for false and erroneous doctrine or through want of Charity they would iniustly insimulate men within the compasse of belieuing presumed Heresies they not being Heresies Thirdly those Fathers who first registred the ensuing Opinions for Heresies with other Fathers not contradicting or impugning and therein silently agreeing with them did in those times represent the face of the whole Church as being the Principall Members thereof Whereas these other men making choyce of doctrines different from the whole Church did thereby manifestly discouer themselues to be Heretiks according to the Etymology of the word Haeresis as comming of the Greeke Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eligo And thus they by their Election and Choice of strang Opinions did range themselues in the number of those of whome S. Iohn writeth Exierunt (13) 1. Iohn â— ex nobis sed non erant exnobis Now then if these former learned and pious Fathers should haue erâ—â—d in the condemning the said Doctrines for Heresies and in wrongfully anathematizing the broachers of them then might it be inferred that the whole Visible and Primitiue Church of God could erre and then actuall did erre Which granted how then could the Apostles words stand inuiolate and immoueable he stiling the Church Coluâ—â—a (*) 1. Tim. 3. FirinameÌ„tum Veritatis Or could the praises giuen euen by our Aduersaries touching the Infallibility of the Vniuersall Primitiue Church in matters of fayth be true For thus we reade in these alleged writers following all being remarkable Protestants (14) Sarauta in defens tract de diuersis Ministroâ—um gradibus pag. 8. Sarauta sayth Spiritus Sanctus qui in Ecclesia praesideâ— c. The Holy Ghost who presideth ouer the Church is the true Interpreter of the Scriptures Therefore it is not a thing reasonable to reiect the authority of that spirit which presided ouer the primitiue Church and gouerned the sams by its Bishops Thus this writer Kempnitius thus aueâ—â—eth (*) Kempnitius in Exam. Concil Trident part 1. pag. 74. We doubt not but that the Primitiue Church receaued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the Text and Words of Scripture but also the right and Natiâ—e sense and interpretation theref To be short and to pretermit others In the Confession of Bohemia (a) Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 400. we thus reade The ancient Church is the true and best Mistresse of PosteriÌ„ty and she going before leadeth vs theway Thus much of the Protestants Confessions in this point Fourthly and lastly diuers Theorems or Speculations of fayth and the professours of them by me vrged did take their denomination and names from the Authors of them being but illiterate ignoble obscure man the very impression or indeleble stampâ— of Heresy according to those words of S. Chrysostomes Prout (15) Chrysost â—omil 3â— in Act. Apost Haerestarcha nomonâ—ita secâ—â— vocatur As the name of the Heretike is so is the Sect or Heresy called These Names being imposed vpon the men so belieuing after the beginning and first rising of the said Heresies and taken from the first Coyners of them were inuented out of Necessity and constraint that by such their Appellation they might be distinguished and deuided from the true Orthodoxall Professours of the Christian Fayth Thus the Manichees the Arians the Eutichians and the like do borrow their Appellation from Manichaus Arius Eutiches and accordingly their Heresies are called Maâ—ichenismâ— Arianisme Eutichianisme c. Here now I will pause stay my selfe and as prefixing this short Prolegomenon as afore I called it I will hasten to the Particular Heresies in those pure times condemned for such by many famous and worthy Fathers of Gods Church and now in this Iron Age reuiued with a most strong bent and endeuour by Luther Swinglius Caluin others of the later brood in all whome are iustified the words of an ancient Father Haereses (16) Tertul. l. do praescript apud eos mulâ—um valenâ— qui in fide parùm valent Now in reading hereof I would intreat you My Countrimen casting of your former sluggish security touching the presumed certainty of your fayth to recur in a secret reflexe of mynd to the former Aduertisments of this Prolegâ—mâ—â—n and to what here followeth and withall to obserue by application of what is deliuered in the first Part of the former Treatise that the Catastrophe or Closure of all is that â—ugâ—â—â—tisâ—â—s is ingendred betweene Mahâ—â—â—â—sâ—â—â— and old condeâ—ned Heresier O how much is the deformity of that Child to be bewayled which is begotten of such vgly Parents Identity 1. But to begin with these Heresies The first Heresy shal be of certaine men who denied the Eucharist to be the true flesh of Christ teaching that it was but only a Figure thereof These Heretiks were condemned in those ancient tymes by Ignatius as Theodoret (17) Theodor. in Dialog qui dicitur Impatibilis Dial. 3. relateth in these Words Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Saluatoris quae pro peccatis nostris passa est c. These Heretiks do not admit Eucharisties and Oblations because they acknowledg not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which flesh suffered for our sinnes These men were in like sort condemned in the seauenth Synod So hardly could such men being immersed in sense belieue that the Eye of fayth seeth things inuisible Identity 2. Simon Magus taught that God was the Authour of sinne of whom Vincentius (18) Vincent Lyr. l. aduers Haeres post med Lirinensis thus sayth Who before Simon Magus was bold to affirme God to be the Authour of our wickednes and deeds And S. Austin Detestanda c. (19) Austin ad artic sibi falso impositis Art 10. It is a detestable opinion to belieue that God is the Authour of any ill will or works Finally the Heretike Florinus taught the same doctrine of which Irenaeus thus speaketh This (20) Apud Eusebium l. 5. histor c. 80. Opinion is more then an Heresy Identity 3. The Heretike Aerias taught as Epiphanius (21) Epiphâ—â— Haeres 7â— S. Austin (22) Aust. Haerâ—sae 33. record That Orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem non oportet We ought not to pray or offer Sacrifice for the dead Identity 4. The Manichees denied Freewill according to those words of S. Ierome (23) Ierom. im praefat â—1â— log contra Pelag. Manichaet damnant hominum naturam liberum auferunt arbitrium The Manichees do condemne the Nature of Man and do take away free will And S. Austin (24) Aug. Haeres c. 4â— Peccatorum originem non tribuunt Manichaet libero arbitrio The Manichees do not ascribe the origin of sinne to Free will Identity 5. The Heretike Xenaias was the first who denied the Due worship to Images Of whom Nicephorus thus writes Xenaras (26) Nicephor in hist Eccles l. 16. â— 27
libri c. The Apocryphall Bookes of the New Testament are the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Imaes the second and third of Iohn the second of Peter the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps Thus much to demonstrate that Luther and diuers of his schollars agree with Mahumet in denying most at least of the Epistles of the Apostles And therefore we haue lesse reason to be amazed at that prophane saying of Caluin in dishonour of the Apostles in generall His words are these Apostoli (7) Caluinâ—â— Instit 4. c. l. 9.4 non debent garrire quicquid illis collibitum fuerit c. The Apostles ought not to babble and speake idly of things as it pleaseth them but they are to relate the Commandements of God sincerely We are indeed to belieue the Apostles but this only as they speake out of the Word of God not as they speake from themselues but from the precept and speciall commandement of their Legation Thus Caluin O wonderfull procacity and insolency of Heresy As if the Apostles did somtimes babble and talke idly did speake only of themselues and not as instructed and directed by God The 5. Symbolisme Touching the erring of the Apostles CHAP. VI. THe Turks or Mahumetans as they do not belieue the writings of the Apostles So they hould the Aposties to haue erred in diuers of their Actions since they maintaine that the Apostles had not greater warrant for their not erring in their Actions then they had for their not erring in their Writings The same point is maintayned by seuerall of your first Instructours so great is your conformity with them herein For according hereto Luther sayth of S. Iames speaking of Extreme Vnction I say (8) Luther de Captiuit Babylon cap. de extrema Vnctionâ— thaeth in any place Iames erred in this place especiall bâ—â—e erred c. For it is not lawfull for an Apostle 〈◊〉 â—is owne authority to institute a Sacrament As 〈◊〉 the Apostle would or dared to ordayne a Sacrament without the authority command of Christ our Sauiour In like manner Brentius the Lutheran thus boldly writeth Peter (9) In Apolog Confess cap. de Conciliss the Chiefe of the Apostles and also Barnabas after the Holy Ghost receaued togeather with the Church of Ierusalem erred The Magdeburgians thus prosecute this Point Paul doth (10) Cent. â— l. â— c. 800 â—uâ—ne to Iames the Apostle and a Councell of the Presbyters being celebrated he is induced by Iames and theâ—est that for the offended Iewes he should parisy himselfe in the Temple to which Paulyieldeth which without doubt was no small slip in so eminent a Doctour Finally to oâ—â—â— the like condemnation giuen by our Reformist Whitaker the English Sectary thus hath left written It (11) De Eccles contra Bellar. controu â— q. 4. is manifest that after the descending of the Holy Ghost the Apostles erred in the Vocation of the Gentills And that Peter in like sort erred in manners touching the abrogation of the Ceremâ—â—â—all Law Now where can we find any Mahumetan or Turke all who condemne the Apostles to speake more vnworthily and debasing of them then these alledged Ghospellers haue done The 6. Symbolisme touching the Ghospells CHAP. VII TO proceed Touching the Scriptures which the Mahumetans and our new Gospellers do admit as pure and sacred the Saracens or Turks I euer meane the Mahumetans agree with the Lutherans in the manner reason and custome of Proceeding with the said Scriptures The sole Reason why the Mahumetans do not admit the New Testament as now it is though they allow of it they say as it was first giuen by Iesus pretending that it hath been corrupted iâ— because (1) Cuspin de relig Turcarum Septem-Castrensis de relig Turcaâ— the Sentences and authorities of the New Testement touching Christ are repugnant to their fayth first inâ—tiâ—uâ—ed by Sergius in the Alcoran so as they make their Mahumetan fayth to be a square where with to measure the Truth or falshood of the New Testament And do not out Euangelists runne in one and the same liue of proceeding According to this it is that Luther in the balancing of the foure Euangelists thus writeth Qui (2) Luth. tom 3. p. aefat in epist Petri. potismuÌ„ maiort prae cateris studio docent c. Such Euangelists are the chiefest who more carefully teach then other Euangetists doe that fayth in Christ only without our works doth make vs iust and in state of Saluation Thus Luther lesning the worth of the Euangelists according as they seeme more to impugne his conceyted doctrine of Iustification by fayth only Againe the Centurists in reiecting with Luther the Epistle of Iames giue this reason saying The Epistle of Iames is countrary to the doctrine of the Apostles because (3) Cent. 2. c. 4. p. â—6â— it maketh Abraham to be iustifyed not by fayth only but by Works In like manner Beza reiecteth those words as surreptitious in Luke 22. This is the Chalice the New Testament in my Bloud which shal be shed for you (4) Beza in annotat in â—a Lucae because as Beza sayth The words in the Greeke Copyes confirme the Reall Presence in the Sacrament Thus we obserue that both the Mahumetans and the Lutherans do iointly make the Religion which they professe the foundation oâ— ground-work why they do disauthorize such or such Bookes of Scripture not reputing them to be the Word of God A strange and retrograde proceeding for since fayth and Religion is to receaue its approbation from Scripture here with he Mahumetans and the Lutherans the Scripture is to take its force and authority from fayth it selfe that fayth I meane which euery particular Sectary whether Mahumetan or Lutheran shall in his owne priuat iudgment hould to be true The 7. Symbolisme Touching the Ancient Fathers CHAP. VIII FRom the authority of the Scripture let vs descend to the authority of the ancieÌ„t Fathers of the Church of God All whom we shall fynd to be equally reiected and contemned by the Mahumetans and the Lutherans Yea Luther his Offpring before they will lend a fauorable eare to those Sentinalls of Gods Church for the good of their owne soules will soner endanger their owne Saluation they bearing themselues therein with such desperate resolution wherewith Cato did of whom it is recorded Occidii se Cato ne diceretur Caesar me seruauit And first touching the Fathers We find Mahumet in his Alcorans thus to disualew them (1) Azoara 13. Increduli minime adoranies c. The Christians are incredulous not worshipping God when they are required to giue credit to the Commandements of God and to his Legate or Mesienger videlicet Mahumet for they say se nolle imitaâ—â—â— quicquam nisi quod Patres imitati sunt They will not iâ—ntate others in any thing but in what the Fathers haue imitated But to this is obiected Virum Patres non nisi veram fidem semper â—eâ—uerunt
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 â—uine the Rampiers Fortressâ—â— and Holds of the Enemy Now the Course here to be hâ—â—ldâ—n by me shall be this We obserue that if a Man be tould that he hath some spoâ—s vpon his face occasioned by any vnexpected meanes he presently hâ—iteth to a Glassâ— to see himselfe â—hâ—rin 〈◊〉 And if he find the blemisheâ— to appeare iâ— the Gâ—asse he then acknowledgeth the truth thereof and instantly seeketh to dry and wype them away The like I hâ—â—râ— counsel you to doe O you Hagenâ—â—s of France You are by me in this Treatise â—â—â—â—ged wiâ—â— dâ—ueâ—s â—oales and spoâ—s of Tâ—rcismâ— Glasse your selues in the Turkish Aâ—oran for so iâ— the Booke called wherein the Articles of the Turkish Fayth were first â—â—at downe Yâ— you find therein your owne blemiâ—â—â—s to be exhibited to your sight I meane if yoâ— find thereby that you doâ—â— part with 〈◊〉 Turks in belieâ—â—ng with them diâ—â—â—â— poâ—â—â— of their owne fayth diffeâ—enâ—ly from aâ—â— other Christians as by â—â—â—paâ—ing your Fayth with theirs you shall â—â—nd then â—â—bouâ— to abâ—â—erge all such deformity from the face of your Christian â—â—râ—â—eâ—â—â—on And thus you may make the Turkish â—lâ—â—â—aâ— in part the Gâ—asse of your present Religion The labour I here vndertake will 〈◊〉 suppose appeare in your â—â—dgâ—â—â—â—â—â— to 〈◊〉 â—ore then an Herâ—â—â—eâ—â— â—â—bour and moâ—â— difficultâ— to wiâ— to proue 〈◊〉 whoâ—â— youâ— Mayâ—ters feare 〈◊〉 to 〈…〉 (a) Apolog. Angliâ— God to eâ—â—gâ—â—â—â— the World (3) The Booke stiled Antichristus sâ—â—s Prognosticon sâ—â—is Muâ—di foreâ—â—◠〈…〉 the Scriptures and a (4) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aâ— also 〈◊〉 chiefe Senodâ—â—◠〈…〉 and others so much magnified by you to haue in many points of their fayth wholy ioyned themselues with Mahumet Christs mortall yea immortal Enemy Now if I do assume more in these words then I shall performe for I do expect this Treatise will he ouerlooked with many Aristarchian and censuring Eyes then let me become infamous to my owne Country and euen to the Professours of my owne Religion inglorious and despicable For the more cleare accomplishment of my vndertaken Scene I will not insist in the authority of Gods holy Writ as vnworthily and irreligiously deâ—orted by the pryde of ech of your Priuat spirit neither in any other kynd of proofes aboue rehearsed all which you behould with the eye of scorne and contempt but I will rest only in your chiefe Maisters owne words yet extant to be read in their Writings So as I may here say with our Sauiour De ore (5) Luâ— â—9 tuâ—â—e iudico Sâ—ruâ—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 recording the doctrine of the Turkish Alcoran Fayth you shall find them in many dogmaticall points for I say not in all most conspiringly to agree Non facies vnâ— nec diuersâ—â—amâ—n And thus your Religion may with some shew of reason be called Turkish Hugenotisâ—s or Hugenotish Tâ—rcisme Now whiles you â—â—ad their words in their Bookes remember that the Pennâ— is the soules secondary Tonque deliuering without voyce or sound its mentall Language 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 wondered that the great Turk as Manlius (6) In loc com pag. â—16 the Protestant relateth demaunding of the Christian Eâ—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) Luther tom â— Wittenb in aâ—â—ers damnas per Lâ—oâ—em Art 34. fol. 100. where we thus read Praeliari aduersus Turcas est repugâ—are Dâ—visâ—taâ—ti iâ—i quitates nostras â—eâ— illos against the Turke is to resist Gods visiting our Iniquities And more (8) Luth. in Explicat Art â—4 He that hath eares let him heare and abstaine from the Turkish Warrs whiâ—â— 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) Luc. â—3 sunt aâ—ticâ— Herâ—des Pilatâ—s But to returne to the Treatise I haue entituâ—ed it Luthers Alcoran not because Luther did particularly first dogmatize all the points wherein the Nouellists of these tymes conspire with the Turke and Mâ—â—â—â—â—t but in that he did first broach many of them And the râ—â—t were after taught by Swinglius Caluin Beza and others all Luthers Proselyâ—s and schollers and all descending originally from the Ioynes of Luther Now the denomination of a thing is commonly taken à praestantiorâ— And according hereto throughout this Treatise I take the words Lutheran and Lutheranâ—sme in a generall sense as comprehending all the followers of Luther and such doctrines as were first taught by Luther or after by his followers 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 Swingiâ—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 indissoluble knot of doctrine shall you find in many points betweene these two sects Therefore you must be forced either to abandon Lutherranisme or by imbracing of it withall to imbâ—ace Turcisme and Mahuinetisme What griefe then is it that our noble Country should be conâ—aminated and defiled with such pitch of Blasphemies in this Treatise discouered O Blessed Lewis once King of France Great â—eretofore in Empire and Domination Greater in Vertue and deâ—â—oâ—â—oâ— but now Greatest in thy fruition of the light of the Allmighty since thou now be houldest him Non tanquam (10) 1. Cor. 293 Speculum in enigmars bâ—â—â— facie ad scieno and him all things lntuitiuely Looke vpon France thy deare Country where thou didst once â—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 standâ— not compatible with any griefe or sorrow in regard of the Conformity of thy Will to the Diuine Will and permission of the Highest neuerthelesse since Thou and all other Saints now reigning with thee in Heauen through your Scraphicall Charity are become Aduocats
Whether the Fathers did euer hould the true faych Thus Mahumet in his Alcoran But now let vs see how Luther and the Lutherans euen tread vpon the ancient Fathers with greater contempt of Words and contumelies then euer Mahumet did To begin with Luther who in these words dischargeth his shot against the Fathers in generall The (2) Luth tom 2. Wittenb an 1551. lib. de seruo arbitrio Fathers of so many Centuries haue beene blind and most vnskilfull in the Scriptures and if they did not correct and alter themselues before they dyed they were neither Holy men nor belonging to the Church But Luther comming to censure particular Fathers even shooteth hayle-shot against them in this manner In the writings (3) Luther in colloquijs mensalibus cap de Patribus Ecclesia of Ierome there is not a word of true Fayth in Iesuâ— Christ and per fect Religion Tertullian is very superstirious I am persuaded that Origen was long since accursed I make small rekoning of Chrysostome Basill is not to be much regarded he is wholy and meerely 〈◊〉 Monke I prize him not of a barre Cyprian is but a shallow and weake deuine Finally against Austin and Cyprian he thus vaunteth I (4) Lutherâ—â—m 1. contra Regeâ—â— Angliafol 344. care not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians opposed themselues against me With Luther to omit the like censures of other Lutherans Melanctâ—on runneth in full chase thus baâ—king Presently (5) Melanth in 1. Cor. c. 3. from the Infancy of the Church the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerting Iustification by fayth augtriented Ceremonyes and coyned peculiar Worships O how distant in the iudgment of these Nouelists who haue bouche ouuerie gorge desployà e an open mouch and full of gause from the iudgment of S. Austin deliueredin this his Sentence Quod (6) Aug. to J. contra Iâ—â—lian l. 1. c. 5. Patres credunt credo quod tenent teneo acquiesce istis requiesce à me The 8. Symbolisme Touching generall Councells CHAP. IX AS Mahumet reiected the Fathers in particular so also he reiected the authority of the ancient CouÌ„cells consisting of many hundred Fathers gathered together in one place for the disquisition and search of Truth in matter of Religion According to this my Assertion we find no mention of any authority ascribed to Generall Councells to be made in the Alcorans Neither would Mahumet admit the authority of any one Councell celebrated either before or in his dayes euen betrampling with contempt the first Councell (1) Septemcastrens defide relig Turcarum of Nice which was about some three hundred yeares before the being of Mahumet since by that Councell his blasphemy of denying Christ who is God before all time but Man in tyme to be God the Sonne of God was particularly condemned How do our Aduersaries compart with Mahumet in contemning all Councells For doth not (2) Brent in Apol. Confes Wittem cap. de Concilijs Brentius charge euen the said Councell of Nice with seuerall Errours In like sort Caluin a ftirmed that the Fathers of that Councell were (3) Caluin de verae Ecclesreformat inter opuscul pag. 480. fanaticall Musculus that they were (4) Musculus in loc com de Ministrâ—s p. 19â— Ã Satana in stigati But Vâ—banus Regius the Protestant insimulateth all generall Councells within this his Censute Quod omnia (5) Vrb. Reg. 1. part oper in inter pret loc com de Ecclesia fol. 51. Concilia parniâ—â—â—â—â— lapsa sunt luce clarius est It is more câ—earâ— then the sunne that all Councells haue most fowly erred And Beza sortably maintayneth that Primis (6) Beza in his preface of the New Testam anno 1587. isque optimis Ecclesia temporibus Satan Episcoporum coeâ—â—â—â—bus praefuit Euen in the very first and best times Satan did gouerne and preside ouer the Councells and Bishops But Peter Martyr to the end he would not be short to his former Brethren in so pious a worke thus sharpeneth his rafory tongue against all Councells in generall (7) Peter Marâ— l de votis pag. 47â— At long as we insist in generall Councells so long we shall continue in the Papists Errours Did euer any Child beare greater resemblance in face to his Father then our Euangelists do carry to Mahumet in doctrine herein Thus we find that though the Errour of contemning Generall Councells in these our tymes be not properly Luthers yet it is of Luther I meane defended by those who are the descendents of Luther So litle do these New Brethren regard the words of the Euangelist recorded of the Councell of the Apostles and implicitly of all other lawfull Generall Councells Visum (8) Act. 15. est spiritui Sancto Nobis The 9. Symbolisme Concerning Traditions CHAP. X. MAhumet and his followers ascribe such perfection to the Alcoran as that they (1) Cusantis in cribatione Alcorain l. 1. 2. Richardus Ordiâ—is Praedicat in confutat legis Saracen made it the boundaâ—y of their Religion belieuing or giuing credit to nothing which was not found expresly set downe therein not performing any thing not written therein So much they sleighted the force of all Traditions though most ancient And hereupon we find an Authour in these patricular words to discourse of this point Est in Turcarum (2) Beinbus â—â—slor Vâ—gnet l. 4. legibus vt quae sua lingua scripta non sunt ea praestari non est necesse And do not our New Euangelists so admirt the written Word of God and yet but that of the written Word which themselues hould for his Word at that they euen spit at all Traditions which haue not their expresse warrant from the said Word Vpon this ground their maine Throrame is That nothing is to be belieued but what the Scripture euidently teacheth And therefore whereas S. Basill sayth Some (3) Basil de spiritu Sancto c. 27. things we haue from Scripture other things from the Apostles Traditions both which haue like force to godlines as also whereas Epiphanius writeth We (4) Epiphan haeres 61. must vse Traditions for the Scripture hath not all things and therefore the Apostles deliuered certaine things by wryting and certaine by Tradition Now I say these Sentences are so displeasing to Reynoldus an English Protestant as that he thus speaketh of these two foresaid Fathers I (5) Reynoldus in his Conclusions or Thesibus take not vpon me to correct them but let the Church iudge if they haue weighed this point with aduice and consideration In like manner whereas Chrysostome most clearely speaketh in defence of Traditions in this sort The (6) In 2. Thessâ—l Homil 4. Apostles did not deliuer all things by Wryting but many things without writing and these later are to be as much credited as the former doth not Whitakerus condemne this sentence in the dialect of his said brother and Countriman Reynoldus
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 transported my Penne. The 11. Symbolisme That Mahumetisme and Lutheranisme are ingendred of ancient Heresyes CHAP. XII TO passe further (1) Melanth l. 3. Illyric in Apolog. Melancthon Illyricus Bibliander and others affirme thus in expresse Words Alcoranus ex veteribus Haeresibus consuitur The Turkish Alcoran is wouen or sewed together of the Old Heresies This these Protestants did affirme because they perceaued that Mahumes and Sergius did hould certaine opinions condemned for Heresyes by athanasius Austin Ierome Gregory and other ancient Orthodoxall Fathers Thus the Alcoran denieth the Trinity with (2) Prateolâ—â—â—n 〈◊〉 Blench Haeresil 11â— c. 3â— Sabellius It reacheth 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 Manichees that Christ was not crucified with the Donatists it denieth many Sacraments and the Church Now the reason why Melancthon Illyricus Bibliander and others hould these opinions of the former men to be Heresyes is in that they were condemned for Heresies by Athanasius Austin Ierome Gregory and finally by the consent of the whole Primitiue Church of those dayes Here then I say that it is an inexpugnable Truth that many Article of Fayth belieued 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 â—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 engendred and compounded of diuers ancient comdemned Heresies though not altogether of the same Heresies If then Mahumetisme 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 incâ—rse I meane that they do agree in this particular 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 anathematized by the former ancient and learned Fathers is so easily accomplished as that seing the proofe thereof ought to preuaile much with any Man not blinded with Preiudice I haue therefore seposed a short Appendix annexed to this Treatise for the demoÌ„strating 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 altogether with the fayth of the Mahumetans Saracens and Turks so this subsequent Appendix I may well terme your Second Glasse as I haue intimated elswhere which will exhibite to you the face of the ancient Heresyes condemned by the Church of God for such and yet the same Heresies are now entertayned and belieued by you of the reformed 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) Wisdom c. 7. 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 vpon the face of your New presumed Ghospell The 12. Symbolisme Touching the Plantation of Mahumetisme and Lutheranisme 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 maÌ„ner do proceed after one and the same way in plantation of their Religions And First for the greater honoring forsooth of both their Commings and Vocations there must be certaine Passages of Holy Scripture detorâ—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) Vide Azoara 58. Sergius and the Mahumetans to expound a great part of the twenty eight Chapter of Deuteronomy of Mahumet wherin are expressed the benedictions giuen to good men They also expound that Passage (2) Math. 13. Marc. 4. 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 incestuous Monke Luther I meane by misapplication of certaine texts of Scripture For Illyricus (3) Illyric in Apoc. 14. maintayneth that Luther was prophesied in that place of the Apocalyps to wit of the three Angells flying through the middest of the Heauens and prophesying And other (4) Couradus Schlusselb in Theolog. Caluinist l. 2. fol. 124. Lutherans are not afraid to auerre that Luther was the chiefe Angell flying through the middest of the Heauens hauing the eternall 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 conspired 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) Cuspiu de Religionâ— Turcarum writeth that Mahumat as himselfe said was sent by God Vt doctrinam ab Apostolorunâ— discipulis corrupâ—am alcorano sue emâ—ndarâ—t That he â—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 Primitiâ—e Church for superstitious as aboue I shewed I l fur si effronté esbonté he was so impudent and shamelesse as that he assumeth the correcting of their Errours and replanting the true fayth of Christ to himselfe in this manner speaking most ambitiously Non sinam (2) Luther tom 2. contrâ— Regem Aâ—â—â—â—â— fol. 344. Angeloâ— de mea doctriâ—a iudicare I will not suffer the Angells to iudge of my doctrine And againe Gods (3) Luther â—â—idemâ— Work maketh for