, and the necessary Attendants therof. Second••y, how the chiefe Protestants by deprauing the do∣ctrine of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, haue in their Writings playned the way to Turcisme, or Mahumetisme: So now for the closure and shutting vp of this first part, I will produce the Examples of seuerall most eminēt Protestants, who haue in their owne persons actually incorporated (not some, but) all the Blasphemies of Mahumetisme, openly professing themselues in fayth, and externall Practize thereof, to be Turks; re∣nouncing and disclayming from all Chri∣stianity. Obstupescite(1) 1.207 caeli super hoc.

And to begin. The first of these Mon∣sters (Monstrum horrendum, ingens, cui lumen

ademptum) which I will name; shalbe Ber∣nardinus Ochinus, a man much commended by(2) 1.208 Sleidan, and by Bullinger(3) 1.209 both Protestants, and whose prayse Caluin cele∣brateth in these Words: Whom(4) 1.210 can I truly oppose against Bernardinus Ochinus? Now this presumed worthy Protestant, in the end became an impious Apostata, entertayning Turcisme: of whose fall Beza thus writeth: Polygamium nemo vnquam callidius, velimpuden∣tius defendit quam ille impurus Apos••••ta, Bernar∣dinus Ochinus. His Apostaly is in lyke sort recorded by Conradus(6) 1.211 Schlus••enburg. Yea Beza in the place aboue alledged, sayth, that Ochinus was, omnium, Christianae Religionis dogmatum irrisor: A mocker or scoffer of all the Ar∣ticles of Christian Religion.

In like manner, Adam Neuserus (no vul∣gar Protestant) became a Turke, of whom Osiander the Protestant, thus speaketh: Adam(7) 1.212 Neuserus, Pastor Heidelbergenlis, prolapsus est in Turcismum, Constantinopoli circumcisus. Adam Neuserus, Pastour of Heidelberg, did fall into Turcisine, and was circumcised as Constantinople. Of this Neuserus the foresaid Schlussenberg (the Lutheran) thus speaketh: Adam(8) 1.213 Neuserus elim Heidelbergensis Ecclesiae primarius Pastor, ex Swinglianismo, per Arianismum ad Mahumetismum, cum alijs non paucis Caluinistis ••••••gressus est. Adam Neuserus, heretofore chiefe Pastour of Heidelberg, with many other Calui∣nists, proceeded from Swinglianisme, through A∣rianisme, vnto Mahumetisme,

In which testimony of Schlussenb. we may

obserue two things. First, that Neuserus (as not being content to be defiled alone) did draw many others with him to Turcisme. Secondly, that Swinglianisme, and Arianisme are the two subordinate Passages, or Wayes to Turcisme. And therefore a German Prote∣stant Doctour(9) 1.214 calleth Swinglianisme, A∣rianisme, and Mahumetisme, tres fratres vel soro∣res, vel tres caliga•• eiusdem panni. Three brethren, or three sisters, or three payre of hose made of the same cloath. A truth so euident, that he for∣said Neuserus writeth of this point in this sort, being then at Constantinople: Nullus(10) 1.215 nostro tempore mihi notus, factus est Arianus, nisi antea suit Caluinista &c. No man in our dayes, that I know, became an Arian (which is the next step to Turcisme) except he was first a Caluin••st, as Seruetus, Blandrata, Alciatus, Franciscus Da∣uid, Gentilis, Gribaldus, Siluanus, and others. Igi∣tur, qui timet sibi ne incidat in Arianismum ca∣ueat Caluinismum. Therefore who is fearefull of himselfe to fall into Arianisme, let him take heede of Caluinisme. Thus Neuserus speaketh of his owne, and diuers others experience.

The next shalbe Asam••••••••s, of whom the foresaid Schlussenburg thus speaketh: A∣lamannus(11) 1.216 Bezae fannliarissimus, & stre∣nuus Caluinista, Religioni Christiana Congum Vale dixit, & factus est Apostata, & Iud••us blasp••••∣mus. Alamannus being a most fath••liar friend of Beza, and an earnest Caluinist, hath gi∣uen his last fare well to the Chistian fayth; and is become an Apostata, and a blasphe∣mous Iew. Of whom euen Beza himselfe

thus complaineth; Alamannus(12) 1.217 affirmant ad Iudaismum defecisse; though some authours constantly affirme, that he became a Turke. But howsoeuer the difference is but small, since a Iew, and a Turke do mutually agree in denying the most Blessed Trinity, the Incar∣nation of Christ, and in denying all other Articles of Christian Fayth, proceeding from these two former.

In like manner Dauid Georgius, who li∣ued a long tyme at Basill, much esteemed by the Protestants of that City; of whom O∣siander thus writeth;(13) 1.218 V••••batur publico Vir De•• ministerio Basillensi. Dauid George, being a man of God, vsed the publike Ministery at Basill. Now I say, this Dauid George became a most blasphemous Turke, or Iew, as the Deuine••(14) 1.219 themselues of Basill haue published, and recorded.

Paulus Alciatus (an Italian) being afore a Protestant, much labored to plante the ••••eds of Mahumetisme, in Polonia, and finally became a Turke; as Beza(15) 1.220 witnesseth.

Andraeas Velanus (an eminent Caluinist) not only became a Turke, but withall cor∣rupted diuers others with his pestilent Writings(16) 1.221 against the B. Trinity.

••alius Socinus (once brought vp in the Schoole of Geneua) forsooke his Christian••∣ty, and did write against the most Sucred Trinity, of whom Beza thus peaketh: T••∣lius(17) 1.222 Socinus mihi quidem videtur, omn••••s ••••••ruptores longé superasse. I a•••• of mynd, that ••••lius Socinus hath surpassed all other corrupt Writers.

I here passe ouer the Examples of other Caluinists, who shaking of the Christian Re∣ligion (as Waterdogs do water, when they haue no further need thereof) entertained Mahumetisme, and so became open, and exe∣crable Turks; to wit, Petrus(18) 1.223 Sartorius, Georgius Paulus, Franciscus Lismanus, all who cooperated with the forenamed Alciatus, in disseminating Turcisme in Polonia.

And thus far of the Apostasies of diuers Markable Protestants, who made shew in the beginning to professe the name & fayth of Christ; and accordingly receiued their Baptisme in that fayth, and Religion; And yet before their deaths. spurning at all the Mysteries of Christianity, they entertayned and openly professed the doctrine, and Re∣ligion of Mahumet, and Sergius, two most capitall Enemies of Christ, our Redeemer, Thus ranging themselues among those, who circa(19) 1.224 fidem naufragauerunt. And in∣deed, it deserues obseruation, that by expe∣rience we find (as is partly aboue touched) that Protestancy, first resolues it selfe into Caluinisme; Caluinisme into Anabaptisme; Ana∣baptisme into Arianisme; and Arianisme for its last change into Turcisme, or Tudaisme. Now it is a principle in Alchimy, that the last su∣blimation of Metalls (as purging and refi∣ning away the drosse, and refuse matter a∣fore remayning) is euer the purest. Will you admit (O you Hugenots) this Theoreme, or Axiome, as true?

Well now, what can we iustly conclude

out of the Contents of this Chapter? It is prophesied of the Church of Christ, that she shall conuert Heathens vnto her, according to those words of Esay spoken of and to the Church: Thou shalt(20) 1.225 suck the milke of the Gentills? And the Regall Prophet sayth to the Church, in the person of God; I will giue(21) 1.226 thee the Heathens for thy inheritance? To be short, the foresaid Prophet Esay is comman∣ded and directed by God, to speake thus to the Church of Christ: Enlarge(22) 1.227 the place of thy Tents; spread out the Cur••a••••••s of thy habi∣tation &c. Thy seede shall poss••sse the Gentills.

If now the true Church of Christs shalbe honored, and enriched with this most wor∣thy priuiledge of conuerting Heathens, and Gentills vnto it. What Church then may we repute the Synagogue of the more fiery Protestants to be; of which many most re∣markable Professours, who are Christians (in lieu of conuerting of Heath••••s) after become Mahumetans, Turks, and Miscreants, litle infe∣riour in Misbeliefe to the very▪ Heathens, and Gentills? Is not this to change Christ for Mahumet, his sacred Gospell for the Alcoran, & to turne light into darknes? And with this I impose an end vnto the first Part of this Treatise.

Notes

• (1) 1.1

  Genes. i•• ••aciamus bo∣min••m ad ima••inem nostram.
• (a) 1.2

  Apolog. Angli••.
• (3) 1.3

  The Booke stiled, Antichristus, s••••s Progno∣sticon s••••is Mu••di.
• (4) 1.4

  〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• (5) 1.5

  Lu••. ••9.
• (6) 1.6

  In loc. com. pag. ••16.
• (7) 1.7

  Luther, tom. ••. Wit∣tenb. in a••••ers. damnas. per L••o••em. Art, 34. fol. 100. where we thus read: Praeliari ad∣uersus Tur∣cas est re∣pug••are D••∣vis••ta••ti i••i, quitates no∣stras ••e•• illos.
• (8) 1.8

  Luth. in Explicat. Art. ••4.
• (9) 1.9

  Luc. ••3.
• (10) 1.10

  1. Cor. 293
• (11) 1.11

  Luther contra A∣nabaptist.
• (12) 1.12

  De Ec∣cles. p. 36••.
• (13) 1.13

  Sleidan. l. c. fol. 8••.
• (14) 1.14

  O••ian∣der in Epit. C••••••••. 10. pag.
• (15) 1.15

  Cyprian. lib. do Vnita. te Ecclesiae.
• (1) 1.16

  Septem∣castrensis, and others.
• (2) 1.17

  Hosp. hi∣stor. Sacram. l 2. p. 157.
• (3) 1.18

  In his discourse v∣pon the Cata∣logue of Do∣ctours.
• (4) 1.19

  Iunius in Apocalyp. in c••p. 10.
• (5) 1.20

  in his Treat con∣cerning An∣tichrist pag. 110.
• (6) 1.21

  Hutterus, de Sacrif. Missatico. pag. 377.
• (7) 1.22

  In loc. com. lo•• 63. pag. 198.
• (8) 1.23

  Danaeus in Isagog. Christian. part. 4. l. 2. pag 36.
• (9) 1.24

  Lascitius the Prote∣stant so re∣lateth Caluin to say, in his Booke, de Russorum, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Moscouita∣rum religio∣us.
• (10) 1.25

  Beza i•• his Confe∣rence at Poys••▪
• (11) 1.26

  So rela∣teth Cuspini∣anus in Ma∣humets.
• (12) 1.27

  Sleidan the Prote∣stant, lib. 1.
• (13) 1.28

  Luther in loc. com. class. 4. c. 30.
• (14) 1.29

  August.
• (1) 1.30

  Azoar••
• (2) 1.31

  In Prae∣fa••an Epist. Iacobi, in edi∣tione Iene••si.
• (3) 1.32

  Bulling. vpon the A∣pocaly••s cap. 1. serm. 1.
• (4) 1.33

  Kempnit. in Enchirid. pag. 6••••
• (5) 1.34

  Kempuit. in examen part. ••. p. 56.
• (6) 1.35

  In Mar∣garete Theo∣log. pag. ••48.
• (7) 1.36

  Caluin•• ••. Instit. 4. c. l. 9.4.
• (8) 1.37

  Luther de Captiuit. Babylon. cap. de extrema Vnction••.
• (9) 1.38

  In Apo∣log. Confess. cap. de Conci∣liss.
• (10) 1.39

  Cent. ••. l. ••. c. 800
• (11) 1.40

  De Ec∣cles. contra Bellar. con∣trou. ••. q. 4.
• (1) 1.41

  Cuspin. de relig. Tur∣carum. Sep∣tem-Castren∣sis de relig. Turca••.
• (2) 1.42

  Luth. tom. 3. p. aefat in epist. Petri.
• (3) 1.43

  Cent. 2. c. 4. p. ••6••
• (4) 1.44

  Beza in annotat. in ••a, Lucae.
• (1) 1.45

  Azoara 13.
• (2) 1.46

  Luth tom. 2. Wittenb. an 1551. lib. de seruo arbi∣trio.
• (3) 1.47

  Luther in colloquijs mensalibus, cap de Patri∣bus Ecclesia.
• (4) 1.48

  Luther∣••••m 1. contra Rege•••• An∣gliafol. 344.
• (5) 1.49

  Melanth. in 1. Cor. c. 3.
• (6) 1.50

  Aug. to. J. contra I••••∣lian. l. 1. c. 5.
• (1) 1.51

  Septem∣castrens. defi∣de & relig. Turcarum.
• (2) 1.52

  Brent. in Apol. Con∣fes. Wittem. cap. de Conci∣lijs.
• (3) 1.53

  Caluin de verae Eccles∣reformat. in∣ter opuscul. pag. 480.
• (4) 1.54

  Musculus in loc com de Ministr••s. p. 19••.
• (5) 1.55

  Vrb. Reg. 1. part oper in inter pret. loc. com. de Eccle∣sia. fol. 51.
• (6) 1.56

  Beza in his preface of the New Te∣stam. anno 1587.
• (7) 1.57

  Peter Mar••. l de votis, pag. 47••.
• (8) 1.58

  Act. 15.
• (1) 1.59

  Cusantis in cribatione Alcorain. l. 1. & 2. & Ri∣chardus Ordi∣••is Praedicat. in confutat. legis Saracen.
• (2) 1.60

  Beinbus ••••slor, V••gnet. l. 4.
• (3) 1.61

  Basil de spiritu San∣cto c. 27.
• (4) 1.62

  Epiphan. haeres. 61.
• (5) 1.63

  Reynoldus in his Conclu∣sions, or Thesibus.
• (6) 1.64

  In 2. Thess••l. Ho∣mil. 4.
• (7) 1.65

  Whitak. de sa••ra Scriptura, pag. 678.
• (8) 1.66

  Whitak▪ de sacrascrip. p. 678.681.683.685.690.695. & seq.
• (9) 1.67

  ••. Thess 1.
• (1) 1.68

  Azoara 1.
• (2) 1.69

  Swingl. de Prouident. c. ••.
• (3) 1.70

  Swingl. tom. 2. fol. 118. & 339.
• (4) 1.71

  Gualte∣rus in Apol∣sol 27. Bul∣ling. in his Preface of allowance to Swinglius his exposit? ficei ••d Regem, fol. 55•• Simlerus in vita Bulling.
• (5) 1.72

  Eucharius in his Pasci∣culus Contro∣uers. printed Lipfi•••• anno 609. c. 19.
• (6) 1.73

  Swingl. in l. Episto••arum Swingl. & Oecolampadij l. 1. pag. 30.
• (7) 1.74

  Act. 4.
• (8) 1.75

  Hebr. 6.
• (9) 1.76

  Esay. 60.
• (10) 1.77

  Lue. 23.
• (11) 1.78

  1. Ti∣moth. c. 6.
• (1) 1.79

  Melanth. l. 3. Illyric. in Apolog.
• (2) 1.80

  Prateol••••••∣n 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Blench. Haeresil. 11•• c. 3••
• (3) 1.81

  Wisdom c. 7.
• (1) 1.82

  Vide Azoara 58.
• (2) 1.83

  Math. 13. Marc. 4.
• (3) 1.84

  Illyric. in Apoc. 14.
• (4) 1.85

  Couradus Schlusselb. in Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol. 124.
• (1) 1.86

  Cuspiu▪ de Religion•• Turcarum.
• (2) 1.87

  Luther tom. 2. contr•• Regem. A••∣•••••••• fol. 344.
• (3) 1.88

  Luther ••••i∣dem••
• (4) 1.89

  Math. ••••▪
• (1) 1.90

  Azoare ••7.
• (2) 1.91

  Theologi Casiniriani in edu••onit, sua de lib. Con∣cordiae Ber∣gensis 〈…〉〈…〉
• (3) 1.92

  Melāncth. Cron. l. 3. à pag. ••11. ed pag. 317.
• (4) 1.93

  Illyric. in Abocalyp. cap. ••.
• (1) 1.94

  In Azoar•• 61.62.68.••1.50. & seq.
• (2) 1.95

  Luth. tom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Wittem∣berg contra Regem Ano Gliae. fol. 333.
• (3) 1.96

  Luth. vbi suprà.
• (4) 1.97

  Caluin Vltime admo∣nit. ad West∣phalum pag. 1140.
• (1) 1.98

  Azoara 12.
• (2) 1.99

  Iohn ••0.
• (3) 1.100

  Azoara 19.
• (4) 1.101

  Biblian. in praefac. Al∣cor. 3.
• (5) 1.102

  Ricardus Ordinis Prae∣dic••t. in con∣futat. legis Saraci••••, ca. 8.
• (6) 1.103

  Vide En∣chirid. Pre cum anno 15••3.
• (7) 1.104

  Luth. in Postill. maio∣re, Basi••e••e a••ud Herua∣gium in euar∣rat. Euang. Dom.
• (8) 1.105

  Calu. epist. 2. ad Polonos extat. in his tract. Theol. pag. 796.
• (9) 1.106

  Luth. in lib. contra Iacob•••• La∣co•••••• ••ons. 2. Wittem∣berg. edit. an∣t••o ••351.
• (10) 1.107

  1. Ioan. 5.
• (11) 1.108

  In Synod. Vilnae habis. anno 1589.
• (12) 1.109

  Bernard.
• (13) 1.110

  Iohn. 10.
• (15) 1.111

  Genes. c. 19.
• (16) 1.112

  Caluin in Gones. c. 19.
• (17) 1.113

  Hebr. 1. & Psalm. 2.
• (18) 1.114

  Heb. 1.
• (19) 1.115

  Caluin in Psalm. 2.
• (20) 1.116

  Tou∣ching the word Eloim, in G••nes. c. 1. and out of the Psalm. 33.
• (21) 1.117

  1. Iohn c. ••.
• (22) 1.118

  Caluin in 8. Ioan. c. 5.
• (23) 1.119

  Hunius in his books entituled, Caluinus I••∣daiza••••.
• (24) 1.120

  Iohn 1.
• (1) 1.121

  Azo•••••• 1••. & ••••.
• (2) 1.122

  Luther in Confess. ma∣iore, de caena Domini.
• (3) 1.123

  Luther. l. de Concil. par. 2.
• (4) 1.124

  In dialog. de corruptis moribus v triusque par∣tis. Art. 3. fol. 5.
• (5) 1.125

  Rom. 5.
• (6) 1.126

  August. com. ••. de Hae∣resi, ad Quod∣vult Deum. Haeres. 73.
• (1) 1.127

  Azoara, 27.28.
• (2) 1.128

  Azoara, 40. & 53.
• (3) 1.129

  Caluin in examin. persi∣diae Valentini Geneilis, ex∣ta•• in eract. Theolog. pag. 77••.
• (4) 1.130

  Beza contra H••∣chusium.
• (5) 1.131

  Osiander C••••••. ••6. pag. 26••.
• (1) 1.132

  Azoara 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• (2) 1.133

  Luther. lib. quod Ver∣be Domini firmiter stant.
• (3) 1.134

  Kempni∣••ius 2. part. Examin. c. 4.••.13. Illyricus, lib. de mystica, Sacramentali, & extrema praesentia Corporis Do∣mini in Caena.
• (4) 1.135

  1. Ma∣chab. c. 2.
• (5) 1.136

  Thren. 1.
• (8) 1.137

  Azoar•• ••3.
• (a) 1.138

  Bibliand. in Margino Aleorani. ad Azohram. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• (3) 1.139

  Bibliand. ••bi suprà
• (4) 1.140

  Bibliand▪ ibidem.
• (5) 1.141

  Septeme. defide & re•• lig. Yurc••∣rum
• (6) 1.142

  Luth. in serus, de N•••• ••ali 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Ma∣ri••.
• (7) 1.143

  Peter Mart▪ in Comment ad cap. ••. prioris ad Cor▪
• (8) 1.144

  In offieio B. Mariae.
• (9) 1.145

  Vide Co∣chlaeum in Vita Lutheri.
• (10) 1.146

  Molanct. in oc. cont in explicat. De∣casògi.
• (11) 1.147

  Magde∣burg. Cent. 8. passim.
• (12) 1.148

  Calu. In∣stic. l. 2 c. 11. & lib. •• c. 9.
• (13) 1.149

  Osiander Epitom. Cent. ••••. pag. 491.
• (14) 1.150

  The Hi∣story of France i•• entituled: The generall Iuuentory of the History of France, writ∣ten by Iohn d•• Serres.
• (1) 1.151

  Sept••••∣••a••••••. d•• fide & relig. Tur∣••••••••m, pag. ••9.
• (2) 1.152

  Septem∣castr. c. ••3.
• (3) 1.153

  Richerius lib. d•• moribus Tercerum, dedi••ated 10 Francis, king of France.
• (4) 1.154

  Cuspin do Religione Turearum.
• (5) 1.155

  Hebr. 1••.
• (6) 1.156

  Luther tom. ••. Wi••∣temberg. ad cap 7.1. Cor∣fol. 107.
• (7) 1.157

  Whita•••• contra Comp. rat. 8.
• (8) 1.158

  Luther▪ tom. 7. Epist. ad Wolf∣gengum, fol•• ••0••.
• (9) 1.159

  Luther com. 1. Wit∣temb. de Cap∣tiuie, Babyl. fol. 74.
• (10) 1.160

  Luther in his Sermons.
• (11) 1.161

  Whitak, de Eccles. con∣tra Bellarm. controuer. 2. quaest. 5.
• (1) 1.162

  Cuspin. in Mahumeto.
• (2) 1.163

  M••scul. in loc. com de Magistrat. pag. 570. & 520.
• (3) 1.164

  Sanderus de Schismate Auglicano.
• (4) 1.165

  R••m. ••••
• (5) 1.166

  1. Petr. ••
• (1) 1.167

  Cuspi••••. de religions Turc••ium, Septem ca∣str••••sts, R••∣cherius de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de moribus T••rc••rum.
• (2) 1.168

  Swingl. l. c. Epist. fol. 2••.
• (3) 1.169

  Swingl. tom 1. de Baptism. fol. 90.
• (4) 1.170

  Swingl. de Baptism. vbi suprà.
• (5) 1.171

  Swingl. tom. 2. de Peccato Ori∣ginali. fol. 110.
• (6) 1.172

  Beza de Hoereticis puniendis, pag. 175.
• (1) 1.173

  Luther lib. de Cap∣tiuit. Babylon.
• (2) 1.174

  Tom. 2. l. de Baptism. fol. 96.
• (3) 1.175

  Calu. Iu∣stis. l. 4. c. 15. ••. 2••.
• (4) 1.176

  Whitak Controu. 4.••.M.••.••. pag. 710.
• (5) 1.177

  Iohn 3.
• (6) 1.178

  Austin, ••o••. 7. contra duas epi••t. ••••••••g l. 3. c. 3.
• (1) 1.179

  Azoar•• 8.
• (2) 1.180

  Luther tom. 5 de Ma∣trimon fol. ••19.
• (3) 1.181

  Bucer in Script. An∣glic. de regn•• Christi. l 2. c. 16.
• (4) 1.182

  Bucer ibidem cap. 37.
• (5) 1.183

  Bucer, ibidem c. 4••.
• (6) 1.184

  Bucer ibi∣dem cap. 124.
• (7) 1.185

  Bucer, ibidem, cap. 124.
• (8) 1.186

  Luther, tom. 5. Wit∣temberg. Ser∣mon. de Ma∣trimonio, fol. 123.
• (1) 1.187

  Az••••r∣••••.
• (*) 1.188

  Cusoinia∣nus de Relig. Turca••um. Septem. ca∣str••nfis, Bi∣bliander, in praefat. Al∣cor••••••.
• (1) 1.189

  Richerius de moribus Turcarum. Cuspin. de re∣ligione Tur∣carum. &c.
• (1) 1.190

  K•••••• in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 parts, Exa∣min. p. 741.
• (2) 1.191

  Genes. 4.
• (3) 1.192

  Genes. 8.
• (4) 1.193

  S. The∣mas 2.2. qu••••. 88. ar••. 5.
• (1) 1.194

  Isay. 40.
• (2) 1.195

  Erasmus, in Epist ad Fratres Ger∣mania Inf••∣rioris.
• (3) 1.196

  Luther in Genes. cap. 48.
• (4) 1.197

  Luther, ••om. ••. Wit∣temb••rg. Ar∣tic. da••nat. per Leonem ••0. Art. 34.
• (5) 1.198

  Luth. in explice. Art. 34.
• * 1.199

  Luther in Epist. contra ••uo mandeta Imperialia.
• (6) 1.200

  Luther in confutat Do∣ctorum Paris.impress. Neo∣b••rgi.
• (7) 1.201

  Matth. de Lanoy en s•• replique. l. ••. chap. 13.
• (8) 1.202

  In literii Constanti∣nop. scriptis ad Venetum Patricium, in fine libri de furoribus Gallisis,
• (9) 1.203

  In lit. Consta••s. ••b••. suprd▪
• (1) 1.204

  Andraas in ••raefas. vefucat. A∣polog. Danaei.
• (2) 1.205

  Pelargus in Admonis do Arian••s.
• (3) 1.206

  In lib•• en∣tituled, Dae Theologi•• Caluinist. li∣britres. Fran∣coforts anno 15••••.
• (1) 1.207

  Ierem. ••.
• (2) 1.208

  L 9. fol. 297.
• (3) 1.209

  Si••••lerus Vita Bullin∣geri, fol. 28.
• (4) 1.210

  Caluin, l. de Secondalis, extat in eract. Theo∣log. p. 111.
• (6) 1.211

  In Theo∣log. Calis. l. 1. fol. 8.
• (7) 1.212

  Ofiand. in Epitom. Cent. 19. pare. 2. pag. 818.
• (8) 1.213

  Schlus∣senb. in Theo∣log. Caeluinist. l. 1. Ar••. 2. fol. ••.
• (9) 1.214

  Ioqunes Schutz in l. 50. causa∣rum, cousa. 41.
• (10) 1.215

  So Ste∣phenus Ger∣latius recor∣deth these words, as spoken by Neuserus.
• (11) 1.216

  Courad. Schlussenb. vbi suprà, fol. 9. & 10.
• (12) 1.217

  Beza in Epist. Epist. ••5.
• (13) 1.218

  Osiand. epit. cent. 16. part. 2. pag. 647.
• (14) 1.219

  In bisto∣ria Georgij Dauidis prin∣ted Ane∣wer••. anno 1568. and ple∣••••••shed by the Deuines of Basil.
• (15) 1.220

  Beza in l. Epist. Theol. Epist 65.66.
• (16) 1.221

  In Pa∣renesi.
• (17) 1.222

  Beza, Epist. Theo∣log. Epist. 8••.
• (18) 1.223

  Vide Simlerum de aeterno Dei filio.
• (19) 1.224

  ••. Ti∣moth. 1.
• (20) 1.225

  Isa. 60.
• (21) 1.226

  Psalm. 18.
• (22) 1.227

  Isa. 54.