LUTHERS ALCORAN Being  
A Treatise first written in French by the Learned Cardinal Peron, of famous memory, against the Huguenots of France.  
And translated into English by N. N. P.  
The Page following showeth the particular Contents of the Book.  
Which consisteth of 

Symbolismes.  
Parallels.  
Identities.    
Prophet● ciu● vesam, Vir● 〈◊〉  Sophon. cap. 3. 
Imprinted with Licence MDC. X●●●.   

This Treatise is devied into two Parts.  
IN the first Part is showed, that Lutheranism agreeth with Mahumetism, or Turkism, in Forty points, concerning Faith and Religion: which here are called, so many Symbolismes.  
In the second Part, are compared twenty Points of faith, and other Accessories thereof, differently believed by the Mahometans or Turks, and the Lutherans. In the which it is proved, that Lutheranism (which is the Religion of the Huguenots in France) semees to be no more (if not less) warrantable and justifiable, than Mahumetism: and these Comparisons are called, Parallels.  
Hereunto is adjoined a short Appendix, called the Huguenots second Looking Glass, wherein is demonstrated, that threescore Articles touching Faith, and other Circumstances thereof were condemned for heresies, in the ancient Heretics, by the Primitive Church. All which 60. Points without any difference, are now believed by the Lutherans and Caluinists of these days, for Evangelicall doctrine. And these (as varying in no sort from those former condemned) are here termed, Jdentities.  Tam invitus Turcam gladio invaderem quàm Christianum fratrem. Luther. inconfut. Doctorum Paris. Plustost Tures, que Papaux. 
This was the French Mot, insculpted in the Hollanders Ensigns of War, at their first Rebellion: They meaning thereby, that they ha● rather become Turks, than Papists.   

The Epistle of the Translator, to the Puritan Reader.  
You, who are vulgarly called Puritans, may here see, that I have taken some pains in translating a Treatise, first written in French, by the learned Cardinal Peron (a man of worthy Memory) against the Huguenots of his own Country, entitled Luther's Alcoran. The reason of my translating it, is the Affinity, or rather Identity of the Religion of the Huguenots in France, with the Religion of the English Puritans. Therefore if this Treatise do justly condemn the Huguenots of France, I refer to the judgement of the learned, whether it may not seem to involve within the like Censure, the Puritans of England,  
Such English Protestants, as be more moderate, and learned, this Work in no sort concerns; For it is known & confessed, that the more sober, learned, and retired English Protestant, doth hold (among others) these Points, and Articles following with us Catholics, & against the Puritans: To wit, He holds the Churches ever Visibility; That, Christians dying in the Church and faith of Rome, may be saved: He holdeth that Christ descended into Hell: He holdeth Freewill, Universality of Grace; That Christ's bodily death (without his suffering in Soul) is sufficient for the Redemption of mankind: He holdeth, That God doth not decree sin, but only suffereth it; That temporal punishment is to be inflicted by God (to satisfy his justice) after the sin is remitted; That the Pope is not Antichrist; That Bishops are not Antichristian; That Ecclesiastical Ministers do truly forgive sins, and not only pronounce the forgiveness of them: That Baptism may be performed by Lay Persons in time of Necessity▪ That there is no extraordinary Vocation to the Ministry in these days: That in case of Adultery, the innocent Party may not marry again: Finally (to om●● some others), He holdeth Confirmation, the lawful Use of the Cross in Baptism, and doth defend the Honour of the Imm●●●a●e Virgin, the Mother of God: divers of which Points (maintained by the more moderate and ●●terate Protestants wi●h us Catholics) are in this en●uing Treastise defended by the Cardinal, against the Huguenots of France. Thus we see, that this Treatise, neither through its own Contents, not through the suspicious and wrongful surmise of others, can take just hold of such learned, and grave English Protestants.  
But to return more particularly to the Book. This Treatise of Cardinal Peron, was printed in French, not many months before the death of the said Cardinal, during which short time (I then being in France) some few Copies were spread abroad. Presently upon his death (as it was for certain reported) some Hugenot Ministers of Rochel, & the places near adjoining, through the Benevolence of their followers, did buy up all the Press than left undiwlged, and burned the copies. Whether it hath been reprinted since, I know not: But if it hath not been, I cannot, but blame the want of zeal in the French Catholics, as to suffer a Work of so eminent a man of their own Country, to lie wholly buried. Thus ceasing to enlarge myself any further, but thinking it convenient to acquaint the Reader with these Particulars, I remit this small Book to the diligent perusal of You English Precisians, and rest  
Your Christian friend, N. N. P.   


The Preface of the Author. CHAP. I.  
MY Dear Countrymen of France. You, who vauntingly style yourselves, De la Religion reformée, and, De la way● Eglise de jesus Christ; of the reformed Religion, and of the true Church of jesus Christ, (thus laying for your own Honour, such specious and fair colours upon the foul grain of your own Faith:) You (I say) cannot be ignorant (I presume) how I have endeavoured by my particular congress with divers of your Religion, as also by my several Writing● (according to my ability) to pull you out of the mire of your present Errors (too mild a word) your present Heresies (yet over languide) your present Blasphemies; but all in vain.  
For when I drew forth my proofs from the ●orce of Reason (bearing in Man's soul the stamp of Gods own 
(1) Genes. i● ●aciamus bomin●m ad ima●inem nostram.  Seal) from the authorities of the Ancient Fathers, from Ecumenical Counsels, from the long hand of time, and unnitermittee. Apostolical Tradition, from the stupendious miracles exhibited for greater confusion of your Innovations; and lastly from the most sacred, and inviolable authority of God's holy Written Word; You to all this give us this yawning, and heedless answer: To wit, that the private Spirit of och of the Faithful (among which number, you ambitiously range yourselves) is to balance and poise the weight of all the forsaid proofs; and even to Oracle forth the meaning of the holy Ghost in the said Venerable Scriptures. O Circulation strange, and incredible! For you hereby do advance the private judgement of Monsieur Plessis Mornay (heretofore my Antagonist, and a great Arch of your Church) of Monsieur Casanbon, Monsieur de Mo●in, or some other such obscure Terrae filius, above all authorities, above all Tribunals, above all seats of judicature: Which Private spirit. & prejudice of judgement in you, are the Remor●'s, or lets, staying and flowing you from further sailing into the deepest Mysteries of Christianity.  
Therefore seeing this former Course of disputing can prevail nothing with you, ●●am at this time forced to proceed another way, and to imitate that General in the Wars, who bendeth his forces, not to strengthen and fortify his own Cities, castles, and Forts (as not standing in need of any such defence) but to demolish and ●uine the Rampires, Fortress●●, and Holds of the Enemy. Now the Course here to be h●●ld●n by me, shall be this.  
We observe, that if a Man be told, that he hath some spots upon his face, occasioned by any unexpected means, he presently h●iteth to a Glassy, to see himself ●h●rin 〈◊〉 And if he find the blemishe● to appear i● the Grass, he than acknowledgeth the truth thereof, and instantly seeketh to dry, and wipe them away. The like I h●●r● counsel you to do (O you Hagen●●s of France.) You are by me in this Treatise ●●●●ged wi●● deuers ●oales, and spots of Turkism; Glass yourselves in the Turkish A●oran (for so i● the Book called, wherein the Articles of the Turkish Faith were first ●●at down.) Y● you find therein your own blemishes to be exhibited to your sight; I mean, if yo● find thereby, that you do●● part with 〈◊〉 Turks, in believing with them di●●●● po●●● of their own faith, differently from a●● other Christians (as by ●●●pa●ing your Faith with theirs you shall ●●nd,) than ●●bou● to absterge all such deformity from the face of your Christian ●●r●●e●●●on? And thus you may make the Turkish ●l●●●a●, in part, the Grass of your present Religion.  
The labour I here undertake will (〈◊〉 suppose) appear in your ●●dg●●●●●● to 〈◊〉 ●ore than an Her●●●e●● ●●bour; and mo●● difficulty to wi●, to prove 〈◊〉 who●● you● Masters fear 〈◊〉 to 〈…〉 
(a) Apolog. Angli●.  God to e●●g●●●● the World 
(3) The Book styled, Antichristus, s●●s Prognosticon s●●is Mu●di.  fore●●● 〈…〉 the Scriptures, and a 
(4) 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 a● also 〈◊〉 chief Senod●●●, 〈…〉, and others (so much magnified by you) to have in many points of their faith, wholly joined themselves with mohammed, Christ's mortal, yea immortal Enemy. Now, if I do assume more in these words, than I shall perform (for I do expect this Treatise will he overlooked with many Aristarchian, and censuring Eyes) then let me become infamous to my own Country, and even to the Professors of my own Religion, inglorious, and despicable.  
For the more clear accomplishment of my undertaken Scene. I will not insist in the authority of God's holy Writ, (as unworthily, and irreligiously de●orted by the pride of each of your Private spirit;) neither in any other kind of proofs above rehearsed (all which you behold with the eye of scorn, and contempt,) but I will rest only in your chief Masters own words, yet extant to be read in their Writings: So as I may here say with our Saviour, De ore 
(5) Lu●. ●9.  tu●●e iudico, S●ru●nequaem. For, but read their Sentences by me alleged, and compare them with the words of the Alcoran, and with the words of divers Authors, recording the doctrine of the Turkish Alcoran & faith, you shall find them in many dogmatic points (for I say not in all) most conspiringly to agree: Non facies vn●, nec diuers●●am●n— And thus your Religion may with some show of reason be called, Turkish Hugenotis●s, or Hugenotish Turkism.  
Now whiles you ●●ad their words in their Books, remember, that the Penn● is the souls secondary Tonque▪ delivering without voice, or sound, its mental 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 refer you to the impartial Witnesses of your own Eyes. And in regard of this great consociation and affinity of Luther's doctrine with Turkism, it is less to be wondered, that the great Turk▪ (as Manlius 
(6) In loc. come. pag. ●16.  the Protestant relateth) demanding of the Christian Emperors Ambassador, of what years Luther was, wished he had been younger, and promised him to be his good Lord. In retaliation of which proffered kindness we may presume, that Luther was more easily invited to write thus in the Turks favour: To war 
(7) Luther, tom. ●. Wittenb. in a●●ers. damnas. per L●o●em. Art, 34. fol. 100 where we thus read: Praeliari adversus Turcas est repug●are D●vis●ta●ti i●i, quitates nostras ●e● illos.  against the Turk is to resist Gods visiting our Iniquities And more: 
(8) Luth. in Explicat. Art. ●4.  He that hath ears, let him hear, and abstain from the Turkish Wars, whi●● the Pope's name prevaileth under Heaven. O sacred and holy friendship, contracted between the Turk and Luther: And thus by allusion we may here say: Facti 
(9) Luc. ●3.  sunt a●tic●, Her●des & Pilat●s.  
But to return to the Treatise. I have entitled it, Luther's Alcoran; not because Luther did particularly first dogmatise all the points, wherein the Novellists of these times conspire with the Turk, 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 Luther's Prosely●s and scholars; and all descending originally from the joins of Luther. Now the denomination of a thing is commonly taken à praestantior●: And according hereto, throughout this Treatise, I take the words, Lutheran, and Lutheranism in a general 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 have reference only to those men, who more peculiarly swear fealty to Luther, and to Luther's doctrine, in some points different from that or the Swingi●ans, and the Caluinists.  
Here I will demand after your diligent perusal of this small Work; is Turkism 〈◊〉 false religion? How then can Hugenotisme be true? Is Hugenotisme a true Religion? How then can Turkism be false? Such an indissoluble knot of doctrine shall you find in many points between these two sects▪ Therefore you must be forced either to abandon Lutherranisme, or by embracing of it, withal to embrace Turkism, and Mahuinetisme. What grief then is it, that our noble Country should be contaminated, and defiled with such pitch of Blasphemies, in this Treatise discovered?  
O Blessed Lewis, once King of France; Great ●eretofore in Empire, and Domination; Greater in Virtue and de●●o●●o●; but now Greatest in thy fruition of the light of the Almighty; since thou now be houldest him, Non tanquam 
(10) 1. Cor. 293  Speculum in enigmars, b●●● fancy ad scieno; and him all things lntuitively; Look upon France thy dear Country (where thou didst once ●ow the care of Soveraingty;) See, how it is torn asunder touching matters of faith, with Apostasy, and through a most strict combination in saith, with mohammed, Christ's open Enemy▪ I know well, that the felicity of thy present State stands not compatible with any grief, or sorrow, in regard of the Conformity of thy Will, to the Divine Will, and permission of the Highest; nevertheless since Thou, and all other Saints now reigning with thee in Heaven, through your Scraphicall Charity are become Advocates for us poor miserable Worms, during our exile in this Vale of Misery, forbear not the● to pour out daily thy Vills of jucense (A mean thy Prayers) before his divine Majesty; Besiege his eats with thy vninterrupted Orisons, that so he would be pleased to withdraw his scourne from this one most dear Country; and that he would mollify the obdurate Hates of those men therein, who introduce Novelty, under the tecture of Truth, and change Christ his Gospel into the Turkish Alcoran. Pray (O pray) most glorious Saint, that his our famous Idation may be wholly induced & brought bacl to that Apostolical and Prim●●●● Eayth, which then reigned in it when tho●●ignedst over it; it th●●● 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 Moon (as it were) of its own resplendent Honour.  
But to recall myself: It seems to me, I perceive some of you (Hugeno●s) who are plus five, que religueux, more subtle, then religious, looking upon these leaves with the eye of livour and malignity; saying, the indignity and wrong, by comparing our reformed Religion with Mahumetism, or Turkism is infus●●●●ble; since we believe in Christ, in the Trinity, the Writings of the New Testament, that there are the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lords supper etc. from all which the Turks do disclaim. To this I answer several Ways.  
First I compare you with the Turks in some Points only of your saith, not in all: Therefore the comparison here made is no further to be extended, then is by me intended. Secondly, I grant, you believe these supreme Points in general, but you have commonly annexed in your belief of them so much poison, touching some Circumstances of the said Mysteries, as that it hath vitiated, and corrupted the whole Ma●te of your Belief, and then that saying, here holdeth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, False belief is plainly worse, than misbelief, or Infidelity.  
Thirdly, I make a Comparison in this Treatise, only of Hugenotisme or Protestancy, with Turkism: But the former sublime Articles of Christian Religion you do not believe, as you are Hugen●ts, or Protestants, but only as Catholics, or at the most as Christians; since from our Catholic Church only you receive your belief of them. For thus Luther acknowledgeth: We 
(11) Luther contra Anabaptist.  confess, that under the Papacy there is most of the Christian Good, yea rather all the Christian Good, and that from thence it came to us. And Whitakerus (a Protestant Doctor of England) saith no less in these his Words: The 
(12) De Eccles. p. 36●.  Papists have the Scriptures, and Baptism etc. And these came to us from them.  
Now, these former Points (I say) you believe not as Protestants, or as Professors of your reformed Religion. The reason hereof being, because you are Protestants in respect (and not otherwise) of your Denial of the affirmative Catholic Points, whereby you divide yourselves from the Catholic Roman Church; as in denying the Sacrifice of the Altar, Prayer for the dead, praying to Saints, Peter's Supremacy, and his Successors etc. Finally in denying other positive, and affirmative Articles of our Catholic Religion, wherein by such your denial you descent from us; And in regard of your first Masters protesting to deny the said Points, according to their Confession of Faith exhibited at Augusta, they were then first styled Protestants, as your own Sleidan 
(13) Sleidan. l. c. fol. 8●.  and other Protestant 
(14) O●iander in Epit. C●●●●. 10. pag.  History graphers have recorded. And thus far in solution of your former suggested Crimination (if any of you should suggest it) and in further warrant of my undertaken Mothed in this Treatise.  
It may by further viged by some of you (especially of such as be illiterate) that you do not give your consent, and belief to such blasphemous doctrines, wherein your Grand-marster do agree with Mahumet, and the Turk; yea that you do not, as much as hear of some of these their agreements, or of the wicked Positions, where with Luther, Swinglius, Caluin, and such others stand charged in this Treatise; and that therefore it is iniustide and wrong in me, to in simulate you within the belief of such impious doctrines, I take away this your poor Evasion in this sort: I grant it may be true, that you have not heard of many wicked Tenets of your own Brethren, produced hereafter by me; nevertheless you with an involved, and implicit Faith do believe them to be ●●●e.  
The reason hereof is, because you give in gross such affiance and credit to Luther, Swinglives &c. as that what Religion they have 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 believe other Protestanticall points to be true, only by reason of the authority of your ●●st Masters teaching them you are therefore by force of the same authority, to believe what false doctrines soever your foresaid Instructours have disgorged out in the it Writings; since they were warranted with the pretext of equal security of not erring in all their writings. And therefore hence I conclude, that every one of you, who do acknowledge Luther, and the rest here alleged, for your prime Catechizers or Doctors in your saith, doth stand guilty of all their blasphemies vented out by them, in that by force of the reason above delivered, you potentially, and implicitly believe the said blasphemies. Thus farre hereof.  
Well I will draw to an end of this my Fieface (which shall serve in place of a formal Epistle Dedicatory) putting you in mind, that your Proge●itours have so comported themselves in their first stamping the Principles of their faith as that they may be said partly to stand in competency with Mahumet, and Sergius (Mahumets Scribe, or Penman) whether should transcend, and surpass the one the other in impiety of doctrine. A miserable Emulation!  
One thing yet before I end, I will add; which is, if it can be proved, that you of the Reformed Religion do partake but in any one point only (as I will make it evident; that you do in forty) with the Turks, differently from the belief of all true Christians, and of God's Vniverfall Church, (you by this means declining, le grand chemin battu de la foy Catholic, & Orthodox, the high beaten way of the Catholic, and orthodoxal saith) than it clearly followeth that your faith cannot be perfect, and sufficient to Salvation. For faith is supernatural; and infallible; But who erreth in any one point of faith (since such a Man relieth not upon God revealing, and the Church propounding, the two necessary Means for the obtaining of a true & profitable faith:) This man (I say) may possibly err in any other point; and then by necessary inference he cannot be a Member of the true Church; for to speak in S. Cyprians Dialect: 
(15) Cyprian. lib. do Vnita. te Ecclesiae.  Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi; incorrumpta est & pudica.  
Now with this I refer you to the perusal of this discourse, wherein I do apply to the diseases of your soul, Paracelsian Physic (as I may say) since the Ingredients thereof will either (perhaps) presently cure you, or presently dispatch you; for upon your reading and serious pondering of it, it may be, you will shake of your present faith of Hugenotisme, or else (which God prevent) willbe more corroborated in Mahumetism; so precipitating yourselves into the infernal Abysm of miscreancy, and Infidelity.  
ja. Card. Peron▪   

Of the Method holden in this Treatise. CHAP. II.  
THe prescribed Method, which I intent to take in these ensuing leaves, is first, to exemplify in many particular Articles of Belief, wherein Mahumet and the Turks do agree with Luther and the Lutherans; concerning which I am to prefix this Caution. To wit, that as by Luther, and the word Lutheran, I understand also the Swinglians, and the Caluinists, (though I grant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and abusive) seeing they all originally were begot by Luther, though now through tract or time they be branched forth into several distinct families: So in like manner I take these words following promiscuously; I mean, Mahumet, Sergius, the Mahumetaus, the Saracens, the Turks, Mahumetism, Saracen●sme, and Turkism; all comprehending one and the same Religion, first sprung by mohammed and Sergius, and only varying in appellation through diversity of Places, & Time's.  
Well then to proceed. This Agreements of Mahumetism and Lutheranism, I call Symbolisme. This Word Symbolisme is taken from natural Philosophy, where it is peculiarly applied to the agreements of several Elements in several qualities: Thus the Air (for example) in its heat Sy●holizeth, and agreeth with the fire; in its moisture, with the Water. After I have displayed forty Points (most of them Articles of faith, and the rest necessary Circumstances, attending the Turkish, and Lutheran Religion) wherein these two Religions do conspire and agree, I then in the second Part of this Treatise do particularise twenty Points of faith, and inferences, or deductions from thence, in which I compare the Lutherans with the Mahometans, or Turks; wherein it is made evident, that the Positions, and Articles of the Lutherans, and their answerable practice of them are at least equal, if not more wicked, and less justifiable by force of all Reason, than the contrary Tenets of the Mahometans, and Turks. These my librations and waighing of these several Points I term Parallels; because I compare together the said Points or Articles, as severally maintained by them; as also I compare together the several first Inventors' of Mahumetism, and Lutheranism.  
After the end of both these two Parts of this Treatise, I subnect (as an Appendix) a Discourse, which may serve, as a Second Glass to you of the Reformed Religion, wherein you may behold threescore of your own Positions or dogmatic Points of faith, and other Accessories thereof, to have been wholly condemned for Heresies, by the ancient Fathers of Christ's Primitive Church; and the maintainers of them to have been branded, and anathematised for cursed Heretics. These wicked Positions I call in this place, so many Identitio●●; seeing they are the same erroneous doctrines without any variation, heretofore exploded for old Heresies, and now embraced of new, and revived by our Sectmaisters of these days. Now by all these several Passages of this little Work, we may observe, that although the true Church of Christ hath been forced to be embroiled with Mahumetism; and anciently condemned Heresies; yet she never partaked with Mahumetism, or the said Heresies in any one point of their Wicked Paradoxes; no more than Eternity, though it coexisteth with the time past, and the time future, is neither the time past, nor the Time 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 Reprovall) often the words, Protestancy, and Protestant, in this discourse, and Appendix, my meaning is, that thereby I understand, and take Protestancy only for such points of faith, which the more earnest, violent, and fiery Protestants and Calainists maintain (this their doctrine being the same with Hugenotisme, and the believers of it, the same with you Huguenots) not extending these two former words to such Articles of faith, or to the Professors thereof, which the more learned, grave, and sober Protestants do hold and believe.   

The Particular Passages of the Alcoran, alleged in this Treatise, according to the Order, as they do occur in this Book: Of which Passages divers are several times upon several occasions repeated, and urged. And here 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. etc. CHAP. III.  

Azoara 5. DEus pius, & misericors, priùs Testamentum Vetus (videlicet legem Moysis & Psalterium) demceps Euangelium, rectas Vias hominibus tradidit.  
Azoara 13. Increduli, & minime Deum (videlicet absque Filio & Spiritu Sancto) adorantes, cum postulantur praeceptis à Deo positis, suoque legate (Mahumeti) fidem adhibere; Aiunt se nolle quicquam mutari, nisi quod Patres imitati sunt. Quibus tamen fit Obiectio: Vtrum Patres semper non nisi rectam sidem tenuerunt?  
Azoara 1. Sciendum est geveraliter, quoniam omnis rectè ●iuens, benique gestor; judaeus, seu Christianus, seu l●ge sua relicta in aliam tendens; Omnis scilicet Deum adorans, indubitanter divinum amorem assequetur.  
Azoara 61.62. & seqq. Per Ventos inflantes, & Nubes, & Naves aequore currentes, & Angelos Nuncios; per montem Sinai, & domum superné aedificatam; per stellam respertinam; per stellas retrogradas, & combustas; per noctem, & auroram iuro, quod non sum Daemoniacus, 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, Deum esse dicunt, cum ipse Dominus dicat; In Dominum Deum meum, & vestrum credit.  
Azoara 19 Confundat Deus Christianos qui Mariae filium loco Dei venerantur; cùm ipsis praeceptum sit, non nisi unum Deum venerari.  
Azoara 12. & 20. judaei Mariae blasphemiam, & immoderatam contumeliam inferunt, dum eius filium, Christum Dei nuncium se interemisse perhiben: Eum enim nequ●quam, sed alterum ei similem interfecerunt; quia Deus incomprehensibilis & sapiens, cum ad se migrare fecit.  
Azoara 27.28. Deus est substantia necessario existens, cui impossibile est, ut naturam aliunde natuetur.  
Azoara 4.9. & 53. Constanter dic illis Christianis, Deum unum esse necessariò omnibus, qui nec genuit, nec generatus est; nec habet quicquam simile.  
Azoara 13. O jesis fili Mariae, tu persuades hominibus, ni te, matremquetuam, duos Deos habeant, & venerentur.  
Azoara 8. Vnore quotiescumque placuerit, duas scilicet, tres, aut quatuor ducite &c nisi timueritis eas nullatenus pacificare posse; Cum contingerit vobis eas non diligere, unam pro alia mutare licet.  
Azoara 5.11. jesus Mariae filius, fuit Dei Nuncius, & Spiritus, & verbum Dei caelitus immissum; Cui Dei legato omnes debent credere.  
Azoara 12. jesus fuit Sapientia, & Verbum Patris, & Messiah, & Princeps; Fuit Dei Spiritus, & mens, principumque, & Capus ommum ho●●num.  
Azoara 31. Omnium mulierum optimae Mariae, abomnibus intactae, animam suam Deus insufflavit.  
Azoara 31. Spiritus Dei intravit Mariam, & jesum ex ca genuit.  
Azoara 76. Maria aliquid inali, sive malitiae non operatae est.  
Azoara 5. Maria fuit omnibus utris, & mulieribus splendidior, & mundior, & purior; solique Deo perseveranter student.  
Azoara 4. Angelui Gabriel ad Virginem Mariam a Deo missus est, narraturus ●am (quamquam Virginem) Dei tam●n Omnipotentia filium concepturam.  
Azoara 43. Omnes mulieres tuae manui per emptionem suppositas, & Amitae tuae▪ Materteraque filias; Omnes item bonas mulieres tibi volenti gratis succumberé cupientes, licitas constituimus.  
Azoara 10. De Dei promissionibus in Lege, & Euangeli● propositis, non est disputandum.  
Azoara 20. Emina, mater Mahumetis, testabatur filium Mahumetem nec in utero, nec in partu vlli●● sibi dolorem fecisse.  
Azoara 74. Nuntium vobis affero, de Nuntio post me venturo, cui nomen Mahumetus.  
Azoara 63. Tanti spatij interuallo, quantum sagitta his discurreret.  
Azoara 54.65.66. In Paradiso fideles habebunt hortos, & fontes, vestientur sericis & purpura; puellas habebunt cum oculis claris & immensis, quorum ●lbugines candidissimae, & pupillae nigerrimae.   
Thus far of these passages of the Alcoran; where it is to be observed, that one and the same Azoara, is upon different occasions several times alleged, as above I advertized. And it is to be further observed, that besides the forsaid Passages of the Alcoran above alleged, there are also produced many Testimonies, and Authorities of several grave Writers, whose Books treat of the Alcoran, or of the Religion, Manners, and Customs of the Turks or Mahometans, whose sentences are here alleged against the Lutherans, either by way of Symbolisms, or Parallels. The names of which Authors I have thought convenient here to set down.  

1. Theodorus Bibliander in Praefatione Alcorani.  
2. Cusanus in Cribratione Alcorani.  
3. Richardus Ordinis Praedicatorum in confutatione legis Saracenae.  
4. Septemcastrensis de fide, & Religione Turcarum.  
5. Christopherus Richerius, de moribus Turcarum, 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. Theveti Cosmographia.  
13. Literae Constantinopoli scriptae ad quendam Venetum Patricium.   
Extant in fine libri, de furoribus Galliae.   

Of Symbolismes in general. CHAP. IU.  
BEfore we come to dissect the particulars, wherein our Reformists, and the Turks do conspire, I hold it much conducing to our purpose (thus observing Method perhaps in breach of Method) to show what agreements they have in Generalities; Some of which Generalities are hereafter discoursed of more particularly.  

The 1. Symbolisme.  
First then we find, that he who first composed the Turkish Alcoran, was Sergius, an Apostata Monk; for though by the authority and commandment of Mahumet (a temporal Prince) yet by the peculiar industry, wit, and labour of Sergius, the Alcoran (almost a thousand years since) was framed & devised.  
In like sort, the First dogmatizer of the Reformed Religion was Luther; first a Monk, but after forsaking his Religion, coined your Gospel. Thus both of them were first Votaries; and both of them after became forsakers of their first embraced Catholic Religion, and burst out into open Renegadoes, or Apostatas.   

The 2. Symbolisme.  
The second general Course, wherein Sergius, and Luther do interleague, is their mutual condemning of the Church of Christ for the former ages. And this their condemnation is Lapis angularis in the edifice both of the Alcoran, and of your Gospel; the which stone except it had been first placed, Sergius and Luther could never have raised the walls of their future buildings, nor could have declined the confessed Note, and Mark of Heretics. Now according to this my Assertion Mahumet living in the age of S. Gregory the Great, or presently after, charged those times with Incredulity, and want of true Belief; and therefore gave out, 
(1) Septemcastrensis, and others.  That he was sent by God to restore the Church to its purity in doctrine: And answearably some twenty years after the death of the said S. Gregory: he began his restauration of the former supposing erring Faith.  
The very same times of S. Gregory, your chief Sectaries do condemn of Antichristianisme, and Idolatry (so conspiringly they agree with mohammed, touching the times of the first imaginary decay of true Christianity.) For doth not Hospinian the Protestant thus write: Gregorij 
(2) Hosp. histor. Sacram. l 2. p. 157.  Magni aetate etc. In the age of Gregory the Great, all kind of superstition & Idolatry did (as a Sea) overflow, and overwhelm the Christian World? And Simon de Voyon 
(3) In his discourse upon the Catalogue of Doctors.  (our Countryman) sortably averreth, that when Bonifacius (who succeeded Gregory) was stalled in the Papal Chair, than was the whole world overwhelmed in the dregs of Antichristian filthiness, abominable superstition, and traditions of the Pope. With these former Sectaries. junius 
(4) junius in Apocalyp. in c●p. 10.  the remarkable Novellist, and Bullinger 
(5) in his Treat concerning Antichrist pag. 110.  agree. Finally Hutterus the Protestant placeth the first decay of the faith in the same times, saying: Libenter 
(6) Hutterus, de Sacrif. Missatico. pag. 377.  concedo Idolomaniam etc. I freely grant, that the Popish Idolatry hath invaded almost the whole earth, for these last thousand years. Thus we see, that Mahumet, and the Professors of your Gospel do unanimously jump in the time, when (according to their conceits) the Church of God began to decay, through the professing in its members of a false Religion.   

The 3. Symbolisme.  
The third point, wherein I will insist here, is that as Sergius, without any calling, or Vocation, laboured to overthrew the Christian Religion then professed: Even so your Predecessors scorning all ordinary Mission, and Vocation, assumed the charge of reforming the Church of Christ. And accordingly hereto 
(7) In loc. come. lo● 63. pag. 198.  Aretius, and 
(8) Danaeus in Isagog. Christian. part. 4. l. 2. pag 36.  Duneus (two Protestants) maintain; That Luther's Calling was extraordinary. In like manner Caluin discoursing of this point, thus confesseth: Quia 
(9) Lascitius the Protestant so relateth Caluin to say, in his Book, de Russorum, 〈◊〉 Moscovitarum religious.  Papa tyrannils etc. Because through the tyranny of the Pope, the true Course of Ordination was dissolved, therefore we needed a new help; and therefore this function, which the Lord hath imposed upon us, was altogether extraordinary. In the same dialect speaketh your Patriarch of our neighbouring Town of Gene●●● (Beza 
(10) Beza i● his Conference at Poise▪  I mean) for being expostulated of his own, and other (his Associates) 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 sympathy with our still Gospelers, in maintaining the Church of God to begin to be Erroneous, about the time of Gregory the Great, and in promiscuously vendicating to themselves (with contempt of all lawful Vocation, and Mission) an extraordinary peculiar calling, for their first sowing of their Blesphemies, and heresies. This was the proceeding of your first chief Masters, whom their own learning (for that they were learned it cannot be denied) thus embouldened to stamp their Errors, by ambitiously pretending a Miraculous Vocation. But we are the less to marvel thereat, since Learning oftentimes makes men proud, and Pride begets Heresy: and this is the unexpected, and lamentable Gradation, between Learning and Heresy.  
But to proceed in this ungrateful combination and Conjunction; In which who had the advantage over the other, I refer to the judicious; seeing where the Balance is even, there the least grain doth cast it.  
Mahumet after he had by the industry & policy of Sergius, invented, and pretended a reformation of the Roman Church, did instantly thereupon 
(11) So relateth Cuspinianus in Mahumets.  shake off the yoke of Obedience and Loyalty towards Is●●clius the Emperor, and did draw divers Provinces from him, even by force and open Rebellion, subiugating them to his own power. In all which said Provinces he after planted his misbelief, and Infidelity. Thus did Sergius become Mahumets Dedalus, in making him Wings for his high soaring. And did not Luther tread (according to his power) in the same tract with Mahumet? For after he had seasoned the Germans with his Novellisme, he presently Foedere Smalcaldico, taught his Proselyts and followers, to rise in rebellion against Charles their Emperor. And whereas the Germans were obliged by Oath to the Obedience of the Emperor, Luther and the Lutheran Divines (to free them of all such fears and scruples) decreed by solemn Sentence, that, Quia 
(12) Sleidan the Protestant, lib. 1.  Caesar Religioni etc. Because Cesar did threaten an overthrow to Religion, and the liberty thereof; therefore he gave just 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 less than Mahumet did, caused such combustions, insurrections, and bloody wars throughout all Germany, as that himself thus vauntingly speaketh thereof; Videor 
(13) Luther in loc. come. class. 4. c. 30.  mihi. videre Germaniam in sanguine nature etc. Christus ●●●us vivit & regnat, & ego vivo, & regnabo. But touching the Wars waged by the Lutherans and the Novellists of this age, originally for the advancement of their Heresies, I cease here further to discourse of; since in a more convenient place hereafter, I will more fully enlarge myself.  
Thus far now to show the great association, and affinity, which the Turks & your Ghospellers have in the foundation, and enlarging of both your Religions. To wit, First, that the Broachers of Turkism, and Hugenotisuse were Apostata Monks. Secondly, that they mutually agreed in equally condemning the Universal Church of Christ, even from such a peculiar Age, or Century. Thirdly, that the sowers of both their Religions did promiscuously enallege to themselves an extraordinary Vocation. Finally, that they maintained, and increased both their Religions (once disseminated) by the sword and traitorous rebellions. And thus did these former Wretches think good to stamp their wicked doctrines (though to their own eternal damnation) chief (among other allectives) that they might be spoken of in after times. Madmen! who covet at so high a price to enjoy a little Air, after they cease breathing: Landantus 
(14) August.  ubi non sunt, torquentur ubi sunt.  
You will I hope (O You my Countrymen) disclaim (at least in words) from Mahumetism; and can you then embrace your own Gospel as divine, since it is impossible, that Truth and Faisbood should indifferently be seated upon the same Beginning. Basis, Ground work, and Foundations?    

The 4. Symbolysme, touching the writings of the Apostles. CHAP. V.  
Having laid down above the general foundations, whereupon Sergous & Luther raised the Mount of their promiscuous Errors; It remains now to descend to the particular heresies by them indifferently maintained, which they wrought upon the Anuile of their own private judgements. And first, though mohammed in his Alcoran admitted the Old Testament, and the Gospels; yet as making no mention of the Epistles of the Apostles, or of the Apocalypse, he wholly discamnoneth, and excl●deth them. For thus Mahumet writeth in his Alcoran: 
(1) Azoar●  Deus pius & misericors p●●ils Testamentum Vetus, (videlicet legem Moysis & Psalterium) deinceps Euangelium, rectas vias hominsbus tradidit: God being pious and merciful, first delivered to men (as the right ways) the Old Testamen (to wit, the Law of Moses and the Psalter) than he after delivered the Gospel; From whence we see, that he pretermitteth all the other Writings of the Apostles. Now in this point our new Evangelists do join with mohammed and Sergius, by their expunging, and obliterating most parts of the writings of the Apostles.  
To begin with Father Luther, who speaking of the Epistle of S. james, betrampleth it in these Words: The Epistile of james is 
(2) In Praefa●an Epist. jacobi, in editione Iene●si.  contentions swelling strawy, and unmorthy an Apostolical spirit. In like sort. Luther re●●●cteth as Apocryphal the book of the Apocalypse even by the judgement of Bullinger the Protestant, thus writing Martin 
(3) Bulling. upon the Apocalypses cap. 1. serm. 1.  Luther hath (as it were) wounded this book (meaning the Apocalypse) with a sharp Preface set before his Edition of the New Testament in Dutch; For which his course taken therem, grave and literate men are displèased with him.  
To proceed further: 
(4) Kempnit. in Enchirid. pag. SIXPENCES  Kempnitius (a chief Lutheran) peremptorals hud●●ateth, & condemneth the second Epistle of Peter, the second, and third Epittle of john, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of james, the Epistle of jude, & the Apocalypse; styling all these Apocryphal: further affirming, That these Books 
(5) Kempuit. in examen part. ●. p. 56.  have not testimony for their authority. With Kempuitius, Adamus Francisci (the Protestant) thus agreeth saying: Apocryphi 
(6) In Margarete Theolog. pag. ●48.  libri etc. The Apocryphal Books of the New Testament, are the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Imaes, the second and third of john, the second of Peter, the Epistle of jude, and the Apocalypse.  
Thus much to demonstrate, that Luther and divers of his scholars agree with Mahumet, in denying most (at least) of the Epistles of the Apostles. And therefore we have less reason to be amazed at that profane saying of Caluin, in dishonour of the Apostles in general. His words are these: Apostoli 
(7) Caluin●●. Instit. 4. c. l. 9.4.  non debent garrire quicquid illis collibitum fuerit etc. The Apostles ought not to babble, and speak idly of things, as it pleaseth them; but they are to relate the Commandments of God sincerely. We are indeed to believe the Apostles; but this only as they speak out of the Word of God, not as they speak from themselves, but from the precept and special commandment of their Legation. Thus Caluin. O wonderful procacity, and insolency of Heresy. As if the Apostles did sometimes babble, and talk idly, did speak only of themselves, 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 believe the writings of the Apostles; So they hold the Apostles to have erred in divers of their Actions; since they maintain that the Apostles had not greater warrant for their not erring in their Actions, than they had for their not erring in their Writings.  
The same point is maintained by several of your first Instructours (so great is your conformity with them herein.) For according hereto Luther saith of S. james speaking of Extreme Unction: I say, 
(8) Luther de Captivit. Babylon. cap. de extrema Unctions.  thaeth in any place james erred, in this place especial. b●●e erred etc. For it is not lawful for an Apostle 〈◊〉 ●is own authority to institute a Sacrament. As 〈◊〉 the Apostle would, or dared to ordain a Sacrament, without the authority, & command of Christ our Saviour.  
In like manner, Brentius (the Lutheran) thus boldly writeth: Peter 
(9) In Apolog. Confess. cap. de Conciliss.  the Chief of the Apostles and also Barnabas (after the Holy Ghost received) together with the Church of jerusalem erred. The Magdeburgians thus prosecute this Point: Paul doth 
(10) Cent. ●. l. ●. c. 800  ●u●ne to james the Apostle, and a Council of the Presbyters being celebrated, he is induced by james and the●est, that for the offended jews, he should parisy himself in the Temple, to which Paulyieldeth, which without doubt was no small slip in so eminent a Doctor.  
Finally to o●●● the like condemnation, given by our Reformist, Whitaker (the English Sectary) thus hath left written: It 
(11) De Eccles. contra Bellar. controu. ●. 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 Ceremonial Law. Now where can we find any Mahometan or Turk (all who condemn the Apostles) to speak more unworthily, and debasing of them, than these alleged Ghospellers have done?   

The 6. Symbolisme, touching the gospels. CHAP. VII.  
TO proceed: Touching the Scriptures, which the Mahometans, and our new Gospelers do admit as pure, and sacred, the Saracens, or Turks (I ever mean the Mahometans) agree with the Lutherans in the manner, reason, and custom of Proceeding with the said Scriptures. The sole Reason, why the Mahometans do not admit the New Testament, as now it is (though they allow of it, they say, as it was first given, by, jesus) pretending that it hath been corrupted, i●, because 
(1) Cuspin. de relig. Turcarum. Septemcastrensis de relig. Turca●.  the Sentences and authorities of the New testament touching Christ are repugnant to their faith, first instituted by Sergius in the Alcoran; so as they make their Mahometan faith to be a square, where with to measure the Truth, or falsehood of the New Testament. And do not out Evangelists run in one and the same live of proceeding?  
According to this it is, that Luther in the balancing of the four Evangelists thus writeth: Qui 
(2) Luth. tom. 3. p. aefat in epist. Petri.  potismun & maiort prae cateris studio docent etc. Such Evangelists are the chiefest, who more carefully teach (than other Euangetists do) that faith in Christ only without our works doth make us just, and in state of Salvation. Thus Luther lesning the worth of the Evangelists, according as they seem more to impugn his conceited doctrine of justification by faith only.  
Again the Centurists in rejecting with Luther the Epistle of james, give this reason, saying: The Epistle of james is contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles, because 
(3) Cent. 2. c. 4. p. ●6●  it maketh Abraham to be justified not by faith only, but by Works. In like manner Beza rejecteth those words, as surreptitious, in Luke 22. This is the Chalice, the New Testament in my Blood, which shallbe shed for you; 
(4) Beza in annotat. in ●a, Lucae.  because as Beza saith, The words in the Greek Copies confirm the Real Presence in the Sacrament.  
Thus we observe, that both the Mahometans. and the Lutherans do jointly make the Religion, which they profess the foundation o● groundwork, why they do disauthorize such, or such Books of Scripture, not reputing them to be the Word of God. A strange, and retrograde proceeding: for since faith, and Religion is to receive its approbation from Scripture, here with he Mahumetans, and the Lutherans, the Scripture is to take its force, and authority from faith itself; that faith I mean, which every particular Sectary (whether Mahometan, or Lutheran) shall in his own private judgement hold to be true.   

The 7. Symbolisme, Touching the Ancient Fathers. CHAP. VIII.  
FRom the authority of the Scripture, let us descend to the authority of the ancient Fathers of the Church of God. All whom we shall find to be equally rejected and contemned by the Mahometans, and the Lutherans. Yea Luther & his Offpring, before they will lend a favourable ear to those sentinals of God's Church for the good of their own souls, will sooner endanger their own Salvation; they bearing themselves therein with such desperate resolution, wherewith Cato did, of whom it is recorded: Occidii se Cato, ne diceretur, Caesar me seruavit.  
And first touching the Fathers. We find mohammed in his Alcorans thus to disvalue them: 
(1) Azoara 13.  Increduli & minime adoranies, etc. The Christians are incredulous, not worshipping God, when they are required to give credit to the Commandments 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 have imitated. But to this is objected: Virum Patres non nisi veram fidem semper ●e●uerunt, Whether the Fathers did ever hold the true faych? Thus mohammed in his Alcoran.  
But now let us see, how Luther, and the Lutherans even tread upon the ancient Fathers with greater contempt of Words, and contumelies, than ever Mahumet did. To begin with Luther, who in these words dischargeth his shot against the Fathers in general: The 
(2) Luth tom. 2. Wittenb. an 1551. lib. de seruo arbitrio.  Fathers of so many Centuries have been blind, and most unskilful in the Scriptures, and if they did not correct and alter themselves before they died, they were neither Holy men, nor belonging to the Church. But Luther coming to censure particular Fathers, even shooteth hailshot against them in this manner: In the writings 
(3) Luther in colloquijs mensalibus, cap de Patribus Ecclesia.  of Jerome there is not a word of true Faith in Iesu● Christ, and perfect Religion. Tertullian is very superstirious. I am persuaded, that Origen was long since accursed. I make small reckoning of chrysostom. Basill is not to be much regarded; he is wholly, and merely 〈◊〉 Monk; I prise him not of a bar. Cyprian is but a shallow and weak divine. Finally, against Austin, and Cyprian he thus vaunteth: I 
(4) Luther●●m 1. contra Rege●● Angliafol. 344.  care not, if a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Cyprians opposed themselves against me.  
With Luther (to omit the like censures of other Lutherans) Melanct●on runneth in full chase, thus ba●king: Presently 
(5) Melanth. in 1. Cor. c. 3.  from the Infancy of the Church, the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerting justification by faith, augtriented Ceremonies and coined peculiar Worships. O how distant in the judgement of these Novelists (who have bouche owerie & gorge desployàe, an open munch, and full of gause) from the judgement of S. Austin, deliveredin this his Sentence: Quod 
(6) Aug. to. J. contra I●●lian. l. 1. c. 5.  (Patres, credunt, credo; quod tenent, teneo; acquiesce istis, & requiesce à me.   

The 8. Symbolisme, Touching general Counsels. CHAP. IX.  
AS Mahumet rejected the Fathers in particular, so also he rejected the authority of the ancient Counsels, 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 General Counsels to be made in the Alcorans. Neither would mohammed admit the authority of any one Council celebrated either before, or in his days; even betrampling with contempt the first Council 
(1) Septemcastrens. defied & relig. Turcarum.  of Nice, which was about some three hundred years before the being of mohammed, since by that Council, his blasphemy of denying Christ (who is God before all time, but Man in time) to be God, & the Son of God, was particularly condemned.  
How do our Adversary's compart with mohammed in contemning all Counsels? For doth not 
(2) Brent. in Apol. Confess. Wittem. cap. de Concilijs.  Brentius charge even the said Council of Nice with several Errors? In like sort Caluin a ftirmed, that the Fathers of that Council were 
(3) Caluin de verae Ecclesreformat. inter opuscul. pag. 480.  fanatical: & Musculus, that they were 
(4) Musculus in loc come de Ministers. p. 19●.  à Satana in stigati. But V●banus Regius (the Protestant) insimulateth all general Counsels within this his Censute: Quod omnia 
(5) Vrb. Reg. 1. part oper in inter pret. loc. come. de Ecclesia. fol. 51.  Concilia parni●●●●● lapsa sunt▪ luce clarius est: It is more c●ear● than the sun, that all Counsels have most foully erred. And Beza sortably maintaineth, that, Primis 
(6) Beza in his preface of the New Testam. anno 1587.  isque optimis Ecclesia temporibus, Satan Episcoporum coe●●●●bus praefuit; Even in the very first and best times, Satan did govern and preside over the Counsels, and Bishops. But Peter Martyr, to the end he would not be short to his former Brethren in so pious a work, thus sharpeneth his rafory tongue, against all Counsels in general: 
(7) Peter Mar●. l de votis, pag. 47●.  At long, as we insist in general Counsels, so long we shall continue in the Papists Errors.  
Did ever any Child bear greater resemblance in face to his Father, than our Evangelists do carry to mohammed in doctrine herein? Thus we find, that though the Error of contemning General Counsels in these our times, be not properly Luther's, yet it is of Luther; I mean, defended by those, who are the descendants of Luther: So little do these New Brethren regard the words of the Evangelist, recorded of the Council of the Apostles, and implicitly of all other lawful General Counsels: 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 Ordi●is Praedicat. in confutat. legis Saracen.  made it the boundary of their Religion; believing or giving credit to nothing, which was not found expressly set down therein; not performing any thing not written therein; So much they slighted the force of all Traditions, though most ancient. And hereupon we find an Author in these patricular words to discourse of this point: Est in Turcarum 
(2) Beinbus' ●●slor, V●gnet. l. 4.  legibus, ut quae sua lingua scripta non sunt, ea praestari non est necesse.  
And do not our New Evangelists so admirt the written Word of God (and yet but that of the written Word, which themselves hold for his Word) at that they even spit at all Traditions, which have not their express warrant from the said. Word? Upon this ground their main Throrame is, That nothing is to be believed, but what the Scripture evidently teacheth. And therefore whereas S. Basill saith: Some 
(3) Basil de spiritu Sancto c. 27.  things we have from Scripture, other things from the Apostles Traditions, both which have like force to godliness; as also whereas Epiphanius writeth: We 
(4) Epiphan. haeres. 61.  must use. Traditions, for the Scripture hath not all things; and therefore the Apostles delivered certain things by writing, and certain 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 upon me to correct them, but let the Church judge, if they have weighed this point with advice, and consideration.  
In like manner whereas chrysostom most clearly speaketh in defence of Traditions in this sort; The 
(6) In 2. Thess●l. Homil. 4.  Apostles did not deliver all things by Writing, but many things without writing; and these later are to be as much credited, as the former; doth not Whitakerus condemn this sentence in the dialect of his said brother, and Countryman Reynoldus, saying: I 
(7) Whitak. de sa●ra Scriptura, pag. 678.  reply, that this is an indiscreet and rash speech, and not worthy so great a Father? A point so evident, that the said Whitakerus 
(8) Whitak▪ de sacrascrip. p. 678.681.683.685.690.695. & seq.  doth insimulate (and with all reprehend) these ensuing Fathers, within his supposed error of maintaining Traditions; to wit, Damascene, Eusebius, Leo, Basill. Austin, Cyprian, Tertullian, chrysostom, and Epiphanius. How can these Protestants decline the force of that sacred Testimony of the Apostle: Tenete 
(9) ●. Thess 1.  Traditiones etc. Hold fact the Traditions which you have received, either by Word, or by Epistle?   

The 10. Symbolisme, Touching the not Necessity of Faith in Christ. CHAP. XI.  
THough the Turks do reverence Christ, as a holy Brophet, sent by God to reform the world in doctrine yet doth their Alcoran teach, that a man not believing in Christ may obtain Salvation; Thus doth Mahumet and his followers deny the Necessity of Christ's birth; whose corporal birth begot our spiritual birth, and his being borne in body, procureth us to be borne in Soul; & thus is his Incarnation the cause (as I may term it) of our Spiritulization. But to proceed. This is one of the Azoaraes' in the Alcoran: Sciendum 
(1) Azoara 1.  est generaliter, quoniam omnis recte pivens, judaeus, se● Christianus, seu iege suâ relict● inaliam tendent, omnis scilicet Deum adoram indubitanter divinumtamorem assequotur: It is generally to be known, that every man living well, whether jew, or Christian, or leaving his own law and religion, embraceth another; that is, every Man adoring God, shall infallibly obtain the Love of God, and consequently Salvation.  
divers markable Forefathers of yours do teach the same; for according to this doctrine Swinglius thus writeth: Ego certé 
(2) Swingl. de Provident. c. ●.  malim si optio detur, Socratis, and Senerae sartem eligere etc. 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 Papistical Emperor King, or Prince. And hereupon Swinglius (that malheureux Heretic, ou plustost Atheiste) concludeth in particular, that 
(3) Swingl. tom. 2. fol. 118. & 339.  Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides etc. are now in Heaven. Neither is Swinglius alone full in this his blasphemy, but Gualterus, Bullingerus, Simlerus, the Tigarine Divines (all Proteltants) do jointly teach with Swinglius. the Salvation of Heathens, dying Heathens. Which point appeareth not only from their own 
(4) Gualterus in Apolsol 27. Bulling. in his Preface of allowance to Swinglius his exposit? ficei ●d Regem, fol. 55● Simlerus in vita Bulling.  Sentences hereof, but also by the acknowledgement of Eucharius, a Protestant, whose words are these: Quod 
(5) Eucharius' in his Pasciculus Controuers. printed Lipfi●● anno 609. c. 19  Socrates, Aristides, Numa, Camillus. Hercules, Scipiones, Catones, & aly Gentiles comparticipes sunt vi●ae aternae, scribit quidem Swinglius ad Regem Galliae, quem defendunt Tigurini, Bullingerus, Gualterus. Hardenburgius etc.  
Now the groundwork & foundation whereupon Swinglius, and the rest do rely; is coincident and the same with the Reason of Mahumet, delivered above in his Alcoran; And is expressed by Swinglius in these words: Ethnicus, 
(6) Swingl. in l. Episto●arum Swingl. & Oecolampadij l. 1. pag. 30.  si piam mentem domi foverit. Christianus est, etiamsi Christum ignoret; A Heathen, if he have a good mind or Conscience, is a Christian, though he be wholly ignorant of Christ. I en● in further displaying this blasphemy, being desirous to know, how Swinglius and his Associates can break through that most strong and invincible Sentence of the Evangelist: There 
(7) Act. 4.  is not anyother name under Heaven (meaning the name of I sus Christ) given to men wherein we must be saved.  
But now give me leave (my Countrymen) to expatiate a little in my discourse. I here demand, Are they Christians, who afford Salvation to such as are not Christians? If such as believe not in Christ, can be saved, in vain than was the second Person of the most B. Trinity incarnated; In vain did the Archangel Gabriel salute the holy Virgin; in vain did Christ jesus spend divers years in reconciling sinners to God; Finally in vain was he whipped crowned with thorns, buffeted upon the face, suffered many Indignities, and lastly most bitter death upon the Cross, by the hands of the wicked jews. But alas, are any who profess themselues to be Christians, arrived to that ascent of impiety, as with their misbelief & miscreancy even to Crucify Christ again?  
When the jews did crucify Christ (which originally did spring from their misbelief in him) God to manifest that their flagitions impiety, did work divers and stupendious Miracles; for (among other prodigious signs) there was a sudden Darkness made throughout the whole earth, to adumbrate the spiritual darkness of the jews. 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 clothed with essential Majesty) men ought to be moved to penance, and the stony hearts of the obdurate to be (as it were) cloven, 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 Veil was rend asunder, by which means the Sancta Sanctorum did appear; intimating therein, that through the Merits, and sufferings of jesus Christ, all the Saints were after to be admitted, to behold the face of Christ.  
Such of you of the reformed Beligion, who by your giving assent to the former doctrine of Swinglius, do not believe in Christ, and by your not believing in Him (who is the only Author of Man's Salvation) do crucify him again, and verify in your selves the words of the Apostle: Runsum 
(8) Hebr. 6.  crucifigentes sibimetipsis filium Dei: crucifiing again to themselves the son of God; is it any wonder then, if in this second crucifixion of Christ, a horrible darkness do overcloud the powers of your Souls? O how truly did Esay prophecy of you, and all such others: Ecce 
(9) Esay. 60.  tevebrae operient terram, & caligo populos: behold darkness shall cover the earth, and a mist the People?  
And have you not just reason to suffer a knocking, and renting asunder of your flinty hearts, that so through penitency you may say with those, returning from the Passion, Percutiente 
(10) Lue. 23.  pectora sua? Or how can you hope for a happy resurrection of your Bodies, if you do not confess, 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. Timoth. c. 6.  inaccessibilis) if you will not withdraw the Veil of your ignorance, and pertinacy, which yet remains interposed between your sight, & things most sacred and holy? But let me recall myself; I grant the Honour, I bear to my Dear Saviour, and the atrocity of the former Protestants Blasphemy have thus far transported my Penne.   

The 11. Symbolisme, That Mahumetism and Lutheranism are engendered of ancient heresies. CHAP. XII.  
TO pass further: 
(1) Melanth. l. 3. Illyric. in Apolog.  Melancthon, Illyricus, Bibliander, and others affirm thus in express Words: Alcoranus ex veteribus Haeresibus consuitur: The Turkish Alcoran is woven, or sewed together of the Old Heresies. This these Protestants did affirm, because they perceived, that Mahumes and Sergius did hold certain opinions, condemned for heresies by athanasius Austin. Jerome, Gregory, and other ancient Orthodoxal Fathers. Thus the Alcoran denieth the Trinity with 
(2) Prateol●●●n 〈◊〉 Blench. Haeresil. 11● c. 3●  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 divine 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 hold these opinions of the former men to be heresies, is, in that they were condemned for Heresies by Athanasius, Austin, Jerome, Gregory, and finally by the consent of the whole Primitive Church of those days.  
Here than I say, that it is an inexpugnable Truth, that many Article of Faith, believed 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 mean, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Austin, ●erome, Gregory, and other pious, and learned Fathers of those Ages. From hence then I irrepliably evict, that Mahumets Alcoran, and the new Gospelers do conspire and agree together in this point; to wit, that the Religion of Mahumes, and our Innovatours are engendered and compounded of divers ancient condemned Heresies, though not altogether of the same Heresies. If then Mahumetism, and Lutheranism do agree in this one Commons point, must not their affinity & assotiation be great, since that saying is true: Quae conveniunt in uno tertio, conveniunt incurse? I mean, 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 several proportions in themselves.  
But now to prove, that divers Positions maintained by Luther, Swinglius, Caluin, Beza, and other Sectaries of this Age, were anathematised by the former ancient and learned Fathers, is so easily accomplished; as that seeing the proof thereof aught to prevail much with any Man, not blinded with Prejudice; I have therefore seposed a short Appendix, annexed to this Treatise for the demonstrating of the same; In the which the Reader▪ shall find the former ancient Fathers, and others of the same times, to be most luxuriant (as I may say) and riotous in condemning many (yea very many) points of Lutheranism, for most hateful, & execrable heresies.  
And thus as this Treatise (as I expressed in the beginning) is the Glass, wherein you Huguenots of France may behold divers of your impious Opinions, conspiring altogether with the faith of the Mahometans, Saracens, and Turks, so this subsequent Appendix I may well term your Second Glass (as I have intimated elsewhere) which will exhibit to you the face of the ancient heresies, condemned by the Church of God for such, and yet the same Heresies are now entertained, and believed by you of the reformed Religion. Thus I will furnish you with a double Glass to see your blemishes the rain. I cannot say with the wise Man, that it is Speculum 
(3) Wisdom c. 7.  sine macula, seeing it is fraught with deformities, partly of the Turks, and partly of the Old Heretics; all which said scars, and sedities do remain at this day upon the face of your New presumed Gospel.   

The 12. Symbolisme; Touching the Plantation of Mahumetism and Lutheranism, is warranted by Scripture. CHAP. XIII.  
But to go on forward in showing your Symbolising, and agreement with Mahumet, and Sergrus. The next point then, which I will urge is, that Mahumet and his followers (though this resemblance hath in part been unfolded above, but in a different manner) do proceed after one and the same way in plantation of their Religions. And First, for the greater honouring (forsooth) of both their Commings and Vocations, there must be certain Passages of Holy Scripture detorted, as though both their Missions to plant the True Faith, had been prophesied in the same Texts of God's Word. Thus we find 
(1) Vide Azoara 58.  Sergius, and the Mahometans to expound a great part of the twenty eight Chapter of Deuteronomy, of mohammed, wherein are expressed the benedictions given to good men. They also expound that Passage 
(2) Math. 13. Marc. 4.  in the Gospel, where the graint of seed being cast into the earth, did multiply, & bring forth great store of increase of the spiritual fruit, which mohammed should cause by planting his Religion.  
And are the Lutherans slow (think you) in ennobling the breaking out of that incestuous Monk (Luther I mean) by misapplication of certain texts of Scripture? For Illyricus 
(3) Illyric. in Apoc. 14.  maintaineth, that Luther was prophesied in that place of the Apocalypse; to wit▪ of the three Angels flying through the midst of the Heavens, and prophesying. And other 
(4) Couradus Schlusselb. in Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol. 124.  Lutherans are not afraid to aver, that Luther was the chief Angel flying through the midst of the Heavens, having the eternal Gospel, of which we read in the Apocalypse. Thus do the Professors of Mahumetism, and Lutheranism indifferently allege Scripture, to the dishonour of him, who first instituted the Scripture.  

The 13. Symbolisme; Touching the further Plantation of Mahumetism and Lutheranism.  
The next point, wherein they both conspired in planting of the Gospel, was their mutual maintaining (as above is said) that the true Faith and Religion of God was wholly decayed, at both their first Commings. For Cuspinianus 
(1) Cuspiu▪ de Religion● Turcarum.  writeth, that Mahumat (as himself said)▪ was scent by God,  doctrinam ab Apostolorun● discipulis corrup●am alcorano sue em●ndar●t; That he ●hould reform in his Alcoran the Evangelicall doctrine, corrupted by the Disciples of the Apostles.  
And certain it is, that Luther proceeds in the same manner. For having condemned all the Fathers of the Primiti●e Church, for superstitious (as above I shown,) I'll fur si effronté, & esbonté▪ he was so impudent, and shameless, as that he assumeth the correcting of their Errors, and replanting the true faith of Christ to himself, in this manner speaking most ambitiously. Non sinam 
(2) Luther tom. 2. contr● Regem. A●●●●● fol. 344.  Angelo● de mea doctri●a iudicare: I will not suffer the Angels to judge of my doctrine. And again: Gods 
(3) Luther ●●idem●  Work maketh for me, in so much that I regard not if a thousand Aus●●●● a thousand Cyprians stood against me. Luther vaunteth himself to be Christ● disciple; But where do we find Christ's words to be in the lowest degree verified in him, Mitis 
(4) Math. ●●▪  sa●●, & ●umilis cerde?    

The 14. Symbolisme, Touching the want of Miracles. CHAP. XIV.  
TO proceed: It is confessed, that Mahumet, and Luther so far agreed, that both of them acknowledge, they never performed any Miracle for the warranting of their doctrines. And first touching mohammed, he plainly saith in his Alcoran, That he never 
(1) Azoare ●7.  wrought any Miracle in confirmation of his Religion. And the like defect of Miracles is acknowledged by the Lutherans, to wit, That neither Luther, nor any other of our Novellists wrought ever any one Miracle, for the greater fortifying of their late appearing Faith. Sorribly hereto divers Protestant Divines thus ingenuously speak of Luther: 
(2) Theologi Casiniriani in edu●onit, sua de lib. Concordiae Bergensis 〈…〉  Mir●culum, quod Lutherus edulit, nall● nudi●●●●s; We have not heard that Luther did ever exhibit one Miracle. And if it should be urged (as a Miracle) the speedy spreading of Eutheranisme in so short a time, over so many places and Countries; this is acknowledged for no Miracle both by 
(3) Melamncth. Cron. l. 3. à pag. ●11. ed pag. 317.  Melancthon, and Illyricus; 
(4) Illyric. in Abocalyp. cap. ●.  who maintain, that Mahumetism was from no less small a beginning, and yet was more generally for the time dispersed, then ever Lutheranism was I.   

The 15. Symbolisme; Concerning the like Protestation of mohammed and the Lutherans, for the proof of their Religious. CHAP. XV.  
TO conclude, Mahumet and Buther being in extreme want of Miracles in defence of their Religions, were both indifferently forded to fly to their own pricat Spirtis, and vehement Protestations, that they were sent by God to correct the Errors of their Time's. To this (end (as to supply) the want of all Miracles) Mahumet useth in his Al●or●● these Protestations and asseverations: Pe● 
(1) In Azoar● 61.62.68. ●1. 50. & seq.  〈◊〉 sufft●nces, & nubes, & naves aquere curre●les, & Angelo's nun●io●● per●●montem Syna●, & donium superne adificatam etc. I swear by the blou●ing ●●●ds and Clouds, and by the ships sailing upon the Sea, by the Angel's Gods Mes●●nger● by the Mount Syn●● etc. That I am not, Demoniacus, possessed with the Devil, or a Magician, but the M●ss●●ger of the best and highest God; that I do not err in any thing, nor speak out of my proper Will but that only I del●●er what is commanded me to say from abou●. This is Mahumets vehement, (and withal ridiculous) Protestation of the Infallibility and Truth of his Doctrines  
Now let us see how Luther (for his like want of Miracles) beareth himself herein, who thus boasteth of the doubtless certainty of his Innovations: Scire 
(2) Luth. tom. 〈◊〉 Wittenberg contra Regem Ano Gliae. fol. 333.  vos v●lo etc. I will have you all to know, that hereafter I will not vouchsafe you this Honour, as to suffer you or the Angels of Heaven, to judge of my doctrines; for seeing I am certain of it, I will therefore through force of it, be both your judge, and judge of the Angels. And further: Certus 
(3) Luth. ubi suprà.  sum dog●●a●● this habere de Caelo; I am assured, that I have ●ay opinions from Heaven; and my Opinions shall stand, etc.  
In like sort Caluin (the chief Resiner of Luther) for the like assurance of his doctrine, maketh this vehement Appeal to Christ (see how Heresy masketh itself under the ●●cture of confident zeal) in this for●● T● 
(4) Caluin Vltime admonit. ad Westphalum pag. 1140.  Christum silium Dei appello, ut nuns, & in ●●trema die facias etc. I appeal to thee Christ being the son of God, that thou wouldst make it clear, both at this time, and at the last day, if ever so great a fury invaded my judgement & will, as to infect thy doctrine with any one lie, or imposture. And if thou seest me free and innocent of so hocrible a Crime, then be thou to me a faithful Witness, that I have sincerely, and unfeignedly professed that doctrine, the which I have ●earned out of thy most sacred Gospel etc.  
Thus we see, how Luther boast●eth of the inexpugnable Truth of his Faith; as also how Caluin forgeth his fervorous Appeal to Christ, for the security of his doctrine; and how these Prime Sect masters join hands with Mahument, in making their own prestigious, and deceitful Protestations, &c ●iurations, a sufficient Warram for the first divulging of their most impious heresies and Blalphemies. So firmly and without the least deviation, do these and other our Ghospellers, trace the stepped of mohammed herein.   

The 16. Symbolisme; Touching the denial of the Blessed Trinity. CHAP. XVI.  
HItherto we have discoursed chief of certain Generalities; wherein Mahumet, Sergius, and the Turks do conspire with Luther, the Lutherans, and such Nou●●iste of these days: We will now descend more punctually to divers dogmatical Christian Mysteries, wherein we shall find their like Concordance, & Sympathy.  
The first of these shall concern the most Blessed Trinty. That Mahumet (and in him the Turks) absolutely deny the most sacred, and undivided Trinity 〈◊〉 is evident from their faith professed in the Alcoran●: Behold here, les execrables blasphemes, qu'il avoit von●y in son Alcoran, for thus Mahumet the●● dog matizeth: Incredible 
(1) Azoara 12.  sunt qui ●●sum fi●●● Mar●● De●●● esse di●●●m, cum ipse Christ●● d●cat● in dominum 
(2) Iohn ●0.  Deum me●m & vestra●● credit, They are incredulous, who say, that jesus the son of Mary is God, seeing that Christ himself saith: believe in my God, and your God. And it's another passage of the Alcoran Mahumet useth this wicked deprecation: Confundat 
(3) Azoara 19  Deus Christ●●anos, qui Mariae filium loco Dei venerantur, cum ipsis praceptumsit, non nisi unum Deum venerare: Let God: confound those Christians, who worship the Son of Mary in place of God, seeing they are commanded, that they shall worship but one God. A point so evident, that Bibliander thus speaketh hereof: Primus 
(4) Biblian. in praefac. Alcor. 3.  & maximus ●rror Turcarum est, quòd Trinitatem in Vuitate negant: The chief and greatest Errors of the Turks is, that they deny the Trinity in the Unity. And hereupon another Author writing in confutation of ●●●cis●●e thus saith: Principalis 
(5) Ricardus Ordinis Praedic●t. in confutat. legis Saraci●●, ca 8.  intentio Mahum●ts est▪ persuadere Christum neque Deum esse neq●● filium Dei.  
Now let us see, how Luther and other Gospelers do accord with mohammed in the denial of this suprame Mystery of Christian Religion. We first find Luther to put our of the Litany those words: Holy 
(6) Vide Enchirid. Pre cum anno 15●3.  Trinity one very God, have mercy upon us. Ad also he further saith: The Word 
(7) Luth. in Postill. maiore, Basi●e●e a●ud Heruagium in evarrat. Euang. Dom.  Trinity is but an huffine Invention, and soundeth coldly. And hereupon it is, that 
(8) Calu. epist. 2. ad Polonos extat. in his tract. Theol. pag. 796.  Caluin following Luther he in, thus writeth: Precatio vulgè trita est, Sancta Trinitas unus Deus misérere nostr● & mihi non placei, That Prayer Holy Trinity etc. is very vulgar, and pleaseth me not. And in ●egard of this former doctrine, and as not acknowledging Christ to be Consubstantial to his Father. Luther belcheth out these blasph●●uous words: Anima 
(9) Luth. in lib. contra Iacob●● Laco●●●●ons. 2. Wittenberg. edit. antao ●351.  mea odit? Om●usion, & optimè exigerunt A●iani nevocem illem prophanant & notam, regulis fidei statut liceret: My Soul●● hateth the word Hom●ousi●s or Consubstantialis, and the Arians deservedly insisted upon, that this Word should not be inserted in the rules of faith.  
Finally from hence it riseth, that Luther expungeth out of his dutch Bibler that markable passage of sacred Scripture, in proof of the Trinity: There 
(10) 1. joan. 5.  are three, which give witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are One. And according to this doctrine of Luther it proceeded, that the Protestant Divines 
(11) In Synod. Vilnae habis. anno 1589.  of Lituania enacted by Synodical authority, that the Word, Trinity thould not be used any longer. So cross these men are in doctrine to the ancient Apostolic Faith, teaching Christ to be God, and Consubstantial with his Father, and that the divine Majesty 
(12) Bernard.  did send the Word into the World, and yet retained with him the Word.  
Concerning Caluins dislike (besides what is above said) of the doctrine of the Trinity, and consequently of Christ being God. it is more fully discovered by his interpreting of all chief places of Scripture, produced by all Antiquity in proof of the Trinity with the Ariahs, and against all other Christians: He thus by his false commenting of them, main groping, that they are wrongfully alleged in defence of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I will here insist in some few particulars. And first that markable place ●l 
(13) john. 10.  and the Father are Vnum, one thing, this stigmatical Aposta●● thus paraphrazeth: Abusi sunt hoc loco Veteres, ut pr●barent Christaine esse Patri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The ancient doctor have abusively alleged this place, to prove Christ to be Consubstantial to his Father. Neque enim Christus de Vnitate substantia disputat, sed de Consensis. For hear Christ disputeth not of the Unity of substance, but of Consent. Again, where it is said. The Lord 
(15) Genes. c. 19  rained upon So doom and Gomor●●, fire, from the Lord; Caluin thus anoideth this testimony by saying: 
(16) Caluin in Gones. c. 19  Quod Veteres Christ's divinitatem hoc testimonie probare conati sunt, minimé firmumest● It is not solid and firm to prove from this testimoney, the divinity of Christ, as the Fathers attempted to have done.  
In like sort. Where it is said: Thou 
(17) Hebr. 1. & Psalm. 2.  are my somne (hodie) this day I have begotten thee, Which place is produced not only by the Fathers, but even by the 
(18) Heb. 1.  Apostle. to prove Christ's divinity: yet Caluin thus shifteth it of, saying: Scio 
(19) Caluin in Psalm. 2. , hunc locum de aetorna generatione Christ's &c. I know well, that this place is expounded by many of the eternal Generation of Christ, who, touching the Word. (Hodie) in this te●● have ●uer subtly disputed. To o●●it divers other 
(20) Touching the word Eloim, in G●nes. c. 1. and out of the Psalm. 33.  passages of Scripture, urged by the Fathers in proof of the Trinity, where we read that most convincing Text: There be three 
(21) 1. john c. ●.  which give testimony in Heaven, the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three be One; Caluin thus avoideth the force thereof by saying: Quòd dicit. Tras' es●e Vnum ad Essentiānon refertur 
(22) Caluin in 8. joan. c. 5.  sed ad Consensum po●iūs, Where the Apostle saith 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 mohammed, the Turks, and the Arians in denying the Blessed Trinity, & Christ to be God, hath poisoned the chiefest, and most forcing passages of God's Word, ever anciently produced for proof of that supreme Mystery, with his most wicked expositions of them: A Point so clear, that Aegidius 
(23) Hunius in his books entitled, Caluinus I●daiza●●.  Huunius (the Protestant) chargeth Caluin with judaisme, for such his pestilent depraving of the former sacred Texts of Scripture. O Impiety scarcely piacular, since he, who created the World, is here not acknowledged by the World: Mundus 
(24) john 1.  per ipsum factut est. & mundus euni non cognovit.   

The 17. Symbolisme, Concerning the suffering of Christ. CHAP. XVII.  
TO proceed further: Mahumet affirmeth, that Christ did not suffer for Mankind, since he saith, that Christ did not suffer death at al. Thus did Mahumet even 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) Azo●●● 1●. & ●●.  Mariae blasphemiam. & immoderatam contumeliam inferunt, 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 jews do offer blasphemy, and immoderate contumely to Mary, whiles they say they did put to death Christ her son being the Messenger of God; for him they killed not, but another like to him; for God being incomprehensible and wise, caused him to leave the World, and remove to him. From whence we infer, that since Christ (according to Mahumets doctrine) did not die at all, that therefore in his judgement, he died not for the Redemption of Mankind.  
Luther, and his followers do (at least in words) grant that Christ did corporally die. But they further teach, that his death of Body could not, nor did redeem the World, except his Divinity had also suffered. Thus they: annexing this Impossibility of Christ's suffering according to his Godhead (since true Divinity is impassable.) And thus potentially they teach with mohammed, that Christ did not redeem the World; contrary to the Sentence of God's Universal Church, maintaining, that Christ, who had no sin, became a Sacrifice for sin. Now that Luther teacheth, that Christ suffered (besides his Corporal death) according to his divinity, is evident out of Luther's own words, which are these: Cum 
(2) Luther in Confess. maiore, de caena Domini.  credo, quòd sola humana natura prome passa est etc. When I do believe, that only the Humane Nature suffered for me, Christ is a Saviour of a vile and small account, and needeth also a Saviour for himself: an execrable Blasphemy, since in Christ his Passion, through the conjunction of the Divinity with the Humanity, an infinite debs was discharged by a finite payment; and yet only infinity of satisfaction doth truly expiate infinity of sin.  
The same Luther in another place thus writeth: Pertinacissime 
(3) Luther. l. de Concil. par. 2.  contra me pug●abant, quod divinitas Christi pati non posset. They contended most pertinaciously with me, for that they maintained the divinity of Christ could not suffer. And Musculus (a great Lutheran) agreeth with Luther herein, of whom Silvester Checanorius (a Protestant) thus writeth: andraas Musculus non veritus fuit palàm dicere etc. Andrew 
(4) In dialog. de corruptis moribus v triusque partis. Art. 3. fol. 5.  Musculus was not afraid openly to say, That the Divine Nature of Christ (which is God) was dead together with the humane Nature upon the Cross. Thus did Luther and his scholar conspire with Mahumet, in frustrating the Redemption of the world by Christ, seeing Luther would not grant his Corporal death prevailed any thing except his Divinity (which was impossible to do) did suffer also. O how forgetful was Luther (with mohammed) of the words of the Apostle: Reconciliati 
(5) Rom. 5.  sumus Deo per mortem filij eius: We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son? And how far distant was his judgement from S. Augustine's judgement herein, who writing of Heresies in general, particularly recordeth this opinion of Luther in these words: There 
(6) August. come. ●. de Haeresi, ad Quodvult Deum. Haeres. 73.  is an Heresy, which teacheth, that Christ's divinity suffered, when his flesh was fastaned upon the Cross?   

The 18. Symbolisme; Touching the second Person in the B. Trinity. CHAP. XVIII.  
TO pass yet further touching the Second Person of the most Sacred Trinity. This is an Azoara, in the Alcoran: Deus 
(1) Azoara, 27.28.  est substantia necessario existens, evi impossibile est, ut naturam aliunde mutuetur: God is a necessary substance, to whom it is impossible to take, or borrow his Nature from another. And again in another part of the Alcoran, we thus find set down: Constanter 
(2) Azoara, 40. & 53.  dic illis Christianis, Deum unum ess●●ecessariò omnibus, qui nec genuit, nec generatus est, nec habet quidquam simile. Maintain 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 find, that (according to Mahumet) God cannot borrow his Nature from another. Now to apply this: The Protestants teach, that Christ hath his divine nature from himself, and not of his Father: So teach Caluin 
(3) Caluin in examine. persidiae Valentini Geneilis, exta● in eract. Theolog. pag. 77●.  and Beza, 
(4) Beza contra H●chusium.  besides many others. And the main Reason, why these Protestants teach, that Christ hath not his Essence of his Father, but of himself, 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 conjoin with mohammed, in denying Christ, as God, to have his divine Essence from his Father; and by consequence, admitting Mahumets ground to be true (which also is their ground) that Christ is not God. Which Blasphemy of theirs is wholly repugnant to the Nic●●● Council, and Athanasius his Creed▪ Both which teach, that Christ taketh his Divine Nature from his Father, and that he is God of God.  
Behold here (O you my Countrymen) how these Blasphemies have begun, a pulluler, & ●'enracener entrerous; and how your chief Doctors by way of necessary Inference (grounded upon Mahumets Alcoran) do deny Christ to be God, and therein do deny (with mohammed) the most Blessed & rudevided Trinity; in which most Reverend Mystery (to speak in the Church's Idiom) God remained that, which afore he was, and assumed that, which afore he was not● suffering neither commixture, nor divesion.  
But to return: According to what is above delivered, Osiander the Protestant had just reason thus to exprobrat the Reformed Arians of these days in Poloni●, which Men are Protestants refined, or sublimated: Illi 
(5) Osiander C●●●. ●6. pag. 26●.  aiu●● Deum unum in Essentia, tri●●● in Personi●, esse commentum Antichristi etc. 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 etc. Did ever mohammed, or Sergius eructate out of their impure breasts such poison, as the Arion's of these times (comparting with Mahumet) and all originally Protestanis, have done?   

The 19 Symbolisme, Touching the overthrow, and implicit denial of Christ his Passion. CHAP. XIX.  
YEt further to discourse touching the supreme Mysteries of Christ. Mahumet in his Alcoran teacheth (as above is showed) that Christ did not suffer death upon the Cross, 
(1) Azoara 〈◊〉.  but one like unto him did suffer. Well Luther, 
(2) Luther. lib. quod Verbe Domini firmiter stant.  and the Lutherans 
(3) Kempni●ius 2. part. Examine. c. 4. ●. 13. Illyricus, lib. de mystica, Sacramentali, & extrema praesentia Corporis Domini in Caena.  with joint consent maintain, that the Body of Christ (through its hypostatical, and inseparable Union with the Divinity, is in all Places. True it is, that the Deity is every where; yet no where, but in it self; And that God's immensity is such, as that it includeth in itself every thing, and yet is included in every thing. But howsoever this he, notwithstanding certain it is, that the doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's body and humanity, maintained violently by Luther and others, doth utterly overthrew all the mysteries of Christ, and particularly of his Death and Passion; and thereby it makes our Novellists to join hands with Mahumet, in Virtually denying the said Mysteries. For once granting that Christ's body is in all places, then followeth it, that it was in the Virgin's womb after its birth, or death; That it was in the grave before Christ's death, and after his Resurrection; Finally, that it was upon the Cross after it was taken down, and in Heaven before its Ascension. Thus we observe, that this doctrine of ubiquity taught by Luther, wholly destroyeth, and frustrateth the Mystery of our Saviour's death, and Passion. Therefore I conclude, that Luther, and the Vbiquitaryes do join and agree (by inevitable deductions taken from their own doctrine) with mohammed, in implicitly denying, that Christ did really, and truly suffer death for the Salvation of Man. And thus though the Deity be finite (to speak in a reserved sense) only in Infinity; so contrariwise by force of this absurd doctrine of ubiquity, the body of Christ is become infinite, though really and truly but finite, and limitable.  
Here now I will give a purse to my Pen (for the present) in vnfoulding, How Mahumet, and Luther with his brood (with equal forces) labour to annihilate the chief Articles touching the Trinity. Only with this I will conclude: That if Mattathias, and his sons (as is recorded in the 
(4) 1. Machab. c. 2.  Maccabees) so much lamented to see the Mysteries of their Law profaned; How much then more ought every zealous Christian, even with disconsolate sighs, and suspirations to mourn, whe●● they behold the Carcinall Articles of Christianity (of which the former were but Types, and adumbrations) to be by Miscreants, and Heretics promiscuosly betrampled upon, contemned, yea denied? Videte 
(5) Thren. 1.  si est dolour, sicut dolor iste.   

The 20 Symbolisme, Touching the particular Motives of Mahumets, and Luther's Apostasy. CHAP. XX.  
IN this next place, we will take into our Consideration, what Articles of Christian Faith were the particular Motives of Mahumets Apostasy; and observe, whether your spiritual progenitors do run in the same Tract with Mahumet, or no.  
In the Alcoran, we read, that Mahumet thus by supposal demanded: O jesus 
(8) Azoar● ●3.  fili Maria tu persuades hominibus, vi te, Matremque tuam, duos Deos habeant, & venerentur? O jesus, Son of Mary dost thou persuade men, that they may have, and worship thee, and thy Mother, a● two Gods? Upon which Azoara. Bibliander maketh this Annotation: 
(a) Bibliand. in Margino Aleorani. ad Azohram. 〈◊〉.  Mariam pro Deo coli obijcit Mahumetes; Mahumet doth object, that Mary is worshipped for a God: Bibliander in the same place more plainly speaking in this sort: Constabat 
(3) Bibliand. ●bi suprà  Divam Virginem superstitios● à multis Chri●teaxis celi, quod hodie quògus fi●. dum eius opem supersti●●o●e implerani: It warevident that the Holy Virgin was than superstitiously worshipped by many Christians, as also at this day the is, whiles men superstitiously implore her help.  
The second Cause or Mahumets Revolt from Christianity, is delivered by the foresaid Bibliander in these words: Quod simulacra venerantur Christiant: Because Christian do worship 
(4) Bibliand▪ ibidem.  images. The dislike of Mahumet concerning the doctrine of Images, is further witnessed by Septemcastrensis, thus writing: Saraceni 
(5) Septeme. defied & re● lig. Yurc●rum  & Turcae imprimis Imagines omnes seu pictas, se● sculptas, sic detestantur etc. The Saracens, and Turks do so hate all Images, whether they be pictured, or engraven, that therefore they call Christians, Idolaters; Yea they will not seal their Letters with any ●●graum print, or Image.  
And are not these two points great stumbling Blocks for men's revolting from the ancient Christian Faith in these days? So firmly do our Innovatours' compart with Mahumet, the Saracens, and the Turks in the Causes and Motives of forsaking the Christian Faith. And to begin with the first. Luther 
(6) Luth. in serus, de N●●●ali 〈◊〉. Mari●. , and Peter 
(7) Peter Mart▪ in Comment ad cap. ●. prioris ad Cor▪  Martyr charge the Catholics with Idolatry, committed in saying the Antiphona, beginning thus: Sal●● Regina, Mater Misericordiae etc. maintaining. that the Catholics do ascribe hereby that honour to the B. Virgin, which is proper only to God. In like manner the Protestants through Ignorance, and Malignity insimulate the Catholics within the forsaid crime of superstition, for their saying the Hymn, directed to the Mother of God▪ which thus beginneth: Aue Maris 
(8) In offieio B. Mariae.  stella, Dei mater Alma etc.  
To come to Images. Whereas 
(9) Vide Cochlaeum in Vita Lutheri.  Carelostadius (the Heretic) was the first in this Age, who overthrew Images in the Churches; we find Luther to approve this his fact; only he was displeased, in that for the perpetrating thereof, Carolostadius did not demand authority, and warrant from him. Melancthon 
(10) Molanct. in oc. count in explicat. Decasògi.  in like sort reprehendeth the worship of Images, as superstitious. The Magdeburgenses 
(11) Magdeburg. Cent. 8. passim.  and Caluin 
(12) Calu. Instic. l. 2 c. 11. & lib. ● c. 9  proceed herein with the same pertinacy. and forwardness. And answerably to this their doctrine of Images (carleur Theoric, & Practic ●'accordent) the custom of such of our times, who did cast of the Roman Religion, was ever most violent and impetuous upon their first embracing of Protestancy against Images.  
For to turn our eye upon Flanders, We find Osiander (the Protestant) thus to record: 
(13) Osiander Epitome. Cent. ●●. pag. 491.  The Low-Countrimen by public writing renounced all Subjection, and Obedience to Philip their Lord and King; And when above four hundred of them of good rank, had sued for liberty of Religion, and did not obtains their motion, the impatient people moved with fury and rage, at Antwerp, and other places of Holland, Zealand, & Flanders, broke downs Images etc. And France (my dear Country) I would to God▪ I could not say so much of thee; But it is otherwise, since divers Iconemachyes in thee, at their first abandoning of our Catholic Religion practised the like sacrilege. Witness hereof is the History of France written by a Protestant, who thus relateth: 
(14) The History of France i● entitled: The general Iwentory of the History of France, written by john d● Serres.  The Protestants did grow eager, and violent in all places where they had power; They took revenge upon Churches, Images etc. Witnesses also hereof is the Town of Rochel, and all other places in thee, possessed by the Huguenots, who through their (more than Vatinian) fury have left no Images unbroken, nor Cross (the remembrance of our Saviour's death for Mankind) uncast down, and not shivered in pieces.  
But to expatiate no further in Examples, and to wind up the several threads of this Paragraph; I conclude, that our Sergius of Saxony (I mean Luther) and his ●pidr●mi, or Followers, did wholly conjoin with mahumetical Sergius▪ in making the doctrine of the Honour exhibited to the Mother of God, and of the Worship given unto Images to be (among others) two strong inducements for their abtenunciation of their most Ancient, Catholic, Apostolical, and Roman Religion: May we not ●●inke then, that the punishment of these two Apostatical Monks for such their flagitious proceed, are at this present all One?   

The 21. Symbolisme; That the Turkish, and Protestant Clorgy do marry. CHAP. XXI.  
But let us go to other points, Who writ of the Religion of the Turks, affirms, that the Turkish Priests do marry, & take wyues. For thus one of their Historians saith: Sacerdotes 
(1) Sept●●●a●●●. d● fide & relig. Tur●●●●m, pag. ●9.  Turcici habent ●xor●s, & uxori liberis, & familia vacant. The Turkith Priest's have wyues, and all their care and employment, as about their wife, their Children, and family. Yea the Turks are so great enemies to Virginity, as that the former 
(2) Septemcastr. c. ●3.  Historian, and others 
(3) Richerius lib. d● moribus Tercerum, dedicated 10 Francis, king of France.  thus record of Mahumet: Mahumetes multum urget. ne quis maturâ atate eutra matrimonium degat: Mahumet much presseth, that not any of full and ripe ago, should live out of the stace of Matrimony. Mahumet further teacheth (as another Historian recordeth) That, Veluptate● 
(4) Cuspin do Religione Turearum.  corperis futarae faelicitati minime obsunt; The pleasures of the Bedy are 〈◊〉 hindrances to future felicity; whi●● is included in the eight Azoara of the Al●●ran, touching multiplicity of wives.  
Well now my dear Countrymen of France. Is not all this good Hugen●tis●●●, or Protestancy? Let us examine the Particulars. And first touching Marrying of Priests, or of Ministers among those or that Reformed Religion; What Minister among them almost (& this soub●●le protexte, & veil de la gloir● d● Die● (under the recture (forsooth) of God's glory) who is not matried? And how ready are they wrongfully to detor● in defence of their Marriage those Words of the Apostle, Honorabile 
(5) Hebr. 1●.  Connubium in omnibu●? A wife indeed is so inseparable a Character of our new Ministers, as that a Minister without a Woman, is but Half himself, and wanteth that which conduceth to the 〈◊〉. or perfect accomplishment of his function. So much doth the Flash domineer in these good men, who vaunt themselves to be All-spirit▪ who indeed living in flesh, do also liu● after the flesh.  
Now touching the advancement of marriage in all persons without exception, and depressing of Virginity with Mahumet, and Sergius, I● is most strange to observe, what the pens of your chief Professors have left written. The first broaches of the unsavery Vessel of your Religion, thus balanceth Matrimony with Virginity saying: If we 
(6) Luther tom. ●. Wi●temberg. ad cap 7.1. Corfol. 107.  weigh the Nature of Matrimony, and single 〈◊〉 unmarried life in themselves; Matrimony is 〈◊〉 Gould, and the spiritual state of single life, as Dung. To whom subscribeth Whitakerus, saying: Virginity 
(7) Whita●● contra Comp. rat. 8.  is not absolutely good, but only in some respect and manner. And hence it is, that the forsaid Luther more fully thus expresseth himselfe● He that 
(8) Luther▪ tom. 7. Epist. ad Wolfgengum, fol● 100L.  determineth to be without a Woman, let him lea●● of the name of a man and become a plain Angel, or spirit. A goatish assertion!  
Concerning the other point above mentioned, where Mahumet decreed, that (if we will believe the Alcoran) the Pleasures of the Body are no lets to future felicity; It is the very doctrine of Luther, invested in other words, who ascribeth so much to Faith, as that no corporal Pleasure (how unlawful soever) or any other sin can prejudice a Man's Salvation. His words are these: Tam 
(9) Luther come. 1. Wittemb. de Captivie, Babyl. fol. 74.  diust est Christianus &c A Christian is so ●ith, as that though otherwise he would, notwithstanding he cannot lose his Salvation, by any s●nne how great seever, except he will not believe. And hereupon Luther further thus catechizeth his Scholars: No 
(10) Luther in his Sermons.  work is dirallowed of God, except the author, and worker thereof be disallowed. With whom the fornamed Whitaker●s accordeth in these words, full of incirement to sinnet Si 
(11) Whitak, de Eccles. contra Bellarm. controuer. 2. quaest. 5.  quis actum fidei, babet, ●i peccatae non nocent: Thus fortably to these men's Gospel, no pleasure, or sin (as Mahumet toucheth) can hinder man's future Happiness: Thus much of these forms Points: And of this last point more fully hereafter.   

The 22. Symbolisme; Concerning the conjunction of Ecclesiastical supreme Authority, with temporal Authority. CHAP. XXII.  
TO come to other Symbolysms and Agreements, between mohammed & your Grandmaisters▪ Mahumet to his temporal Authority adjoined spiritual Authority, making himself supreme 
(1) Cuspin. in Mahumeto.  Head of his Church, (if so I may call it) and by force and violence of such his authority, proposed to his subiect● and vassals only such point● of faith (●nd not any others) to be believed, which he had caused to be set down in the Alc●ra●▪ Thus making his sword his M●yses, or some new Evangelist, to ordain, what was to be believed, and what not.  
And do not most of our Protestant writers maintain the same spiritual Authority in secular Princes? And do not the said secular Princes put the same in execution? True it is, that divers of your Religion teach, That the first Popes were but as Tu● 〈◊〉 ▪tours only (so to speak) of the st●te of th● Church, during the time other Infancy: But to the Temporal Prince they afford at most absolute Primacy, and Soueraig●●ys over the Church: Hear, what Muscular (who seemeth, that, il abi●● prison tincture de Mahumet, he hath received some dye from mohammed herein) writeth of this point, saying: Confidenter 
(2) M●scul. in loc. come de Magistrate. pag. 570. & 520.  asserimus omnens eam potestatem &c We confidently aver, that all that Power, by the which Authentical Laws binding the Consciences of subjects, are constituted whether they be called Civil, or Ecclesiastical Laws) do neither belong to the Church (that is, to the Multitude of the faithful) neither to the Ministers of the Word of God, but only to the Magistrate, to whom is given Soveraingty, and Command over the subjects. And according to this doctrine, almost all Protestant Princes in most Countter where they reign, do challenge to themselves an unappealable soveraingty & supremacy in all Ecclesiastical Causes. The first example whereof they took of King Henry the eight of that Name, King of England; Who was the first (as elsewhere is showed in this Treatise) that dared to vindicate to himself Supreme spiritual authority; prescribing what Articles of faith should be believed, and what not, as is auer●ed by some Catholic Writers 
(3) Sanderus de Schismate Auglicano.  of that Nation.  
And here we are to observe, that as mohammed, and temporal Protestant Princes did indifferently erect themselves Heads of the Church, within their own Ditions, & dominions; So also what places of Scripture Protestant Princes (by misconstruing of them) may allege in warrant of this their assumed Exotic authority; the very same Text of holy Writ may Mahumet (with as much reason) produce with them in defence of his pretended Ecclesiastical Primacy. Thu● for example, Mahumet may allege in behalf of himself (through the same construction of them, which the Protestants give) these Texts (besides others) following: Omnis 
(4) R●m. ●●  Anima Potestati sublimi●ri subdita esse debet; idque non propter iram, sed propter conscientiam. Every soul ought to be subject to higher Powers, not only for wrath, but for Conscience sake. And again: Propter 
(5) 1. Petr. ●  De●u● Regi par●ndum est, tanquam praecellents: The King is to b● obeyed, as excelling. Thus we see, that Mahumet, and our New Gospelers agree in doctrine, of this strange kind of Supremacy, in the practice of it, and in their proofs, and supposed warrant thereof, out of their mutual false wresting, and racking of God● Holy Word. But to the rest.   

The 23. Symbolisme; Touching the denial of Original sin. CHAP. XXIII.  
THe next Point, in which I will allege mohammed, and out New Evangelists fraternal combination, shall concern their mutual denying of Original sin. We thus read in the Writers 
(1) Cusping. de religions Turc●ium, Septem castr●●sts, R●cherius de 〈◊〉 de moribus T●rc●rum.  of the Turkish History: In Alcoran● pracipitur Circumcisio, quanquam 'em a● expiationem peccati Originalis, quod nullum ●sse arbitrantur Mahumetani. In the Alcoran Circumcision is commanded, though not for expiation of Original sin, the which the Mahometans do not Delieve to be etc.  
Now let us see, if our l●te apearing Gospelers do not iampe in doctrine herein with mohammed. Swinglius doth thus dictate of this point: Quid 
(2) Swingl. l. c. Epist. fol. 2●.  breutus aut clarius dici potuit, quam Originale Peccatum non esse Peccatum, sed Morbum; & Christianorum liberos propter illum morbum non addici aeterno supplicio? What can be spoken more briefly and clearly, then that which we call Original sin, to be no sin, but a disease, & that the Children of Christians through this disease, are not adjudged to eternal punishment? And further: Morbus 
(3) Swingl. tom 1. de Baptism. fol. 90.  hic damnationem nobis afferre nequit; This disease (meaning of Original sin) cannot bring damnation to us. And yet more: Theologi 
(4) Swingl. de Baptism. ubi suprà.  nostri Originalem illum morbum peccatum esse dixerunt, sed toto caelo errand. Those our divines, which call this Original disease a sin, do extremely err.  
Finally to omit many other such like say of Swinglius, he concludeth thus: Culpa Originalis 
(5) Swingl. tom. 2. de Peccato Originali. fol. 110.  non vere, sed Metonymice culpa vocatur. Original sin is called a sin, not truly, but only by the figure Metonymia: So great an assotiation there is between Mahumet, & Swinglius herein: Whom notwithstanding Beza honoureth with this Eucomion: 
(6) Beza de Hoereticis puniendis, pag. 175.  Swinglius, insignit ille nostris temporibus Christi Apostolus; The which commendation Beza never would have ascribed to Swinglius, if Beza himselfes had been of a different doctrine from Swinglius in this most weighty point of faith.   

The 24. Symbolisme; That Baptism is not Necessary. CHAP. XXIV.  
AS Mahumet did not believe, there was any Original sin; so also h● did not think, there was any necessity of Baptism, so far forth, as it should conduce to the taking away of Original sin: the reason being (as is here implied) because Mahumet did believe, that there was no Original sin to be taken away, either by Baptism, or Circumcision. Now, do not our New Masters beat the same Path in their Writings with Mahumet▪ Mark (my dear Countrymen) how contemptuously they pronounce of Baptism, & be ashamed of their Mahometan Infidelity.  
I will begin at the source with Luther; And, Si la fountaine est corru●●pu, que deviendront les ruisseaux: If the fountain be corrupted, much more than are the small rivers thence descending. Luther thus instructeth his Neophyts: Si 
(1) Luther lib. de Captivit. Babylon.  habeas, bene; sin careas, nihil damni; crede, & saluus eris, antequam abluare. If thou hast Baptism, it is well with thee; if thou wantest it, thou sufferest no loss thereby; bel●eue, and thou art saved, before thou be baptised, Swinglius in like sort stretcheth forth his hand, for the suppressing the dignity of Baptism, saying: Baptismus 
(2) Tom. 2. l. de Baptism. fol. 96.  paruulorum externum quiddam, & caeremoniale est etc. Baptism of Infants is a certain external and Ceremonial thing, the which (as other external things) the Church may either worthily and justly retain, or omit, & take away.  
With these two fort in doctrine Caluin, thus muttering: At (
(3) Calu. justis. l. 4. c. 15. ●. 2●.  dicum quidam, qui Baptismi necessitatem vrg●ns, periculum esse, ne Infans, qui aegrotat, si absque baptismo decesserit, Regenerationis gratiâ privetur▪ Mimime vero etc. But such say who urge the Necessity of Baptism, that there is danger, if the Child, who is sick do die without Baptism, that he is deprived of the Grace of Regeneration. Not so truly, seeing God doth pronounce over Infants, even afore they be borne to be adopted into his partage: Wherefore it follow not, that the Children of the faithful▪ are baptised, that thereby they should be first made the Sons of God etc. Thus far Calum. Finally to pretermit many other like say, Whitakerus thus sleighteth Baptism: We 
(4) Whitak Controu. 4. ●. M. ●. ●. pag. 710.  may abstain from Baptism with this caution, that no contempt, or scandal do follow thereby.  
Can any Mahometan, or Saracene speak more unworthily, and depressingly of Baptism, than all these former Evangelists have done? Whose judgements herein admitting for true, away then with that admonition of our Saviour: Nisi 
(5) john 3.  quis renatus fuerit etc. Unless a Man be borne again of Water, and the spirit, he cannot ●uter into the kingdom of God; As also away with that Sentence of Austin: Baptism 
(6) Austin, ●o●. 7. contra duas epi●t. ●●●●g l. 3. c. 3.  washeth one all sins, either deeds, Words, thoughts, or Original. Thus we find, that Baptism is, out of God's good Providence towards us, one Chief preordained means of man's Salvation, even feeding the soul with Grace; for as God's Creation doth (as it were) motherly bear us, so his Providence doth nurse us.   

The 25. Symbolisme; That Polygamy i● jointly taught by mohammed, and the Lutherans. CHAP. XXV.  
WE thus read in the Alcoran: Vxores 
(1) Azoar● 8.  quotiescumque placuerit, duas scilicet, tres, aut quatuor ducite etc. canisi timuritis eas nullatenus pacificare posse; Cum contingerit vobis eas non diligere. unam pro alta mutare licet. Take as many wives, as you will; to wit● two, three, or four etc. except you fear they will not live peaceably together; And if it shall chance, that you love not your Wife, it than is lawful for you, to change one for another. This point is partly touched else where, by showing Luther's like doctrine therein. Now in this place I will show, that Polygamy, or having many wife's at once, is grounded upon your Gospelers own Principles; & consequently that the doctrine of Polygamy is jointly taught by them, with mohammed.  
And first, our New Gospelers do teach, that Matrimony is not a Sacrament, but only an Office, or Function of Nature, ordained for the Conservation, or perpetuating of Mankind; In respect of which Office or End, it is nor repugnant, but rather consonant, and suitable to Polygamy. For in this sense Matrimony is but a Civil Contract; but every Civil Contract by the joint Consent of the Contractors may be dissolved, and the same, or a like Contract (without any Injustice to any) may be made again with others. Secondly, the Protestants general doctrine of the Necessity of having the Use of a Woman, most strongly induceth the doctrine of Polygamy.  
Now touching the Necessity of the Act of Copulation between man and Woman, observe I pray (besides that above said of this point) what your Parent (from whose loins all you Hugenors' are proseminated) speaks hereof Luther then, your first Apostle, thus 〈◊〉 ●●●heth: Quàm 
(2) Luther tom. 5 de Matrimon fol. ●19.  non est in meis viribus, ut Vir 〈◊〉 sim; tam non est mei iuris, ut absque muliere sim. As it is not in my power not to be a Man; so it is not in my power, to live without a Woman. And again in the same place: Verbum hoc, Crescite, & multiplicamini, non est praeceptum, sed plus quàm Praeceptum. That Sentence; Increase, and multiply, is not a Precept, but more than a Precept, being a divine Work, 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 eat, to drink, to sleep, to walk etc.  
And speaking in the same place to women, Luther thus indoctrinateth them:  in manu tua non est ut f●mina non sis; sic nec in te es● ut 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 live without a Man. For the Counsel or Election is not here free, but it is Necessary? For Marem feminae, feminam mari sociari oportet, Now then dreaming Luther's doctrine herein to be true, doth it not avoidable involve in itself the doctrine of Polygamy, if the parties married, through impotency, or some casual disease cannot perform the duty of Marriage; or should for a long time be separated in place, the one from the other; since it is taught (we see) as true, That A Man cannot live without the use of a Woman, nor a Woman without the use of a Man?  
The third Ground of our Evangelists, implying the doctrine of Polygamy, is the Ordinary doctrine of Divorce (even for any small occasion) taught by them, and most fully by Bucer, who much enlargeth himself herein. Sortably hereto Bucer alloweth the liberty of divorce, and marrying again, in case of departure 
(3) Bucer in Script. Anglic. de regne Christi. l 2. c. 16.  of the one party from the other; In case of Homicide, 
(4) Bucer ibidem cap. 37.  or Theft; Or of the Incurable Infirmity 
(5) Bucer, ibidem c. 4●.  of the Woman, by Childbirth; Or if the Man prove Lunatic; Or when either party is become unable to render nuptial duty; In all which cases Bucer 
(6) Bucer ibidem cap. 124.  concludeth, lawfulness of divorce and Marriage again; maintaining the same to be, Verbo 
(7) Bucer, ibidem, cap. 124.  Dei consentiens; agreeable to the Word of God.  
Now according to this doctrine of B●cer, Luther thus adjudgeth: The 
(8) Luther, tom. 5. Wittenberg. Sermon. de Matrimonio, fol. 123.  Magistrates duty (if the myfe be froward, and will refuse ●er Husband's bed) is to curb the wife, yea to put her to death. This if the Magistrate omit, the Husband must imagine, that his wife is stolen away by ●heau●●, or dead; and let him consider how to marry another. Thus Luther, And thus we observe, that from the former Principles, and Theo●●●s of your own Teachers (to wit, that Marriage is no Sacrament; That it is not possible for a Man to live without a Woman, or a Woman without a man; & lastly that Divorce upon several Cases, and to marry again is most lawful) the doctrine of Polygamy is warrantable, and is to be put in practice. From all which it is necessarily evicted, that Luther, and the Lutherans consent with mohammed and the Turks, in maintenance or defence of Polygamy, or having many Wives at one, and the same tyme. Who observeth then not here, that the spirit of our Gospelers (of which they do so much glory) like to those things which beget mere Contraries, engenders corporal, and fleshly desires?   

The 26. Symbolisme; Touching the contempt of the Cross. CHAP. XXVI.  
IN the Alcoran 
(1) Az●●r●●.  we thus read: Iuda● Maria blasphemiam immoderatam etc. The jews do offer great contumely to Mary, when they say, they put to death her son Christ jesus; for him they did not kill, but another like to him. Now upon this ground Mahomet, and the Turks, did extremely hate the Crosse● no● enduring the sign thereof, or suffering 〈◊〉 Cross to stand in any place or Nation subject to them. Our Reformists (though upon another ground) do no less hate the Cross●● then the Turks do, as the whole World knoweth, and is above in part I have showed. Thus Mahumet, and our Reformists do conspire and agree, in presecuting the Cross 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 Christ's Charity, dying upon it; whose grave after the taking down of his sacred Body from the Cross, became (as it were) that womb, from whence, the life of our Salvation did rise.   

The 27. Symbolisme; T●●●hing other several points of Faith. CHAP. XXVII.  
I Have been long in giving 〈◊〉 to the Concordences, or Harmony, tuned by Mahumet or Turks, and the Protestants; in touch of the strings thereof, we can find small jarring, but rather a perfect agreement; I mean, I have spent many leaves in laying open the particular Symbolismes between them: Therefore for greater expedition, I will make here a coacetu●tion, or heaping together of divers other Points of Religion, equally defended, taught, and practised by the Turks, and our new Evangelists.  
28. First then the flery Protestants do teach that. Christ did not descend after his death unto Limbus statrum. 29. That, we ought not to bow at the Name of jesue. 30. That, Christ did not leave in the Sacrament his true and yell Body, to be received by faithful Christians. 31. That, Seven Sacraments were not instituted by Christ. 32. That, not any Sacrament doth confer Grace. 33. That, the Church of God it not free from Error in faith. 34. That, there is not any Universality of Grace proceeding from Christ's Passion. 35. That we ought not to pray to Saints. 36. That Priests have not true Power to remit sins. 37. They in like manner teach, that there are not any Evangelicall Counsels. 38. That the Church of Rome was, and is a false Church. 39 That there is no implicit Faith; but that all things, which are to be believed, aught to be expressly known by the faithful. 40. That there is no Sacrifice in the New Testament, according to the Order of Melchisedech. 41. That the Church of God is not ever Visible.  
Now all th●se points (besides some others) are taught by our late more refined Evangelists: 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 Religion in this age, do wholly agree in belief, touching the said Points. Whereupon we are to observe, that all these Point thus taught by the Protestants, are in themselves but Negative, as denying the contrary affirmative Articles to them, taught and believed by the present Church of Rome.  
Now that Mahumet, and Sergius taught the said Negative Points with the Protestants. I thus irrepliably prove: Mahumet, and Sergius do maintain, That the Alcoran 
(*) Cusoinianus de Relig. Turca●um. Septem. castr●nfis, Bibliander, in praefat. Alcor●●●.  is the true rule of faith, or the boundary containing (within its own cancels, & limits) the express belief of all such articles of faith, which are to be believed; Yea Mahumet ascribes such perfection, and fullness to his Alcor●n, as that he dareth (by it) to correct the Christian Gospel itself, as supposing it was corrupted by the Disciples of the Apostles: For thus do some writers record of him: Euangelicam 
(1) Richerius de moribus Turcarum. Cuspin. de religione Turcarum. etc.  doctrinam, quam alioqu● laudabat Mahumetus, ab Apost●lorum discipulis corruptam, Alcorano suo se emendeturum promi●tebat. Mahument did commend the Evangelicall doctrine; 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 Affirmative Positions, contrary to the forsaid Negative Points believed by the Protestants, are not found to be set down in the Alcoran (for the Alcoran passeth them over altogether in silence, as making no mention of them at all:) Therefore even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and demonstratively, it may be inferred, that Mahum●● and Sergius did not believe our Catholic Affirmative points or Articles; but wholly comparted with our New Evangelists, in believing, and dogmatizing the said Negative points above rehearsed. Add hereto, that it is evident, that the Turks at this day, agree in belief with the precise Lutherans in all those Points. Now, if it be replied against what here is delivered, that seeing the Catholic, and Affirmative belief of most of the said Points, doth ever presuppose belief in Christ, seeing they are grounded thereon; That therefore Mahum●● (as not beliening in Christ) cannot consequently believe the said affirmative Articles, but hold only the Negative part in them.  
This Answer I aver to be most defective. For I rest not here in the Motive, or Reason, why mohammed believeth not the foresaid Affirmative Catholic Tenets (since this is impertinent in this place;) but I only insist in the Conclusion, as the thing hereby chief intended (let the reason thereof be what it will) to wit, that Mahumat, and our new Evangelists do wholly agree in their Negative belief of them. Again, I perceive no reason, seeing the Protestants do believe (at , they say, they do believe) in Christ, but that they might he well pleased (were it not, their Serpentine Malice against our Catholic Church, is the chief Hindrance) also to believe the affirmati●● Articles to their Negatives; since most of them have their foundation, or Basis upon our Belief in Christ, as our Redeemer.  
Thus far now of these several forty Points of faith, and other Circumstances conducing thereto; In the belief of all which it is made most evident, that the Turks, and your Reformed Religion do sympathise, and agree together▪ In so indissoluble a knot of Amity, and Association have Sergius, and Luther (two Apostate Monk●) tied themselves together.  
Here now (O you Hugeness of Fra●ce) I demand of you; Do you mean to persever in your Reformed Religion (as you style it) and yet not to be reputed Turks, in many Points of faith? With as much probability may a man desire to be an Ethiopian, and yet not to be black; or covet to put his n●ked hand into a ●oat fire, and withal count to avoid burning: For it is ou●r evident, out of the Premises, that concerning several Passage● of Religion, your Belief consists in Mith●liefe. your Faith in Infidelity, and your Creeds in Miscreancy; you making the Turkish Al●●ran your Catechism, for your instruction in many Points thereof. O yblessed I●●●my, we ●eer● want thee, to deliver this ●●gicall and mournful subject, i● thy accustomed Thr●●●s, and Lamenrations?   

An Answer to an Objection, That the Catholics do agree with the Turks in the doctrines of Sacrifice, and Vows. CHAP. XXVIII.  
MY presaging thoughts do probably foretell; that some of your Chief Ministers of France, reading this Treatise, with a scornful, or subriding Eye, and suspended nose, will instantly shape an Answer thereto. Or if nor any of them, yet (perhaps) some spiritualised Sectary of Genena (through the conformity of their language with France, and proximity of place) holding himself to be, un grand Theologien, will undertake that task. And in like sort, it well may be, that the Answeater will endeavour to wipe away this spot, caused through his brethren's agreement with the Turks in matter of faith, by labouring to insimulate us catholics within the said danger, in retorting; That the Papists (as in the foam of their malicious dialect they term us) stand no less chargeable with maintaining certain Points of Belief with the Turks, than themselves do: To wit, that there ought to be in the Church of God, a true and real Sacrifice (besides the spiritual Sacrifice of Prayer.) Also, that Religious Vows are lawful; both which points, as we Catholic, so mohammed at his first rising, and the Turk of these times do teach, and practice as pious, and most warrantable.  
Hear I say, if any of our Adversaries, (whosoever, or from whencesoever) shall endeavour hereby to wound us, (themselves being already wounded) or to hurt us by the recoil of out own Bullet, against this recrimination I thus reply. And first, admit as true, that we believe the former in general Articles with the Turks; yet what is the agreement of the Catholics, in two or three Points of faith with this Turks, to be compared to the Reformists agreement with the Turks in forty Points of Religion and Collateral dependencies thereon? Secondly, to speak of Sacrifice, and Vows in particular, I aver, that every Religion (either false, or true) in every place and time, had, and have their Sacrifice, and Vows annexed to their Woship o● God. From whence we gather, that Sacrifice, and Vows proceed from the instinct and light of Nature; and that to have Sacrifice, and Vows is a main Principle implanted in Man by God; and consequently is in itself most religious, and warrantable▪  
Neither will it avail, to avoid the force of this Answer, to say with 
(1) K●●● in 〈◊〉 parts, Examine. p. 741.  Ke●pni●●●es, That this Instinct of Nature, is the instinct of Nature as corrupted, which is the source, or too●e or all Blindness, and Superstition. This advantageth nothing; For although Nature corrupted is, and hath been the fountain of Blindness & Superstition; N●●●●●●elesse, whereas all Countries do agree in one common Principle, this Agreement doublesly ●●●eameth not from the Corruption of Nature, but from the Good o● N●●ure; That is, i● rises out of that light, which God hath engrafted, and sowed in Nature. For what things proceed from Corruption, those are various, and not the sam●, among all m●n. Therefore that God is t● be worshipped, to be invocated, to have Sacrifices (so truly called) and Vows offered to him, and the like, which were in general among all People, and ever 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● sacrificed, that Vows should be made to False Gods, and such like, which are diversely varied, all these do spring from the Corruption of Nature.  
Thirdly, I say, Sacrifice is congenite, & borne (as I may say) with Religion, as appeareth from the Examples of the first sonn●s 
(2) Genes. 4.  of Adam; and after from Ne; 
(3) Genes. 8.  and 〈◊〉 fr●● the Prophets. Therefore their Conjunction is most Necessary. Fourthly, Sacrifice (so properly called) and Vows 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 Vows. And though Vows in a secondary manner may be said to be made to Saints, we are to conceive hereby, that this is but only the subject of a Vow; whereas the Vow formally, and really is made only to God, as the Chief 
(4) S. Themas 2.2. qu●●. 88 ar●. 5.  Schoolmen do teach. Thu● much in clearing this retortion, made against us Catholics.  
Now from hence, (to apply it to our Purpose) the judicious and learned Reader may gather, that we Catholic is holding the doctrine of Sacrifice, and Vows, do indeed agree with the Turks herein; but not with them as they are Turks, but as they are men endued with Reason; in whose Souls (as in the Souls of all other Men) God even by the instinct of Nature, and light of Reason, hath indifferently infused the belief of the said former Points. And thus if we Catholics be blind, and superstitious in these doctrines, (as Kempniti●s suggesteth) yet are we warranted with the like blindness and superstition, not only of Christ's primitive Church (the which point here to show would be over tedious) but even of all Mankind, as it is incorrupted.   

Of the conjunction of the Turks, and some temporal Christian Stater, against Catholic Princes. CHAP. XXIX.  
NOw after I have sufficiently displayed the great Conjunction in doctrine, which our New divines do bear to mohammed, and to his offspring, the Turks; I hold it conducing to our subject in hand, in part to lay open to the world (and particularly to you, my Countrymen) the secret combination of minds both of some Protestant States, and Protestant Ministers, banding with the Turk, against the Pope, the Emperor, and other Catholic Princes, and all originally for matter of Religion; the which motive most of them make the cementation of their Amity: So much in these mens perverted judgements, doth the Turkish Religion overbalance, and weigh down in Worth, & dignity the Roman Catholic Religion. By which their Heathenish Proceeding may not our Saviour (the institutor of our Religion) say with Moses: Cui 
(1) Isay. 40.  comparastis me?  
To begin. It is evident and known to the whole World, that when they of Holland, for Religion, did first rise against the King of Spain, divers Troops, and Companies of their soldiers did bear in their Ensigns, a silver figure, or stamp of the Moon increasing (being the Arms of the Turkish Emperor) with these French Words insculpted therein: Plus●ost Turcs, qu● Papaux; That is, We will rather be Turks, than Papists.  
In like manner, Erasmus recordeth, that when the Emperor Charles was to wage War with the Turkish Emperor, levelling forces throughout several parts of Germany; the Lutheran Party, and faction was so far from yielding any help, and succurrency thereto, as that they openly proclaimed their dislike and disaffection of that Action in these word: Malle 
(2) Erasmus, in Epist ad Fratres Germania Inf●rioris.  se pro Turca non baptizato pugnare, quàm pro Turca baptizato; They had rather fight in defence of a Turk not baptised, then for a Turk baptised, thereby meaning the Emperor of Germany, and thus preferring only for cause of Religion the Turkish Emperor, before the Christian Catholic Emperor. So deep an impression had these ensuing Words of Luther (their Proto-pater) made in the Germans minds; Religio 
(3) Luther in Genes. cap. 48.  Romana magis est Idololatrica, quam Turcica; Et Pontifex ille magis est periculosus Christi hostis, quàm est Magnus Turca. The Roman Religion is more idolatrous, than the Turkish Religion: & that Pope or Bishop of Rome, is a more dangerous Enemy to Christ, than the Great Turk is.  
The less wonder their it is, that we find Luther (as above is showed) in one of his Books thus writing: Praeliari 
(4) Luther, ●om. ●. Wittemb●rg. Artic. da●nat. per Leonem ●0. Art. 34.  aduersu● Turcas etc. To fight against the Turks, is it withstand God chastizing our sins by them. And more. Let us 
(5) Luth. in explice. Art. 34.  abstain from the Turkish War● as long as the Pope's Name prevails under Heaven. And further: o'er 
* Luther in Epist. contra ●uo mandeta Imperialia.  cunctos pios Christianos no vilo modo vel in militiam cant, vel dent aliquid, contra Turcas, quandoquide●t Turca dec●es prudentior probiorque est quàm Principes nostri. And yet the said Luther more fully unbreasteth his Love and affection towards the Turk, saying: 
(6) Luther in confutat Doctorum Paris. impress. Neob●rgi.  Vi liberé animum meum aper●am; Hoc aperie de me praedico, quòd tam invitus T●rcam gladio invaderem, quam Christianum fratrem. To open my mind freely, I openly confess, that I would as unwillingly assault with my sword, a Turk, as any other that is my Christian Brother. Thus Luther, in affection fully equalling a Turk with a Christian. O the monstruousnesse of Apostasy!  
But to proceed further. The Prince of Condy 
(7) Matth. de Lanoy en s● replique. l. ●. chap. 13.  in France in the year 1570. being banished France, and retiring himself to Basill, and consulting there, how to raise Rebellion against the King of France; The Protestant Ministers of that City persuaded him, to be subject himself to the Turkish Emperor, and crave assistance of him. In like sort we Frenchmen, or rather, we Franco-Turca in the Rebellion to the year 1568. made a Petition to the Turk for aid, against our own Sovereign King, and Country; giving our reasons thereof to the Turkish Ambassador in these Words? Quia 
(8) In literii Constantinop. scriptis ad Venetum Patricium, in fine libri de furoribus Gallisis,  fides Protestantiam, Turcicae erat quàm simillima. Because the faith of the Protestants, was most like to the Turkish faith: As also in that, the Protestant Princes of Germany favouring the Turkish Emperor, might hinder all the designs of the Roman Emperor.  
These were the Reasons in particular. Which said French Men did thus promise the Turk in the forsaid Petition: Sefore 
(9) In lit. Consta●s. ●b●. suprd▪  semper paratissimos, ad turbas in Galia, Germaniaque concitandas etc. That they would ever be most ready to cause Combustions and Troubles, by incensing the Communality in France, and Germany whensoever the Turkish Emperor should hold is convenient. Such is the diabolical, and Hellish malice of Heresy, thus taking part with Misbelief, Infidelity, and Miscreancy, against our most ancient, and Apostolical Roman Faith. Which course must needs seem the more deplorable, if we call to mind, that our Kings through their piety, & constant professing of the true Religion have most deservedly purchased the Title, of Reges Christianissimi: Why then should not their subjects in imitation of their Virtue, be styled, Subditi Christianissimi? But (alas) their state is far different from this. For how can those men be truly called Christianissimi, who are scarce (at least imperfectly) Christiani? For doth Nature ever afford a Superlative without a Positive?   

The Reasons of the frienshippe between the Turk, and some Lutheran States. CHAP. XXX.  
IN this place, we will penetrate a little into the Reasons and Grounds, why our New Gospelers. & the Chief Lay-Professours of the Reformed Religion do bear such a favourable Aspect to the Turks, and their Princes. This we shall find to proceed from Certain Principles of the Protestants doctrine (of which some above are briefly touched.) Which being believed, do even dispose the mind for the full entertaining of Turkism in general; and consequently do beget in their Wills, a well-wishing to the Turk in temporal Affairs, against all Professors of the Catholic & Roman Faith. For our New Brethren do so corrupt, and disvalue 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 Heaven to Earth, that he might thereby draw man from Earth to Heaven) with their pernicious, false, and pestilent Scholia's, as that the next step is utterly to deny those supreme dogmatic Articles and Positions of faith; and so by embracing Miscreancy, to rise up absolute Turks, or jews.  
And according to this my assertion, we find AEgidius Hunnius (a most forward, and eminent Lutheran) to confess no less▪ Which Hunnius did write a book against Caluin bearing this Title: Caluinus judaizans; Hoc est, judaica Glossae & corruptelae quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca & testimonia, de gloriosa Trinitate, deitate Christi, & Spiritus sancti; cum primis autem vaticinia Prophetarum, de Aduentu Mes●iae, Nativitate 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 jews that is, The judaical Glosses & Corruptions, by the which john Caluin hath not been afraid, detestably to corrupt the most clear places and testimonies of the Holy Scripture, touching the glorious Trinity, the Deity of Christ, & of the Holy Ghost, and particularly the Prophecies concerning the Aduent and Coming of the Messiah, his Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension to Heaven, and sitting at the right hand of God.  
Another Protestant writeth in like sort a book entitled: Antiparaeus; Hoc est, Refutatio venenati scripti à Dau●de Paraeo editi, in defensionem stropharum & corruptelarum, quibus loannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae Testimonia, de Mysterio Trinitatis, nec non Oracul● Prophet arum de Chr●sto, detestandum in modum corrupit. Francosurti, Anno 1598. Thus: Antiparaeus; that is, A Refutation of the virulent writing, made by David Paraeus in the defence of the impostures and Corruptions, by the which john Caluin derestably dep●●neth the most evident Testimonies of the Scripture, touching the Mystery of the Trinity, as also the Oracles of the Prophets, concerning Christ.  
A third Protestant thus styleth his book written against Cal●in: Alberti Graveri, Belluns' joannis Caluini & jesu Christi; That is, the Wars between Caluin and jesus Christ, written by Alberius Graverus, printed at Brapta. 1598.  
To be short a Fourth Protestant writeth a Treatise, bearing this Inscription: Oratio de Incarnatione filij Dei, contr● imp●os, & blasphemos Errores Swinghanorum, & Galuinistarum, Tubingae, 1586. An Oration, or discourse of the Incarnation of the Son of God, against the wicked and blasphemeus Errors of the Swinglians and Caluinists.  
Now the Swinglians. and Caluinists thus writing against the most supreme Articles of the Trinity. the Incarnation, the Passion etc. do they not open a sluice to their Readers, for the absolute denial of the said sacred Mysteries? And once denying them, what then remaineth for the last tincture & die of their saith, but to become a Turk, a Ie●, or an Atheist?  
This former point is made no less evident, by the several Testimonies of the more sober and temperate Protestants. For Yacobus Andraeas thus complaineth: Minime mirandum est ex Caluinianis etc. We 
(1) Andraas in ●raefas. vefucat. Apolog. Danaei.  are not to wonder; that of the Caluinists in Poland, Transsiluanis, Hungary, and in other places, some embrace Arianisme, others Mahum●iisme; to whose impiety the doctrine of Caluin prepareth the way. Thus this Protestant. And Pel●rgus a Protestant thus writeth: Non 
(2) Pelargus in Admonis do Arian●s.  'tis Caluini●m, & Caluinianos' in pluri●nis Scripturae expositionibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lab●rtose ●●tendam: I will not spend much time, in chewing, bow Caluin and the C●luinists, in many oppositious of Scripture do play the jews, and the Arians.  
Now from this former source it s●ringe●n, that a book was written by a Scholar of Luther, the Argument, or Subject whereof was in the frontispisce delivered in these words: Admonitie ex Verbo Dei, quòd Caluinistae non sunt Christiant, sed cantum Indaei, & Mahumetani baptizata. An Admonition out of the Word of God, that the Caluinists are nos Christians, but only jews, and Mahunistans Christened.  
And an other famous Lutheran (being Supe●intendent of the Church of Raceburg) thus fully pronounceth of this point: Caluinistae 
(3) In lib● entitled, Dae Theologic Caluinist. libritres. Francoforts anno 15●●.  alunt in pectore impietatem Arianam, & Turcicam, quae non rarò suo tempora palam se prodit, & quod Caluinistae hominibus ad Arianismum, & Mahumetismum fenestram & ianuam aperiunt, nostri Theologi publicis libris demonstra●●runt. Vz. Our Divines have demonstrated in their public writings, that the Caluinists do nourish in their breast the Arian, and Turkish Impiety, which often upon fit occasion discovers itself. And that the Caluinists do open the Window, and Door to Arianisme, and Mahumetism, our divines have demonstrated also in their public Wey●ings. But enough of this point.   

Of certain Eminent Caluinists, who forsaking their Christianity, became open, and blasphemous Turks. CHAP. XXXI.  
AS in this first Part of this Treatise, I have showed, first, That the Turks, and our New Gospelers, who have been (Préscheurs seditieux, & dignes d'vn chastiment tres-rigoreux) seditious fellows against the Church of God, and worthy of severe punishment, do agree in forty points touching faith, and the necessary Attendants thereof. Second●y, how the chief Protestants by depraving the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, have in their Writings plained the way to Turkism, or Mahumetism: So now for the closure and shutting up of this first part, I will produce the Examples of several most eminent Protestants, who have in their own persons actually incorporated (not some, but) all the Blasphemies of Mahumetism, openly professing themselves in faith, and external Practice thereof, to be Turks; renouncing and disclaiming from all Christianity. Obstupescite 
(1) jerem. ●.  caeli super hoc.  
And to begin. The first of these Monsters (Monstrum horrendum, ingens, cui lumen ademptum) which I will name; shallbe Bernardinus Ochinus, a man much commended by 
(2) L 9 fol. 297.  Sleidan, and by Bullinger 
(3) Si●●lerus Vita Bullingeri, fol. 28.  both Protestants, and whose praise Caluin celebrateth in these Words: Whom 
(4) Caluin, l. de Secondalis, extat in eract. Theolog. p. 111.  can I truly oppose against Bernardinus Ochinus? Now this presumed worthy Protestant, in the end became an impious Apostata, entertaining Turkism: of whose fall Beza thus writeth: Polygamium nemo unquam callidius, velimpudentius defendit quam ille impurus Apos●●ta, Bernardinus Ochinus. His Apostaly is in like sort recorded by Conradus 
(6) In Theolog. Calis. l. 1. fol. 8.  Schlus●enburg. Yea Beza in the place above alleged, saith, that Ochinus was, omnium, Christianae Religionis dogmatum irrisor: A mocker or scoffer of all the Articles of Christian Religion.  
In like manner, Adam Neuserus (no vulgar Protestant) became a Turk, of whom Osiander the Protestant, thus speaketh: Adam 
(7) Ofiand. in Epitome. Cent. 19 . 2. pag. 818.  Neuserus, Pastor Heidelbergenlis, prolapsus est in Turcismum, Constantinopoli circumcisus. Adam Neuserus, Pastor of Heidelberg, did fall into Turcisine, and was circumcised as Constantinople. Of this Neuserus the foresaid Schlussenberg (the Lutheran) thus speaketh: Adam 
(8) Schlussenb. in Theolog. Caeluinist. l. 1. Ar●. 2. fol. ●.  Neuserus elim Heidelbergensis Ecclesiae primarius Pastor, ex Swinglianismo, per Arianismum ad Mahumetismum, cum alijs non paucis Caluinistis ●●●gressus est. Adam Neuserus, heretofore chief Pastor of Heidelberg, with many other Caluinists, proceeded from Swinglianisme, through Arianism, unto Mahumetism,  
In which testimony of Schlussenb. we may observe two things. First, that Neuserus (as not being content to be defiled alone) did draw many others with him to Turkism. Secondly, that Swinglianisme, and Arianisme are the two subordinate Passages, or Ways to Turkism. And therefore a German Protestant Doctor 
(9) joqunes Schutz in l. 50. causarum, cousa. 41.  calleth Swinglianisme, Arianisme, and Mahumetism, tres fratres vel sorores, vel tres caliga● eiusdem panni. Three brethren, or three sisters, or three pair of hose made of the same cloth. A truth so evident, that he forsaid Neuserus writeth of this point in this sort, being then at Constantinople: Nullus 
(10) So Stephenus Gerlatius recordeth these words, as spoken by Neuserus.  nostro tempore mihi notus, factus est Arianus, nisi antea suit Caluinista etc. No man in our days, that I know, became an Arian (which is the next step to Turkism) except he was first a Caluin●st, as Seruetus, Blandrata, Alciatus, Franciscus David, Gentilis, Gribaldus, Silvanus, and others. Igitur, qui timet sibi ne incidat in Arianismum caueat Caluinismum. Therefore who is fearful of himself to fall into Arianisme, let him take heed of Caluinisme. Thus Neuserus speaketh of his own, and divers others experience.  
The next shallbe Asam●●●●s, of whom the foresaid Schlussenburg thus speaketh: Alamannus 
(11) Courad. Schlussenb. ubi suprà, fol. 9 & 10.  Bezae fannliarissimus, & strenuus 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 given his last fare well to the Chistian faith; and is become an Apostata, and a blasphemous jew. Of whom even Beza himself thus complaineth; Alamannus 
(12) Beza in Epist. Epist. ●5.  affirmant ad judaismum defecisse; though some authors constantly affirm, that he became a Turk. But howsoever the difference is but small, since a jew, and a Turk do mutually agree in denying the most Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, and in denying all other Articles of Christian Faith, proceeding from these two former.  
In like manner David Georgius, who lived a long time at Basill, much esteemed by the Protestants of that City; of whom Osiander thus writeth; 
(13) Osiand. epit. cent. 16. part. 2. pag. 647.  V●●batur publico Vir De● ministerio Basillensi. David George, being a man of God, used the public Ministry at Basill. Now I say, this David George became a most blasphemous Turk, or jew, as the Deuine● 
(14) In bistoria Georgij Davidis printed Anewer●. anno 1568. and ple●●●shed by the Divines of Basil.  themselves of Basill have published, and recorded.  
Paulus Alciatus (an Italian) being afore a Protestant, much laboured to plant the ●●eds of Mahumetism, in Polonia, and finally became a Turk; as Beza 
(15) Beza in l. Epist. Theol. Epist 65.66.  witnesseth.  
Andraeas' Velanus (an eminent Caluinist) not only became a Turk, but withal corrupted divers others with his pestilent Writings 
(16) In Parenesi.  against the B. Trinity.  
●alius Socinus (once brought up in the School of Geneva) forsook his Christianity, and did write against the most Sucred Trinity, of whom Beza thus peaketh: T●lius 
(17) Beza, Epist. Theolog. Epist. 8●.  Socinus mihi quidem videtur, omn●●s ●●●ruptores longé superasse. I a●● of mind, that ●●lius Socinus hath surpassed all other corrupt Writers.  
I here pass over the Examples of other Caluinists, who shaking of the Christian Religion (as Waterdogs do water, when they have no further need thereof) entertained Mahumetism, and so became open, and execrable Turks; to wit, Petrus 
(18) Vide Simlerum de aeterno Dei filio.  Sartorius, Georgius Paulus, Franciscus Lismanus, all who cooperated with the forenamed Alciatus, in disseminating Turkism in Polonia.  
And thus far of the Apostasies of divers Markable Protestants, who made show in the beginning to profess the name & faith of Christ; and accordingly received their Baptism in that faith, and Religion; And yet before their deaths. spurning at all the Mysteries of Christianity, they entertained and openly professed the doctrine, and Religion of mohammed, and Sergius, two most capital Enemies of Christ, our Redeemer, Thus ranging themselves among those, who circa 
(19) ●. Timoth. 1.  fidem naufragaverunt. And indeed, it deserves observation, that by experience we find (as is partly above touched) that Protestancy, first resolves itself into Caluinisme; Caluinisme into Anabaptism; Anabaptism into Arianism; and Arianism for its last change into Turkism, or Tudaisme. Now it is a principle in Alchemy, that the last sublimation of Metals (as purging and refining away the dross, and refuse matter afore remaining) is ever the purest. Will you admit (O you Huguenots) this Theorem, or Axiom, as true?  
Well now, what can we justly conclude out of the Contents of this Chapter? It is prophesied of the Church of Christ, that she shall convert Heathens unto her, according to those words of Esay spoken of and to the Church: Thou shalt 
(20) Isa. 60.  suck the milk of the Gentills? And the Regal Prophet saith to the Church, in the person of God; I will give 
(21) Psalm. 18.  thee the Heathens for thy inheritance? To be short, the foresaid Prophet Esay is commanded and directed by God, to speak thus to the Church of Christ: Enlarge 
(22) Isa. 54.  the place of thy Tents; spread out the Cur●a●●●s of thy habitation etc. Thy seed shall possess the Gentills.  
If now the true Church of Christ's shallbe honoured, and enriched with this most worthy privilege of converting Heathens, and Gentills unto it. What Church then may we repute the Synagogue of the more fiery Protestants to be; of which many most remarkable Professors, who are Christians (in lieu of converting of Heathens) after become Mahumetans, Turks, and Miscreants, little inferior in Misbelief to the very▪ Heathens, and Gentills? Is not this to change Christ for Mahumet, his sacred Gospel for the Alcoran, & to turn light into darkness? And with this I impose an end unto the first Part of this Treatise.    

THE SECOND PART.  

Wherein is demonstrated, that in twenty Points of faith, and other accessary Circumstances thereof, Mahumet and the Turks do in their belief and practice of them, seem less to derogate from the honour of Christianity, than Luther and his Scholars do, in believing the contrary. And these Comparisons made between the Turks, and the Lutherans, are here styled, Parallels. CHAP. I.  
IN the precedent Part, I have laid open to your fight (My dear Countrymen) the many Symbolismes, & Agreements of doctrine between Mahumet, and your progenitors. Hear now I undertake a more unexpected Province, and Charge; which is, to show, that your first Masters (and in them implicitly your selves) do equal, if not transcend in impiety of Misbelief, and practise thereof, the said mohammed and his Followers, touching several Points of faith, & other accessary Circumstances thereof. We read in Holy Writ, that, Creders 
(1) Hebr. ●●.  ●pert●t accede●t●● ad Deum. And the same Holy Writ teacheth us, that God is Truth: Eg● sum Via, & Varitas. And can then man arrive to Truth, by believing what is false?  
It is a thing miserable, 
john 1●  for a Man to be a true Believer, but a bad liver: It is more miserable to be an Heretic, not believing rightly the Articles of Christian Faith: It is more than miserable, to be so absorbed in misbelief, as to consociate in Miscreancy with Mahumet, and the Turk●: But what it is, to exceed, and surpass in atrocity of misbelief the very Mahometans, Sara●●ns, & Turks, cannot be expressed in Words, and therefore a horrid and silent astonishment must be the Dialect, or Tongue to proclaim it.  
O my Native Country, in which are bred many guilty of so high a Treason against their Creators How unlike art thou to thy former self! And how little of France is now found in France? Art thou weary, and ashamed of thy former Virtue? In ancient times thou wast able to equal (yea to overstrip) other Nations in the profession of the Christian faith; which faith is a supernatural light, given to man to fyn● out the Eternal light. Art thou then now so degenerated from this former purity in faith, as not only to Symbolise with Infidels, but even to exceeds them in their Infidelity? But pardon me (O you of the Reformed Religion) & suffer me to breath out my Grief, through these my laments, and inconsolable Words▪ since I cannot, but (grandement ressentir d'●n crime si enor●ne) have a feeling, and sensible touch of your so enormous a Crime.  
But to turn my Pen to that, which I have voluntarily imposed upon it; and the rather since a discovery of Errors is here an establishment of the Truth: I say, I do undertake in these ensuing leaves to manifest, that in divers points of faith, and practice thereof, and other Collateral accessions, Mahumet and his Sect in their belief, and execution of them, do far less derogate from the Honour of the Christian faith, than your Grandmaisters, or most of you yet do.  
These my Comparisons touching the said Points, differently believed and practised by mohammed, and your Masters, I call so many Parallels (as in the beginning of this Treatise I insinuated) seeing they consist in comparing, & balancing the said points, as they are severally maintained by mohammed, and by your Party; The proof whereof I draw from the Sentences delivered by mohammed, or by such, as have written of the Mahometan Religion, compared with that, which your Doctors have leaf● recorded in their own Books.   

The I. Parallel; Between mohammed, and Henry the Eight, King of England. CHAP. II.  
NOw before I approach to compare Things together, I will compare Persons together, & will make two Parallels. The first Parallel shallbe between mohammed himself, and Henry the Eight of that name, king of England; The second between Sergius, and Luther; the one inventing first the Law of Mahumet, the other stamping his Innovations in this our Age. All which men, being originally Christians (yea catholics) by abandoning their former Religion, did find darkness in Light; whereas such as be either Infidels or Heretics, by embracing the truth of faith, find light in darkness. Now in the trutination of these men's lives, & actions, I cannot say with the Apostle; Spiritualibus 
(1) 1. Cor. ●▪  spiritualia comparens, but only Carnalibus carnalia, & vi●ijs vitia.  
To begin with Mahumet, and Henry the eigh. It is well, that Mahumet and Henry lived not in the days of Plutarch the Philosopher; For if they had, he would perhaps have paralleled them together, not as among the Worthies of the Romans, and the Grecians, but among the Vnworthies and Monsters of Mankind, registering, and mutually conferring, not their faults (for in so terming them I speak over indulgently) but their Enormous Crimes, and flagitious lives: But seeing they both crept into the World long after the former learned Historiographer. I will therefore be content to take the pains, as to place them in the scales of a steady, and impartial judgement.  
First then Mahumet erected 
(2) Bibliander in praes●●, Alcor●●●.  himself by subtlety and treachery, a great Prince, subiecting to his government, no small part of Asia Syria, Arabia, Egypt, and Africa; in which places he first caused his blasphemies to be planted. He at the first of his presumed correction, and emendation of the then Church of God, made it an Article 
(2) Bibliander ubi suprà.  of the Mahometan Religion, that himself was the Supreme Head of the Church of God; so he depriving the Successors of S. Peter of that dignity, and Prerogative. Thus to his Princely Authority did he join the Pontifical Authority, so making himself Caliphas, that is, King, and supreme Prelate; and ordaining by his sword, and Regal sovereignty, what should be believed touching faith, and that the contrary Points should not be questioned; and punishing with death such, as would not submissively yield, and give their appiobation to his wicked doctrines.  
Henry the eight was by birth King of England, and Ireland (a great Monarchy) and did run in the same line with Mahumet. For he was the first Christian Prince, who either in those Nations, or throughout all ●ur●pe, assumed to himself the Title of Head 
(*) Vide Sand. de Schismats' A●gli●.  of the Church, and decread by a Parliament or (general meeting together of all the States of the Realm) that all C●no●● of the Church, and Counsels, formerly ●nacted, should be wholly ●●iec●ed and disannulled; those only excepted, which himself vouchsafed to approve. And accordingly such Canons and decrees, which himself, and some few, others substi●ured by him, did make, wer● to be reputed as sincere and Evangelicall, being warranted under his Letters Patents, and Regal Seal.  
It is said above, that Mahumet did punish (yea sometimes with death) such, as were refractory to his Will, and would not allow the doctrine, published in his Alcoran. The like Course did this English Antiochus (to the dishonour of all Kingly Sovereignty) take for did he not (besides many reverend Abbots, and other Religion, men) put to cruel death that Pair of Martyr's (the Pride, & Honour of that Nation) I mean the Bishop ●ossensis, and Thomas ●ore 〈◊〉 his Chancellor, for their not subscribing to the wicked Ar●icle of Supremacy, first established by that unfortunate King?  
Mahumet had diu●rs wiuff, and C●●●●ines together, and at the same time: Whereas Henry of England (who otherwise, 〈◊〉 doubt, wanted not his Seraglio) had indeed (in compare.) but few wyues, ye● when 〈◊〉 was we●●y of one Wife, his accustomed stratagem was commonly to accuse her of some forged disloyalty, and so force them (one after an other) either to divorce, or to lose their heads; thus making Cruelty & murder, a stalking horse (as it were) for his next Marriage. An impiety never practised by Mahumet.  
Henry had in all six wives, of which the first was Catharine, daughter of Ferdinand the six, King of Spain, who was his wife twenty years; But then through his dislike towards her, or desire of having another, he caused a sentence of divorce to be given against her, by the Archbishop of Canterbury▪  
Anne, his second wife, was the daughter of Sir Thomas Bullen, who was not his Wife above three years, but she was condemned of disloyalty of Body, whereupon she lost her Head.  
The immediate day after the death of Anne (so impatient his l●st was of delay) he married his third wife jane, who was daughter of john Seamer Knight. She was his wife but one year, and five months. She died in Childbed; but who knoweth if of child-byrth, seeing easily he might take the opportunity of the time?  
Anne his fourth wife, being sister to Willam Duke of Cleve, was his wife for six Months; but after (for he could not feed of one dish any long time) she was divorced from him by Act of Parliament.  
Catherine, his fifth wife was nece●●nto Thomas Howard Duke of Suffolk; yet within one year, and six Months, the must also be condemned of unchasteness, and was beheaded.  
His last Wife was Catherine, daughter of Sir Thomas Parr; She was his wife three years, and had the privilege neither to be divorced, nor beheaded, but survived him. And thus his death was in likelihood the occasion of prolonging her life.  
But now in one kind of Wickedness Henry surpassed Mahumet. We read that mohammed (after his planting or his Blasphemies) did exeruct divers 
(3) Postili. de Repub. de Turcis.  Monasteries, and Hospitals in Constantinople itself; as the like did Baiaze● & Selimus, his Successors, even in that City. We further read, that Mahumet did not destroy any one Religious house, or Monastery exect before his tyme. But how great then is the disparity herein? For even all Europe hath trumpeted forth the irreligious proceeding of King Henry in this Case; Who did overthrew all the Monasteryes, and Religions Houses in England, (in the abundance whereof, no Nation, by the record of Histories, was able to compare with it.) This flagitious King (whose All, was Luxury, Murder, and Sacrilege) prostrating even with the ground, so many Religious Houses, & buchering so many Religious Persons of the said Monasteries, did lastly confiscate all the Lands and benefits belonging to them (which were almost of incredible Opulency & riches) to himself; partly to spend in all sensuality, and dissolution of life, & partly to maintain his flattering Attendants, and Follower's.  
Now then (to encircle the several Passages of this King, displayed in this Chapter, or Parallel,) we may from hence gather, that the afore mentioned Ecclesiastical Primacy of the Church, was never challenged, or assumed (during this last nine hundred years) by any temporal Prince, confessing the name of Christ until this Mahometan Henry, through more than a Ne●trodian 
(4) ●●ns. 10.  Avarice, had demolished several thousands of Religious Houses; and through an unheard Homicidy, had made himself Husband's successively of six Wyues: O blemish, and dishonour to Nature!  
With this I end this Parallel between King Henry, & Mahumet the great Prophet, as vuulgarly the Turks and Saracens do style him; And yet I see no just cause (to be somewhat pleasant with you, my Countrymen) but that this Henry might be reputed as great a Prophet, as ever Mahumet was. My reason is this; we do not read of any thing particularly prophesied by mohammed; whereas this our Prophetical King was able (supernaturally forsooth) to foretell, divers Months before, of what kind of death, for what cause, and at what time his present living Wife (though then being in good health) must after die. A stupendious Vaticinatour Thus whiles England is England, so long shall the memory of the Actions of this baroarous King continue; And here may well take place that Sentence of Cicero: Salamina shallbe soover forgotten, before the shing done in Salamina be forgotten.   

The 2. Parallel; Between Sergius and Luther. CHAP. III.  
I Will in this next place balance Sergius, and Luther together. In discoursing whereof I will more fully spread & enlarge myself, that so the implety of Luther being in part laid open to the eye of others, they may the more willingly be induced to have a loathing, and hatred of the heresies, first in our Age ventilated by him. For if the Conduit or Pipe be foul and muddy, can the water, which streams through it, be clear and sweet?  
And to begin. Sergius, and Luther were the first Apostles (so to style them) of their Religions; The first of Mahumetism, or Turkism; the second of Lutheranism, or Hugenotisme. They both (as above is touched briefly were Monks, leaving (with breach of solemn Vow) their Monasteries, though in a different manner. For Sergius through his miscarriage was cast out of it; But Luther voluntarily (and therefore with greater impiety) did relinquish his Monastery; and thereupon yoked himself with a professed Nun; so ushering his Vocation with the sin of Sacrilegious Adultery.  
Both of them secured their molitions & had Attempts, under the Wings and safeguard of temporal Princes; Sergius under Mahumet, and Luther under the Duke of Saxony. Both of them had for their Master and Instructor in planting their several Faith, the Devil; so as the words of our Saviour might truly take place in either of their plantations: Qui 
(1) Math. 11.  seminavit ea, est diabolus▪ Sergius had him originally, but not immediately; since humane respects of pleasure, and the like were to him a forcible allective▪ inviting him to his after Apostasy: But Luther had the honour and favour (forsooth) to be instructed by the Devil both originally, and immediately; The 
(*) This disputation between Luther and the Devil, is confessed by Hospinian, the Protectant, in Hist. Sacram. part. altera, fol. 131. As also by Manlius Luther's Scholar in loc. come. and by Morton, in Apolog. Cathol. part. 1. l. 9 c. 21.  Devil by that means Catechising this his Proselyte, to abandon his Catholic Religion; & by telling him, that by saying daily Mass, he committed Idolatry. To which, and other of the Devil's arguments he yielded.  
This his Conference with the Devil is so certain, and undoubted, as that Luther himself (as not being ashamed of enjoying such a Master) very solemnly delivereth it in these his own Words; It 
(2) Luther, tom. 7. Wittenberg. anno 15●8. de Missa ●ngulari.  fortuned, that at a certain time about Midnight, I was suddenly awaked from sleep; then Satan began this dispute with me, saying: Harken, right Reverend Doctor Luther; Thou knowest, thou hast for the space of fifteen years celebrated private Masses every day; but now what sayest thou, if such Masses were horrible Idolatry? Haec illo dic●ute: The Devil thus speaking, did use voce forti, & grani, a strong, and base Voice. I did burst forth into a sweat, and my hart began to beat, and tremble. Thus Luther himself hereof; and through force of this colluctation, and dispute with the Devil he renounced his Priesthood, and instantly began to stamp from the same origin, the rest of his Heresies; but this, (avet une impudence effrenêe, & trop audacicuse arrogance.) most shamlesly, and boldly.  
Here than I demand, Who first denied the doctrine of Private 
(1) Luth. de abrogand● Missa privatu.  Mass, and Priesthood? The Devil, and Luther. Who first denied 
(2) So Sleyd●n witnesseth of Luther, l. 26. fol. 232.  Pardons? The Devil & Luther. Who first denied Papal 
(3) Luther in captivit. Babil. tom. 2. fol. 68  jurisdiction, and Monastical 
(4) Luther de Votis Monain tom. 2. Wittenberg.  life? The Devil, and Luther. Who first denied Four 
(5) Luth. tam. 2. fol. 63.  Sacraments? The Devil, and Luther. Finally, who first denied , 
(6) Luther, de seruo arbitrio, i● tom. 2. fol. 424.  justification by Works, and several Parts of Canonical 
(7) Luther, in praefat in Euist, lacobi,  Scripture? The Devil, & Luther. Since than the Devil. & Luther were so intrinsical and in ward friends, and that Luther became so serviceable an Achates to the Devil, as publicly to preach and maintain, whatsoever the Devil did dictate unto him; I leave to your own judgements (my Countrymen of the Reformed Religion) what hope you can have of your soul's Salvation, in embracing, and believing the damnable doctrines, first invented by the Devil, and Luther, in their afore mentioned solemn. Conference.  
But to return. Sergius, and Luther did unanimously contemn the ancient Fathers of Christ his Church, that thereby (as prestiming the Errors of those Fathers) they both upon this ground with greater considency, might urge a Reformation of the supposed Errors in our Catholic Religion, as is above said. Sergius his dislike of the Fathers is discovered in the thirteenth Azoara, above set down. Luther (to omit many other unworthy aspersions, and reproaches cast upon them by him) thus writeth: The Fathers 
(3) Lath tom. 〈◊〉. Wi●●onb●●●o 1991 〈◊〉 seruo arbi●rie, 〈◊〉. ●●●▪  of so many Ages, or Centurios have been wholly blind, and most unskilful in the Scriptures, and have erred during all their lice time; and except they were amended before they died they were not to be accounted Sainis, nor belonged to the Church. In which Censure Luther delivereth his mind in fare greater acerbity of speech, than we find Sergius in writing the Alcoran to have done.  
To pass on. Sergius, and Luther did jointly write lasciviously, and lustfully. Sergius thus decreeth in his Alcoran: Muheres 
(4) Azoara 8.  quotrescunque placuerit, duas sciences antony's tres, aut quaetuor ducite etc. But is Luther any whit short to Sergius herein? Read what followeth: Si non 
(5) Luth. J●●●n de M●●ri●●io.  vult Vxer, aus non possit, veniat Ancilla. If the wife either will not, or by impotency cannot, let the maid come in her room. He further teacheth, That a Man may marry another woman, if his own Wife be fled from him; And then upon this ground Luther thus concludeth: A man 
(6) Luth. tom. ●▪ Wi●●an. berg▪ fol. ●●●.  may have ten, or more wife's s●●l from him & and all yet living. Luther further proceedeth, thus teaching: Polygamy 
(7) Luth. in Propofit. de bigamia. 〈◊〉 15●8. propes. ●2, 65. ●●.  is no more disannulled or abiegated than is the rest ●f Mayses Law. And it is free, as being neither commanded, nor forbidden? Thus far of Luther's doctrine (agreeing with Sergius) touching the firm of Carnalicy.  
Now whereas Sergius, and Luther above thus write only speculatively, and by way of Instruction: Yet here we find a difference between Sergius, and Luther. For touching the personal Incontinency of Sergius, we find but little, or nothing written; Whereas Luther, as willing to incorportie his former doctrine in himself, (besides his espousing of a Votall Nun) thus speaketh of himself, and of his own incontinency? Quam 
(8) Luth tom. Wittenb. de Matrimon. fol. 119.  non est in meis vitibus etc. It is no more in my power to be without a Woman, than not to be as, Man. He further thus confesseth of himself: I have 
(9) Luth. in colloq. Mensal. ●ol. 526.  been almost furious, through the rage of lust and desire of a Woman. And yet more particularly: I am burned 
(10) Luther, tom 1. Epist, Latin. fol. 334. ad Philippum.  with the great sire of my untamed flesh; etc. Eight days are past, during which time, I did neither write pray or study; being vexed partly with temptations of the flesh etc. Did ever Sergius disgorge such fifth, touching his own sensuality?  
To proceed. Sergius as not believing in Christ, contemned the Sacraments of Christ; and therefore maketh little, or no mention of them in the Alcoran. Luther admitteth some Sacraments, yet writeth so hearth mishly and irreverently of them, as that his sin is little less in wrongfully reaching of them, than is the sin of Sergius in not believing them at all. For Hospinian thus speaketh of Luther: Lutherus cousque 
(11) Hospin. 1. histor. Sacrament. pars. aliera. fol 14.  progreditur, ut diceret Sacramentum verum futurum, etiamsi à Diabolo conficeretur. Luther proceeded so far, as that he maintained, a Sacrament to be true, and effectual, although it were celebrated, and ministered by the Devill-would Sergius have ever uttered such blasphemous Words against any Sacrament, if he had been persuaded, they had been first instituted, and ordained by God?  
The next point, of which we will discourse is, how Sergius esteemeth of the Old Law, and of Moses; and what Luther delivereth of Moses. First then, we find Sergius thus to write in the Alcoran: Deus 
(12) Azoara ●.  pius & misericors prius Testamentum vetus, deinde Euangelium rectas vias hominibus tradidit. God being holy and merciful, did first deliver to men (as two right ways) the Old Testament, and then after, the Gospel. And according hereto a writer of the Turkish Religion, thus speaketh: Nullum 
(13) Cusanus in cribratione Alcorani, l. 8. c. 2. & l. 2. c. 24, & l. 3. c. ●,  Prophetarum contradicit, sed approbat libros à Deo fidelibus traditos, scilicet legem Moysis etc. Sergius, and the Alcoran, do not contradict any of the Prophets, but approve the Law of Moses, the Pentateuchus etc.  
But doth not Luther (your I doll) speak of Moses in another dialect, and of divers parts of the Old Testament? For first you know, that Luther with his faction impugneth the writings of divers Prophets of the Old Testament. Hence it is, that Luther holds many Books thereof not to be Scripture, but Apocry phall; to wit, the first and second of Esdras, Toby. the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, and some others. Now touching Luther's acerbity of writing against Moses, observe what followeth: Habuit 
(14) Luther, tom 3. Wittenberg. in Psalm. 45. fol. 42. fol. 412. & tom. 3. German. fol. 40, & 41.  Moses labia, sed in facunda, impedita; irata, in quibus non est Verbum Gratiae. Moses' had his lips unpleasant, stopped, and angry, in the which there is not one Word of Grace, but of Angar, death, and sin etc. If you collect all the wisdom of Moses etc. you shall sinned it to be in the sight of God, either Idolatry, or Hypocritical Wisdom, or at most, the Wisdom of Wrath. Again: Moses habuit labia diffusa felle. & ira. Moses' had his lips full of Gall, and anger. Away therefore with Moses. Blush you not hereat, (My Countrymen) to see how unworthily & profanely Luther (with reference to Sergius) censureth of a great Part of the Old Testament, and particularly of Moses?  
I will conclude this Parallel between Sergius and Luther, that dreaming for a time, that the doctrine of God's Church was corrupted, at Sergius first breaking out, and also at Luther's revolt (as Sergius, and Luther do teach, averring their own Mission, or Vocation to have been in regard of the reformation of the supposed corrupted faith of God in those times:) I say, imagine all this as true, I then aver, that Sergius broached his Religion in a more convonient time, and place, than Luther did. For first touching the time, whereas Sergius, and Luther do jointly teach (as abous is intimated) that at the time of Gregory the Greas (being a thousand years since) all the true Religion of God was corrupted, or rather exiled out of all Countries, Now Sergius at that very time by the appointment of Mahumet did first restore the Church of God (as he presumed) to its primitive faith: Therefore (I say) it inevitably followeth upon Mahumet● Principles, that Sergius reform the Church in a more convenient and profitable time, then Luther did; who some ●●ne hundred years after Sergius began his Reformation; during all which ages the Church of Christ (according to Luthere doctrine) wanted this re●lauration to its former Purity.  
Now touching the Places, which received the presumed benefit by both their rise, and appearance to the World; Sergius planted his Religion (by the strength of mohammed) in many most vast Nations, which at his first spreading of his doctrine, were infected with divers heresies of the Arians, Novatians, Manichees, Eunomians, Eutichians, Nestorians, the which (besides some other Heresies) had invaded at that time Asia, Syvin, Arabis, Egypt, and Africa: Whereas by the coming of Luther (admitting, he had instituted a true Religion) only England, Scotland, some parts of Germany, and of France have receaned benefit thereby: So great a difference there is, touching this imaginary benefit to the Church of God, procured by the several Commings and preach of Sergius, and Luther, Thus far I have thought good to proceed, in the libration of Luther with Sergius; where we see, that in divers points of Impiety Luther equals Sergius, in others much transcends him.   

The 3. Parallel; Touching the dignity of Christ. CHAP. IU.  
WE will in this place touch the worth and dignity of Christ, and will observe how differently Mahumet, and Luther with his Attendants do speak of Christ, whereby we may lament the Vnfor●●●ate and Ca●icu●ar days, in which we live, to see Mahumet and his Sect, not believing in Christ, surpass in praises of Christ, our Gospelers, who say they believe in Christ, True it is, that Mahumet did not believe in Christ, as in his Redeemer, yet mark how reverently he writeth of Christ, and compare his words with the Words of your first Instructours.  
Thus than we find mohammed to teach of Christ in his Alcoran: jesus Maria 
(1) Azoara 5. & ●● & 12.  Thus fuis Dei Nuncius, & Spiritus & Virbum, Dei cali●●s Immisum; Cui Dei legato omnis de●ent credera. And again in another place of the Alcoran: jesus ●uit Sapienita & Verbum Patris & Me●●tas, & Princeps, Fuit Des Speritus, & mens grincepiumque, & caput omnium bominum. jesus the son of Mary, was the Messinger and spirit, and Word of God. He was sent from Heaven; and him (as the Legate of God) all men ought to believe. Again: jesus was the Wisdom and Word of the Father; and the very spirit and mind of God; and the beginning, & head of all Men.  
Now according to these Passages of the Alcoran, Theodorus Bibliander (the Protesta●t) thus writeth of the doctrine of the Turks: Primus 
(2) Bibliander in praefas. Alcoran. pag. 3.  & maximus e●ror Turcarum est quod Trinitatem in Vnitate neg●●t etc. Christium, ●ec Dei fil●um, ●●c Deum esse credunt, sed Prophe●am bonum, veracissimum, omn●s meudacij alque peccati immunem. The chiefest, and greatest error of the Turks is, that they deny the Trinity in the Unity; They believe, that Christ is neither the Son of God, nor God; but that he was a good, and most true Prophet, and free from all lies, and sin. Thus we see, how honourably and magnifically mohammed did teach of Christ, and so accordingly the Turks do believe of him, even at this day.  
But now let us observe in what contrary Idiom of speech, (altogether depressing the dignity of Christ) our Adversaries do speak. And to pass over (as above touched) how Luther and his Scholars will not acknowledge their Redemption from Christ; except his divine Nature suffered, in which their fantastical, and conceited dognea they much dispretiate, and underualew the worth of the Humanity of Christ. First then whereas Mahumet above styleth Christ to be Supientia, & Verbum Patris, & Dei Spiritus, & men's; And all this mohammed did understand of Christ, as he was Man (for as we read in the former Azoara's, he did not acknowledge Christ to be God.) Now Christ being in the judgement of mohammed & the Turks, the Wisdom, and the Word of the Father, as also the Spirit, and Mind of God, it avoidable followeth, that Christ (as Man) in the iudgment of Mahumet did know all things, and was free from all Ignorance; as also did not stand subject to any sudden vngouerned perturbations of the Mind, & such, as after aught to be corrected (which correction virtually implieth in itself a former sin;) since otherwise we should be forced to grant a thing most absurd, and no less derogatory from the Majesty of God) that the Wisdom, the Word, the Spirit, and Mind of God, and, He, whom God commandeth all men to hear (as above we noted out of the 
(3) Azoar● 11. & 18.  Alcoran) did stand obnoxious to Ignorance, to disordered Passions, yea to sin itself.  
Now this inference being inevitable, let us see, how your Forefathers in opposition hereto, stand guilty in charging Christ; as man, with Ignorance. Thus than we find one of them to teach: Christas 
(4) Bucerus in Luc. ●. So Calu●●. ●s H●rm. c. 11.  ●b infantia non fuit gratia consummatus, sed ani●i doth us, relu●i cateri homi●es, adolevit, usu factas qui●di● sapientior, 〈◊〉 us puerulus ig●orauia l●ber●●is. Christ from his Infancy was not consuenmate with Grace, but did increase (a other men do) in the guilts of the Soul. He was made by use daily more wise, so that he laboured with Ignorance as a little Child. The same doctrine is taught by Beza, 
(5) Baze in respons ad act. colloq. Montisbelg. part. 1. p 147. & 148.  and by one Willettus 
(6) Willet in Synops pag. 599. & 600.  an English Doctor; All which I●nouatours sucked their poison touching the supposed ignorance of Christ, from Luther (their Great Cham) who thu● writeth in one place: Christus sicut non 
(7) Luther, in Contion. de Natali Domint, tractans locum Marci, ●5. de illo die.  quoli●et tempore omne● vidis audius ●●gue sens●● 〈◊〉 itaetiam corde non omnia s●mper ●gn●u● etc. As Christ at all times did not see hear. & understand all things▪ so did he not know all things in his Hart, but so much only, as the Lord vouchsafed him to know.  
To proceed fu●●her▪ When Christ prayed in the Garden, Marloretus (the Protestant) saith; Voceus 
(8) Marloret. in Math. 2●.  edidit sine rations, sine spiriti●. With whom Caluin agreeth in these Words. Christus metu 
(9) Caluin in cap. ●. Matthat.  perculsus etc. Christ being streken with fear, did waver among several floods of. Temprations, with change, or vicis●tude of desires; And this is the reason, why he praying in the Garden against death Moxsib● fraenum ini●cit, Putris●, imper●● sub●jciens, votum illud subitè el, sum castig●uit & r●●ocauit; did presently bridle that his desire, and submitting himself in the Will of his Father, did instantly correct land recall that his Petition, or desire as suddenly falling from him.  
And further Caluin in the same pla●e more enlargeth himself, saying; Non fuit hac meditat● Christi Oratia, s●d vis & imp●●●●●●loris subitam ei vacem ●●torsie, cur statim addita fuit correctio; Eadem whementia praesentem calestis decreti memoriam illi abstulit. This prayer of Christ (meaning, If 〈◊〉 be possible, let this Cup pass from me) was not premeditate, but force and violence of Grief did extort this sudden Word from him, the which he presently corrected; The same vehemency of dolour did take from Christ the present remembrance of the Celestial decree. Thus far Caluin. Where we may gather from those former words in him: Subit● clapsum cast●gauit, & recovauit; As also those other; Non fuit meditata oratio, cui statim addita, suit Correctio; And again; eadem ve●ementia praesentem ●alestis decreti memoriam ei abstulis, tha● Caluin doth charge Christ not only with Ignorance, and Forgetfulness, or Inconsideration; but even with Sin, since that is only a sin, which standeth in need of Correction, and revocation.  
But to close up with Caluin. This 
(10) See the Records of Noyon, in France, and S●blus●enbur. Theol Calu. 2. fol. 7●.  Sodomitical Fugitive (for my Pen cannot at this present afford him better terms) entered in to that height of Blasphemy, as that he thus taught: Christus 
(11) Caluin. 〈◊〉 2. Instie. c. 16. §. 10.  dires in ●nima orucietus damnati, & perditi ho●inis pertul●●: Christ did suffer in his soul the earefull ●oxations of a damned, and lost Man. And thereupon Caluin teacheth, that Christ 
(12) Caluin. ubi suprà. ●● 11.  was not secu●e of his o●ne Salvation; reprehending the Catholic for teaching the Contrary, in this manner, 
(13) Caluin ubi suprà ●. 1●.  ●●ic 〈◊〉 quidam indocts clamitant me atrocem facere Chrissto iniurtam, quia minime consentaneum fuerat, Christum de antmae salute timere. Here now rise up certain ignorant lewd fellows, exclaiming against me, that I offer to Christ an atrocious injury; seeing (they say) it is not agreeable to him to fear the Salvation of his own Soul. The said Caluin, the more to depress the power and dignity of Christ, and to debase the worth of those, who first believed in Christ, thus censureth of his Disciples: Christus 
(14) Caluin, in Luc. cap. 7.  discipulos, non nisi ex face populi, & quisquilij sibi colligere potust Christ could not gather to him any disciples, but such as were of the dregs, or refuse of the People: Thus Caluin charging Christ with want of Power herein.  
Now here I demand of any indifferent Man, who with an impartial eye, shall observe (cerenormes indagnitez commises cozire jesus Christ) how those former words of mohammed in his Alcoran, delivered of Christ (to recapitulate some of them) That Christ, is Sapientia, & Verbum Patris; Messiah, Spiritus. & Mens Dei, & cui Deilegato omnos credere debent: that he is Propheta veracissimus, & omnis peccatiimmunis, and the like Encomia; Hear, I say, I demand how these Praises can stand with the Ignominy and Dishonour, which your Masters in their former alleged Sentences, have offered to Christ, in making him to become thrall to Ignorance. Impotency, Passion. Forgetfulness, Sin, & doubtfulness of his own Salvation? Him (I mean) who was absolutely ●eatus, when he was but Viator here upon earth; and whiles he was sailing upon the seas of worldly Misery, was arrived to the port & Haven of Rest; briefly who was (so to speak) intuinively discursive, in regard of different respects?   

The 4. Parallel; Concerning the 〈◊〉. Virgin Mary. CHAP. V.  
FRom the Son, we will descendingly ascend to the Mother; I mean from our most Blessed S●●i●ur to the Blessed Virgin Mary; and see, whether Mahumet, or our Gospelers do write with more reverence, and Honour of that most Intemerate, and Sacred Virgin▪ Mother of God, and chief Patroness of all true and virtuous believers.  
And to recurre (for trial hereof) to mohammed his Alt●ran; We read these following Elegy, and Praises of the Virgin Mary the●i● (notwithstanding that he was persuaded, as our Adversaries are at this Present, that too much honour was exhibited to her, by the Christians of his days.) Thus than the Alcoran celebrateth her Worth. saying: Omnium 
(1) Az●●●●  mulberry op●i●a Mari●, ab omnibus intactae, ani●●am suam Deus insuff●●●is, & ill●●●●●liu●●, suum ●anifestu● Geni●●●● M●●ac●l●●● p●●u●●. God did breathe the soul into Mary, being defiled by no man, & being the best of all Women; and made her, & her Son an evident Miracle to the Gentills. And more: Maria fuit 
(2) Azoar● 〈◊〉  omnibus viris & mulieribus splendidior, & mundeor, atque purior, soli D●●perseueranter students. Marry was more fair, more clean, and more pure than all Men and Women, ever persevering, & studying to please God. And further: Spiritus 
(3) Azoar● ●1,  Dei intravit Mariam, & jesum ex ea genuine. The spirit of God entered into Mary, and begot of her (being an immaculate Virgin) jesus. Again: Maria 
(4) Azoar● 76.  aliquid mali, sive Malit●ae non oper●ta est. Marry did never commit any Evil, or Act of Malice.  
These, and the like praises an given by Mahumet to the B. Virgin; yea one Author hath left thus recorded of Mahumet, saying: Nullus 
(5) Lyra in tract. contra quendam judaeum, in fine Novi Testam●nti.  de fi●ijs Adam nasci●ur, quem non tangat Satan, praeter Mariam, & filium eius. There is not any borne of the Children of Adam. whom Satan hath not touched, or assaulted, excepting Mary, and her Son. And according to these Praises, we find that mohammed in his Alcoran usually giveth her, the title of A Virgin. For example (to omit other such like passages.) Angelus Gabrie● 
(6) Azoara ●.  ad Virginem Mariam à Deo missus est, narra●grus eam (qu●mquam Virginem) Dei tamen omnipotentiâ filium concep●uram. The Angel Gabriel was sent from God to the Virgin Mary, to relate unto her, that though she was a Virgin, nevertheless through the omni●●●ency of God, she was to co●n●au● a Son, And concordantly hereto By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reporteth the doctrine of the Turks herein, 
(7) Biblia●der in Praefat. Alcoran. pag. 3●  saying: Credant Turci, quod Ma●●a 〈…〉 Pa●● genitus e●t. Now out of the●●●●●mer Passage● of Mahumet, and the Turks, delivered in the honour of the Mother of ou● Sa●i●ar, we collect first, that in the judgement of mohammed, and the Turks, she was and ever continued a Virgin. Secondly that ●●e was mor● perfect, and pure, than any Man; or Woman; Christ only excepted. Thirdly, which is partly coincident with the former, that she never committed any sin, and was free from the Temptations of the Devil.  
Let us oppose to these Passages the W●●tings of our first Innovatours, and observe the great disparity between them, and Mahumet. And first let us take into our Consideration, how they ●uer●e, that the B. Virgin by the birth of her Son lost her Virginity. M●linan● (a great Protestant) thus writeth here●● in 
(8) Molina●● in unions qu●tuor Euangeliorum part. 3.  Conceptions quidem ●●llo ●●ds fui● visrus Mariae aper●us, ●id s●●● in ●●●iuilate. In the Conception or Christ, the Womb of Mary was not opened, but it was in the Nativity. And more in the same place: Verge supernaturali●er pregnans, naturaliter peperit, which could not be without breach of her Virginity, according to those words of S. Augustine's Sivel per Christum nasce●te● c●●ramper●●u●●s●●i● Mati● in●egri●as etc. If the integrity of Mary the mother 〈◊〉 be corrupted by Christ, in the time of his b●●il●, then followeth i●, that he was 〈◊〉 bor●● of a Virgin; and th●● consequently (which God forbidden) the whole Church should err in believing, and confessing, that Christ was born● of a Virgin. Thus S. Austin.  
To proceed further. Your Grandmaisters are not content to ●each, ●●●t not only in the birth of Christ, the most Blessed Virgin lost her Virginity; but they writ most doubtfully (contrary to those words of Mahumet above mentioned, Mulier ab omnis●us intact●,) that she had the company of joseph after the birth of Christ, and perhaps might have some other child: Yea they blush not to allege Scripture in warrant of this horrible blasphemy. According to this, that refined Heretic (Caluin I mean) thus writeth: Non 
(9) Calu●● in Harmonis,  fuit pass●rae Virgo etc. Th● Virgin did not suffer herself to be marted to joseph, thereby to delude him; and certainly it would have been a perfidy in her, deserving great repraehension, if she should thus continue the duty of Marriage; and this not without mocking of God; Thus intimating, that the Blessed Virgin did corporally know joseph, after the birth of Christ.  
And from this puddle it springeth, that the Novellists of these days cannot endure to hear, that the Mother of God ever vowed Virginity. For thus we find that Ps●●de-Martyr to reprehend S. Austin: S. Austin 
(10) Peter Martyr. de Eucharist & Votis, col. ●6●●.  i● his book of holy Virginity believed, that B. Mary● vowed Virginity; which allmond easily know, how absurd this Sentence i●. Yea out Adverse, are so full of this sensual blasphemy, as that they are ready to press with I●●i●●an, and Hel●●di●● (two old Heretics, branded therefore by the censure of the Primitive Church) that place of Scripture, against the perseverance of our B. Lady in her future Virginity: Et non 
(11) Math 1.  cog●●sceba● cam, donec etc. Whose detorted, and Heretical Scholia of this place (chief resting in the word donec) is avoided by other passages of 
(12) V●●●● ●● Psalm. 109. Math. 18. Math 5.  Scripture, wherein we find the said Particle, donec.  
The Bethsamites (we 
(13) Regum 1.  read) were severely punished, only for unworthily beholding of the Ark, wherein the Tables of the Typical Law were kept and reserved: What Punishments, what tortures, what torments then are prepared for those, who do by their envenomed Pens, and raso●y tongues, violate the inviolate dignity of the Sacred Virgin; within whose chaste Womb for the space of nine Months the most Venerable Body of Christ was (as I may say) enchased; of him I mean, whose Aduent and Coming was shadowed in the Typical Law, and whose birth did abrogate and cancel it? O sacrilegious Impiety!  
Now where the former Azoar●s in Mahumet aver, that God did breathe the Soul into the Virgin; that ●he was more p●r●, and cleans, than any m●n or wom●●; incessantly st●●●ing to please God; Finally, that she never committed any Act that was evil, or proceeding of malice: How dissonant this doctrine is from the doctrine of our Innovatours, shall appear, from th● Opinion of some of them, who will not afford to her the title of being Blessed; Yea they are not afraid to introduce even her own son (an offence, which surpasseth the nature of sin) ●o deny her to be Blessed.  
According to this my Assertion, we find Caluin himself to vige certain words of Christ, where we read, that when upon those words spoken by a Woman to our Saviour, Beatus 
(14) Luc. 11.  venture ●uite portavit etc. Our. Lord answered: Quimimo bea●i, qui audiunt Verbum Dei, & sustodiunt i●●ud, This answer (I say) of our Lord, Culuin 
(15) Caluin in M●●monia.  tortures and racks to deprive the B. Virgin of being (even ●o her son's judgement) Blessed. O good God Are they Christians, who thus conui●●ate with their S●tyticall Inuectives the Mother of Christ? Or hope they to find favour with the Saviour of the World▪ who thu●●ea●e a sunder the Molour of her▪ who is the Mother of the Saviour of the World?  
An Advertisement of the Translator.  
☞ Seeing the Cardinal (as not understanding our English tongue) could not produce the authority following therefore the Translator hath thought good to insert it (as being most pertiner to this matter▪ 〈◊〉 T●●● i●; the 〈◊〉 ●●onny (an English Minister) of great ●ni●●ency, in his Treatise of Pacification feareth not to chargeous Blessed Lady (I have a horror partly but to relate his Words) with sour● mortal, sins, committed at one time; for he saith She did break the first Commandment, the fift ●he sixth, and the nynth Commandment, because ●he defended not her Son upon the Cross. Would ever any Mahometan speak that 〈◊〉  
Thus far (or rather to much) of this distasteful subject. Only I refer to the Censure even of yourselves, my Countrymen; (for I do not fear partiality in so clear a point) whether after you have per●●sect diligently all the Premises you be persuaded, that Mahumet, or your Prime Masters, have borne greater veneration, and reverence to the Mother of Christ, our Redeemer: yet before my Pen here cease, let it turn itself particularly to thee, O B. Virgin, and by dece●ping some Panegyrics out of the ancient Fathers, and other Doctors, delivered upon thee, celebrate in part thy praiser. Thou art then both● 
(16) Gregory Nyssene Orat. ●. de Nativit. Christi.  Mother, and a Virgin, Neither did thy Virginity take away thy Chil●byrth, no● thy Childbi●● 〈◊〉 thy Virginity. Only 
(17) jerom. l. ●. contra Pelag. c. 2.  Christ did open the closed gate of thy Virgin●●●ombe, which nevertheless ever continued soul. Thou art the 
(18) Proclu● Constantin. ●rat. de Na●iuit, Christi.  Temple of God ●hou art the Mansion of Heaven and earth. Thou art the Win●●our 
(19) Fulgentius, serm. de laud. B Virg.  of Heaven, because through thee. God did send forth true light to all Ages: Thou in time di●●● 
(20) Methodius orat. in Hypag. This Father lived in the second age after Christ.  bring fore● him, who was con●e●ued before all tyme. Thou art the 
(21) Methodius ibid.  circumscription of him, who cannot be circumscribed; the comprehension of him, who comprehendeth all things. Thou 
(22) Proclus Constant. Homil. de Nativit. Christi.  art the shop, wherein the two Natures are united; the Bedchamber, 
(23) Proclus ubi suprd  wherein the Word espoused human flesh: or the Bridge by which God descended from heaven. Thou art Higher, 
(24) Athavasius in Euang de Beat Virgin.  than the Blessed of Heaven, more honourable, than the Cherubims, more holy than the Seraphims, more glorious than all the Hosts of Heaven. Finally. As Eva 
(25) ●●eu●us contr● Haeres. circa ●●●dium.  was seduced. that thereby the might fly from God; So thou (Marry) art persuaded to obey God, that so Mary (being a Virgin) might be an Advocate for Eva a Virgin.  
Since than most Holy ●●rgin, thou art an Advocate, plead for me (thy suppliant, and Client) who with all humble gratefulness, do acknowledge thy several corporal, and spiritual Benefits bestowed already upon me. Besiege the ears of thy B. Son, with seruerous Prayer in my behalf, that during my peregrination here upon earth, and sailing in the Sea, and waves of humane Misery, my poor Soul may escape the Rocks, and sands of mortal sin; making Heaven my Polestar, and thy Son, my Pilot; that so after my troublesome voyage is ended, I may arrive to the Haven of interminable selicity, there to enjoy those joys, qua 
(26) 1. Cor. 2.  oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor bominis ascendit. But to remember myself, and to proceed to other Parallels, or Comparatives.   

The 5. Parallel; Concerning the Antiquity of Mahumetism, and Lutheranism. CHAP. VI  
I Will in some ensuing Comparatives insist in certain Prerogatives, which may seem to agree to Mahumetism; of which Prerogatives Lutheranism is wholly, deprived, and consequently inferior therein to Mahumetism. I will not call these the Marks of the true Church, since a false Church; (and such is the Church of Mahumet) is in some sort, and comparatively capable of them. And thus though every Religion, or Church enjoying them, is not a true Religion (for they are not absolutely converrible with a true Church) notwithstanding that Church, which wanteth them, is doubtlessly a false Church, or Religion.  
The first then of these shallbe Antiquity, which is fare greater in Mahumetism, then in Lutheranism. For about 
(*) Cuspi● ad Mahumet●.  some nine hundred years since or more (to wit, within some fifty, or more years after S. Grogery the Great) mohammed first appeared to the World, and planted his Religion: Which his Religion hath ever from that time continued even to this day, without any Interruption.  
Now Lutheranism in compare hereof is of so late a date, as that being first broached by Luther, it is not past one hundred years since it was first heard off. According to which my speeches, we find▪ that Bucer (the Protestant) doth stile Luther, Primum 
(1) Bucer in Epist●an to 1536. add Episcop. Hereford.  Apostolum purioris Eu●ligeli●● the first Apostle of the Reformed Religion. Another Lutheran thus writeth 〈◊〉 
(2) Georgius Milutus in Augustan, Confess. explicat. art. 7.  antecession Lutherus in ●fficia●●bersset etc. If Luther had any Predecesso 〈…〉 and function then there had been 〈…〉 of ●uthers. Reformation. In like manner, a thir● confesseth in this sort: It is impudence 
(3) Sch●ussenberg in Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol. ●10.  to●maintaine that any learned men did b●●ld the doctrine of the Gospel in Germany, before Luther's days. A fourth thus writeth: I● is ●ridiculous 
(4) Bernard, Morgenstern. Erect. de Eccles. pag. 145.  to think, that before Luther's days; any had the purity of the Gospel; considering it is euiden●●●●●he whole World, that before Luther's time all Churches were drowned in more than a ●y●mtri●● darkness. To contract this point●● Luther himself thus boasteth h●●● of i● 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 primò ●●●gain●● audemus● gloriari. We dare vaunt, that Christ was first 〈…〉.   

The 6. Parallel; Touching Universality of Mahumetism, and Lutheranism. CHAP. VI  
ANother Prerogative is, to be dispersed through many Nation● & Countries: For this respect also is Mahumetism superior to Lutheranism. For Mahumetism possessed in former Ages, as also at this present (as above I have declared) a part of Persi●. Tartary, India, Asia Minor, Arabia, Mauritania, Bathory etc. Whereas Lutheranism is confined, and circumscribed (as it were) within most narrow Precincts of England, Scotland, some small parts of France, some parts of Flanders, some parts of Germany, of Denmark, of Sweveland, of Tra●siluania. Which Religion as yet never did set foot our of Europe.   

The 7. Parallel; Concerning Unity of doctrine in Mahumetism, and Lutheranism. CHAP. VIII.  
THe third Prerogative, shallbe Unity in Doctrine: Certain it is, that in the Turks dominions, Wherein Mahumetism hath been first planted, and in which the same Religion at this day reigneth, there hath been and still is, Great Unity in that Religion. And hence it proceedeth, that in those Nations subject to the Turk, there are very few, or no Books written among themselves, wherein any diversity of Faith, or Points in religion is maintained and defended; for if any such were written, the Historiographers of their Countries, Nature, and Religion, would make some relation of them, & would not pass so great a matter over in silence. Therefore it followeth, that the Mahometans, and Turks with a joint consent for the most part preach, and practice the same points of Religion, without difference, or contradiction among themselves.  
Now, how far distant our New Gospel is from Unity, it is a world to observe, into how many Sects, Lutteranisme is divided and distracted. The first disagreement among them is, their Account of 
(1) Touching the retecting of these books, See Luther, in Prafat in Epist. jacobi etc. Kempnitius, in Euchiridio p. ●●. Adanius Praucis●●. in Margarita Theol. p. 448. The Centuvists, cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. Bullinger upon the Apocalypse. c. 1.  Canonical Scripture. Luther, and such as are most linked to him in obseruamcy, do reject (as Apocryphal) the book of Wisdom, the second Epistle of Peter (as else where I have noted) the second, and third of john, the Episle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of james, the Epistle of jude, and the Apocalypse: All which Books are commonly acknowledged for Canonical Scripture by the Swingliani, & Caluinists.  
Their disagrements 
(2) Touching their mutual reprehensions herein, see Osiander his reprehensions, mentioned by Luther, in Colloq. Mensal. ●idis. Germ. sol. 145. So also Beza in respons. ad def●●l. & respond Cast allovis Also Beza in Testam. 1556. in prafas. Hospinta●● in ●istoria 8●. cram. part. 〈◊〉 tera. fol. 183. Moli●aus in ●ua Translatione novi Testam. part. 12. fol. 110. Castatio in defence. Transl●t. pag 170.  Secondly are, touching the Translation of such Books of Scripture, which they all acknowledge for Canonical. The Translators of it, to wit, Luther, Swinglius, O●colampadius, Caluin, Biza, Castal●o in great acerbity of Words, do reciprocally charge one another's Translation with sacrilege, corrupting the sense of the Holy Ghost, with making the Tent to leap●vy & down, with actually changing the Tent; sinally with sacrilegious (for all these are their own Words) Ethuicall, and wicked proceeding therein.  
Their next disagreement consists among those, who in a more restrained sense, are called 
(3) Of this poins see Nicolaus Galiu● in Thesibus, & Hypothesibus.  Lutherans, for their main tayning of the Real Presence. Of these men, some are called Osiandrians, others, Mai●rists, others, Placcians, others, Adiaphorists, others agains Phiquitaries; each of these holding all the rest for Heretics.  
Another disagreement is between the Lutherans (so called in a limited sense) and the Caluinists. Concerning which point we may advertise you, that the Books written by the Protestants, against the Protestants, in matter of faith only and Religion, do amount to several Hundreds, as may be gathered out of I●docus Coccius his Thesaurus, out of Hospinian in his historia Sacramentaria, part. altera; and finally from the Catalogues of Books returned for many years past, from Frankford.  
Thus fare I hold it convenient to discourse (in general) of the disagreements, & Vant of Unity in Faith ●mong our New Brethren, And now I refer to your own judgement (My Countrymen) whether a greater●ble mish resteth upon the face of Lutheranisms, or of Mehumetisme (to recapitulate a li●●e) if we respect, touching faith and Religion, either Antiquity, Multitude of Believers, or Verity in Doctrine.   

The 8. Parallel; Whether Mahumet, or the Lutherans stand more chargeable, in teaching God to be the Author of Sin? CHAP. IX.  
I Will now descend to parallel, and weigh the particular Opinions, or Articles maintained several ways by mohammed, and Luther and his Scholars; and so by conferring them together we may observe, whether Sentence is less justifiable. I will begin with the Questions Whether God be the Author of sin, or not's Mahumet teacheth, That God is not the Author of sin; Your first Masters teach, That he is the Author of sin.  
That Mahumet, or Sergiu● did not teach God to be the Author of sin, I thus prous. First we find no such Tenet, or Article thereof in the Alcoran. But if they had taught this Doctrine, that God were the Author of sin, they would infallibly have placed is in their Alcorans Which Books they made (〈◊〉 it were) to become the Catechism of all their Mahometan faith.  
Secondly, the Alcoran necessarily implieth, that God is not the Author of sin; and this in several passages thereof. For example; In one of the Azoara's Mahume● calleth God, Pius 
(1) Azoard ●.  & Misericors. Again, in another Azoara, he thus teacheth: Omnis 
(2) Azoard 1.  recté vivens bonique gestor indubitanter divinum amorem consequetur: Every one living well, and doing Good, shall infallibly obtain the divine Love.. Now here I demand; If God be pious and thercifull in the judgement of mohammed; how can then Mahumet be induced to believe, that God should irresistably force a Man to sin, thereby without any Mercy to punish him after, with eternal torments for the same?  
Again in this later Azoara, Mahumet, teacheth, that the means to obtain the Divine Love (as he calleth it) meaning the Love of God, is to live well, and to perform works accordingly; therefore it followeth, that Mahumet thought not, that God would forcibly impel man to sin, and to do wickedly, or live badly; seeing by this course, a Man was to purchase not the Love of God (to which this Azoara exhorteth) but his wrath, and indignation.  
But now to come to your Progenitors, and to see, how they dogmatise herein▪ Your Grandfather Luther thus teacheth▪ Qu●modo 
(3) Luther, in Assert. damnat per Leonem, Art. 3●.  potest homo se●● 〈◊〉 ●onum prepardre &c. How can a Man dispose himself to goodness, seeing it is not in his ability to make his ways wicked, or evil: Nam mala opera in impijs Deus operatur? for God doth work the evil works in the wicked? And again, the said Luther averreth: Nullius 
(4) Luther, ubi suprà.  est in manu &c. It is not in any Man's power to think Good, or Evil, since all things have their proceeding from absolute Necessity.  
To descend to Luther's descendants. Swinglius thus saith: Movet 
(5) Tom. r●de Providentia.  Deus Latronem, ad occidendum: God moveth the chief to kill; And more: Latro coactus 
(6) Swinglius ubi suprà.  est ad peccandum; The thief is constrained to sin. Aretius (a Protestant) in like manner thus writed: Deus 
(7) Aretius' in loc. come. loc. 41. pag. 179.  excaecat mentes hominum & obiturat corda etc. God doth blind the minds of Men &, harden their hearts; not only by his sufferance, for this is over weak to express the force of Obduration. Finally to omit many others Melancthon thus conspireth with his former Brethren: The Adultery 
(8) Molancth. in Rom. 8.  of David was the peculiar Work of God, no less than the Conversion of Paul.  
Now, let any dispassionate Man in his most retired, and impartial thoughts, give up his Censure, whether Mahumet be not far from accusing God to be the Author of sin; and whether our Gospelers rest truly chargeable with so pernicious a doctrine, who ascribe the fource of all sin to him, who became Man for the expiating of sin, and whose very Essence is Goodness itself. Can a Well send forth at once, Water which is pure, and Water which is muddy? No more can Sin, and Goodness take their emanation, and flowing from one source or fountain. Therefore it is no small impiety to charge God with impiety; And it is as much as to maintain, that Light can produce Darkness, and Fire coldness; yea it is to transform God into the Devil, since sin proceedeth from the devil. Qui 
(9) 1. joan. 3.  facit peccatum ex diabolo est. But let us hasten to other matters.   

The 9 Parallel; Concerning the Paschall supper of the Turk, and the Communion of the Caluinists. CHAP. X.  
THe next shall concern the Paschall Supper of the Turks, and the Communion among the Caluinists, or Hugenois: And let us see, whether be kept with show of Greater Reverence. Touching the Celebration of the Paschal supper with the Turks, we thus read: The Turks. 
(1) See hereof Munster Cosmogr. l. 4. pag. 973. Thevet, Cosmogh l. 2. c. 26 Postist de la religion des Turcs. pag. 64.65.  after they have kept their quadragesimal Fast with their accustomed abstinence, begin their Paschall Feast; aforehand purifying their minds of all hate, and malevolence; every man that is wronged, remitting the offence, and the party of fending humbly craveth Pardon; That done, They go unto their Temples, and supplicate God; Their Prayers being ended, they do kiss the Cheek of one another, in show of Charity; They then return to their Houses; and such, as be of richest sort, give Alms to the Poor.  
Now let us observe the custom of our New brethren, in the Celebration of their Communion. They chief communicate at Easter, and very seldom at other times of the year. Which custom, and manner of their Communicating I will set down in Caluins own Words, he thus writing thereof: Vbi finem 
(2) Caluin, in vat. celebrandae Coenae, pag. 609  dicendi Concronator fecit etc. After the Preacher hath finished his Sermon, than the Ministers of the Word, do give the bread to the People; and the Elders of the Church (who are the Overseers of men's manners) do distribute the Cup to the People; Some few words being spoken, that every Man shall come thither, in an honest and decent manner. In the mean time a Psalm is song, or some Part of Scripture sorting to the Sacrament is pronounced, with a high Voice.  
This is the description of celebrating the Communion, prescribed by Caluin himself. Now the disparity of these two Paschall Feasts of the Turks, and the Caluinists (so far forth only, as may concern reverence, and preparation in performing of them, though both of them be in themselves otherwise most wicked) I refer to the Reader.   

The 10. Parallel; Whether the Turks, or the Lutherans are by their Religion, more obliged to Prayer? CHAP. XI.  
TOuching Prayer (though their Prayers be most sacrilegious, and profane) the Turks are more devoted to it, than the Lutherans, and Calumists are. For we find recorded, that Mahumet hath appointed in his Alcoran (only to mask his profane, and impious religion, under the tecture of devotion) that five times a day, the Mahometans 
(1) Of the praving of the Turks Vide Cuspin. de religion's Turcarum.  shall pray at appointed, and designed times. The first Prayer is to be made, at the rising of the sun. The second Prayer, about the middle of the day. The third towards night. The Fourth, at the setting of the Sun; The fifth, some hour after Supper.  
Now touching Prayer among you Huguenots, I refer to each of your private Consciences, how little it is practised by you. Yea in regard of your seldom using of prayer some of you Satirically term us catholics, Superstitious, and dorish Papists, for our prolixity in Prayer. Well, howsoever; I refer to the Reader, I mean to such a Man. who hath much been conversant with you, Whether the Mahometans (supposing they prayed in a right manner) do come more near, than you Huguenots, in accomplishing that precept of our Lord: Oportet 
(2) Luc. 18.  semper orare & non desinere.  
Now in lieu of true and holy Prayer (which is the Ambassador between God, and Man, treating for reconcilement to his divine Majesty; or the very Pen, wherewith Man cancelleth out his spiritual debts, recorded in the Book of God justice:) you Huguenots of France, yea the very Women, and Children among you, can cry out, Allons à la Presche, à la Presche: Let us go to the Sermon, to the Sermon. The which after you have heard (it being ordinarily but a virulent Inuective against the Church of Rome, delivered by an ignorant, and malignant fellow,) If your Women (I say) can but repeat some Words of the Text, they repute themselves to be learned, and much conversant in the holy Scriptures. Poor Souls! how is their Credulity abused? And what punishment are your spiritual Masters to undergo, for their empoisoning of them with their pestiferous doctrines, occasioned through their misunderstanding of Gods most holy Bible? and giving to them Liberty, promiscuously, and at their own freedom, to read the sacred Scriptures?  
In regard of our Salic Law here in France, (which excludeth Women from all supreme Sovereignty) you know, we have a saying: La Churone ne tombe pas●soubs la que●●ouille: The Crown falleth not upon the distaff; I could wish this sentence might be extended also to God's holy Written Word: My meaning is, that every silly Woman, (who is sitter rather for a distaff to span, or with the needle to prick a cloth) should be restrained from their private reading of the Scriptures; from whence through their falsely understanding of it, they suck their Souls poison; their judgements resembling unproportioned Instruments, not sorting to work upon any curious Matter.  
But to return bacl. Therefore touching Prayer (my Countrymen) so little used by you, and your greediness of hearing an illiterate Companion to spit out nothing, but declamatory Philippics in the Pulpit, & sacrilegiously to detort Gods holy Word; I may justly conclude, That the greatest part (it not all) of the practice of your Religion resteth in your ears, the least in your tongue, as most of your Mortification lieth in casting up the white of your Bees.   

The 11. Parallel; Touching the Proceed of the Turks against Christians, and of the Protestants, against other Protestants and Catholics. CHAP. XII.  
THe next Comparative hath reference to the Proceeding of the Turks against Christians and of Protestants against other Protestants, & against catholics. True it is, that Mahumet did put to 
(*) Cusanus ubi sub à Semptem●●str. & alij.  death such Christians (through most wicked cruelty) in Arabia, and other bordering Countries thereto, who would not embrace his Religion, and also most sacrilegiously killed divers holy Hermit's, and others, at the first plantation of Mahumetism. Now the better to observe the Comparison here made, let us look into the comporement of our prime Ghospellers, & some of our Evangelicall Princes. But in discoursing of this subject, let us ascend by degrees, and first observe in part the carriage of Protestant Writers, even against other Protestant writers. I will not here insist in their dissensions in Faith (as partly above laid open) but I will rest only in their outward proceeding among themseluer.  
First then, they brand one another with the name of being Heretics. Thus for some taste hereof, we read, that Luther vomiteth out these words against the Swinglians, and Sacramentaries. We 
(1) Luther contra artic. Lovamen thes 27 tom. 2. Wittenb. fol ●●3.  in earnest condemn the Swinglians, and Sacramentaries to be Heretics. & estranged from the Church of God. Which charitable Censure the Tygurine Divines (all Swinglians, and Caluinists) do thus kindly retaliate: Luther termeth us 
(2) Tyzurini tract●●contra supr●m●m Luthert Confess ●ag. ●1.  Condemnat ans & execrab●lem Sectam etc. Acobdemned, and execrable Sect; but let him beware that he doth not discover himself to be an Archheretic, since he will not nor can brook to have any society with the Confessors of Christ. And according hereto Swinglius thus saith of Luther: En ut 
(3) Swinglius i● tom. ● respo●s ad confess Luth●●i●● fol. ●78.  totum istum hommem Sathan occupare ●●netur. Behold how Satan endeauoreth wholly to possess this Man.  
To proceed: Our Evangelists do prohibit the sale and reading of each others Books, as Hospinian 
(4) Hospinian in histor. Sacramentepart. altera fol. 39●.  the Protestant confesseth. Yea they approve 
(5) Hospinian, ubi suprà.  Articles of Visitation, and enquiry of each others Adversaries though all call themselves by the name of Protestants. And which is more, they commit (6) one another to prison, and restrain the giving (7) common entertainment, due to travaillers and strangers. And which is yet more; They enter into open Arms among themselves, as the foresaid Hospinian 
(8) Hospinian ubi suprà, fol. 195. & 197.  recordeth.  
But now, it is no less● strange to observe how ready and prompt those of the Reformed Religion have been, in raising seditious tumults, and entering into open hostility against their Sovereign Catholic Princes. The former Proceed of this kind in Scotland, the Lomcountries, Germany, Bohemia, Denmark etc. do proclaim the outrage ousnesse of them to the whole World. Therefore pretermitting them, I will infist in briefly displaying (as most pertinent to us) the insurrections, and rebellions here in my own Country of France, and all originally for Matter of Religion. Thus shall my Pen reveal (but with intention to prevent the like hereafter) the scars of my own noble Country; as the Surgeon makes a deep and rough incision in his Patient's Wounds, thereby to cure them.  
First than it is ourr evident, that out Country of France hath been infested with Civil Wars, begun by them of the Reformed Religion (for the maintenance of their said Religion) during the full space of forty years and more, until Henry the fourth, our late King (the very Prototypon of a valiant, and most worthy Monarch) became Catholic. for answearably hereto Osiander 
(9) Osiander Epit. Cent. 10. pag. 688. & 804.  relateth, that the French Protestants under show of exhibiting a Confession of their Faith, came armed unto the King's Palace. That Civil Wars for Religion were renewed; and that the Constable of France (being the King's General) was slain, and upon his death the King's Brother entered into his place. In like sort Crispinus thus writeth▪ After 
(10) Crespinus de stat. Eccles.  divers messages sent to the Protestant Princes from the King, but all in vain; the Wars had a second beginning, and the Prince of Condy risen up in arms; under whose solemn Protestation these words were subscribed: Deo, & victricibus armis.  
Another Protestant 
(11) In the history of France, written by joan Serres.  writer relateth thus: The Protestants grow earnest, and in all places, where they are of Power, they take revenge of Churches, Images, Priests, and Religions Houses. In like manner, Fayus 
(12) Antonius Fayus de vita, & obitu Clarissimi Viri, Theodori Bezae  the Protestant, recordeth the battle of Druce, and saith, that Bez● was there present, even armed with weapons, encoraging the soldiers to fight for the defence of their Religion. We further may read, how it is registered, that the 
(13) In the History of France, written by john de Serres.  Protestants of France treated touching peace, partly as humble subjects, partly as armed men, like to such, who beg an Alms, with their naked swords in their Hands.  
Now to show, who were the Battefeu's in all these Rebellions, and Insurrections, I will produce the Words of the French Ministers themselves, who in their Assembly, did see forth certain Canons, printed at Berna, Anno 1572. where we thus read in the third Canon: In every City all shall swear, that they, and their Posterity shall not violate, but observe the Points following, Canon. 40. Until it shall please God (in whose hands are the Hearts of Kings) to change the hart of the French Tyrant etc. In the mean time let every City choose an ancient Magistrate to govern them, as well in war, as in peace etc. Let all Captains and Leaders never lay down their weapons, as long as they shall see their Adversaries, to persecute the doctrine of Salvation etc. And yet further: If God shall vouchsafe to raise another Prince, to take revenge of our Adversary's Sins, and to deliver his People, they are then to subject themselves to that Prince, as to another Cyrus, sent to them from God etc.  
Thus we see, how our French Ministers do indoctrinate their Proselytes in the mystery of Rebellion, and Treason, against their lawful and natural Princes; and this only in maintenance of their innovations in Faith, first disseminated by Luther, and his Scholars. But here let me use an introversion, and reflex upon my own Country. How much then, O France, art thou departed from thyself? In former times our own forces united with a true conjunction of minds, made us not only formidable to other Nations, but also advanced our state to that largeness of Empire, which at this day it enjoyeth. But since your Gospel (My Countrymen) first got on wing, what secret molitions, what proditious, what evisceration, and disbowelling of your own dear Country hath this viperous brood of your Reformed Religion attempted? But I will stay myself, in discoursing of my own Country any further.  
I am loath to be offensive to neighbouring Princes, either alive, or dead; Nevertheless before I end this Parallel, I cannot but in few words touch upon one Act of immanity, perpetrated by Elizabeth heretofore Queen of England, upon the Queen of Scots, Mother to james, at this present King of England, a peaceful, merciful, and learned Prince. This foresaid Queen (to whom Nature and Fortune had contributed much, but Grace and Virtue nothing:) This English Semiramis (a fitting branch of such a Stem) exercised an unheard unhumanesse and ferocity by putting to cruel death the foresaid most worthy Catholic Princess; who in her youth, was married to our Prince Dolphin of France. Concerning whom, only Virtue, and Doscent came in not to plead for (for that must not be admitted) but to accuse her: In which most barbarous Act, a Woman did butcher a Woman; The Regnant, her next Successor; The anointed, Gods anointed; finally a Queen, a Queen.  
But as un willing to soul my Pen any further in this most dishonourable subject, I will pass to the next Parallels, Only I here refer the Reader, to observe the cruel, & barbarous proceed of Mi●humet against Christians; and of those of the reformed Religion, against their own Brothers, against their Catholic Princes, as also against their Catholic Neighbours; which done, I hope it will appear, that our New Ghospellers, though (perhaps) they do not fully equal mohammed in immanity and cruelty, yet are not many degrees short to him therein. And here I would not be reputed to be of that severe judgement, as to charge all the French Protestants with disloyal minds against their Catholic Princes. No, God forbidden. For I do hold divers of them trusty and faithful, though not for such acknowledged by all other Catholics: So, many counterfeit jewels make the true suspected.   

The 12. Parallel; Whether Mahumetism, or Lutheranism more inclines their Believers to Vice and Sin? CHAP. XIII.  
IN this place I will compare the doctrine of mohammed, with the doctrine of Luther and his Ospring; And so see, whether of them stand more changeable in lesning of Vice and sin, as not reputing it hurtful to man's Salvation. To begin then with mohammed; We find him (as above I have showed) thus to teach in his Alcoran: V●ores quotiescunque 
(1) Azoera 8.  placuerit, duas scilicet, tres, aut quatuor ducite, Et cum contingerit ea● non diligere, unam pro alia mutare licet. Take as many wives as you will, either two, or three, or four; And if it happen, that any of them you shall not love, it is lawful to change her for another. Wherein Mahumet (I freely confess) warranteth the perpetrating of sin; though he might make a show (though falsely) of securing this his wicked Position, by his own unlawful doctrine of Polygamy; to which doctrine Brentius (the Protestant) affoardeth great liberty, as elsewhere is made manifest.  
The like lustful doctrine Mahumet teacheth in another passage of his Alcoran, saying: Omnes 
(2) Azoare 43.  mulieres iva manui per emptienem suppositas; & amitaetuae, materieraeque filias, omnes item bonas mulieres tibi volenti gratis succumbere captentes, licitas constituimus. We ordain, that it shall be lawful for thee, to lie with all such bond slave women, which thou shalt redeem by buying; also it shallbe lawful for thee, to have the use of the body of the daughters of thy Aunts, either by the Father's side, or the Mother side; yea of all fair Women, which cover to prostitute themselves to thee willingly. These two, are the two chiefest, passages in the Alcoran, for the patronising of sin.  
Now let us look into the doctrine of our New Gospelers, & observe, how they teach, that Sin (as if it were, but an intentional Notion of the Mind) is in no sort prejudicial to the Soul. First then, Luther doth thus strangely oracle in defence of sin: As 
(3) Luther, 〈◊〉 loc. come. class. 5. pag. 27.  nothing doth justify: but faith; so nothing sinneth, but unbelief. Again; A Christian 
(4) Luther. tom. 2. Wittenb. de Captivit. Babylon. fol. 74.  or baptised Man is so rich, as that he cannot lose his Salvation, by any Sin (how great soever) unless he will not believe. And Luther yet more: No 
(5) Luth. in sermonibus.  work is disallowed or condemned by God, except the Author thereof be disallowed. According to which most licentious doctrine Beza thus writeth: David 
(6) Beza, in respons. ad Act. colloq. Montisbelg● pag. 44. & 48.  by his adultery, and neurther did not lose the Holy Ghost, and fall from his Faith. And semblably hereto Whitaker us saith: Si quis 
(7) Whitak. de Eccles. controu. ●. quast. 5.  certum fidei etc. If a Man enjoy an Act of Faith, to that Man sin cannot be prejudicial, or hurtful.  
Thus far for a taste of our Lutherans doctrine touching sin; where this difference seems to be between Mahumet, and them; that Mahumet alloweth only the sin of the flesh (to the which a Man is prone by Nature:) Whereas Luther, and the rest above alleged, give the reynea to all kind of Sin in general; whether it be the sin of Carnality with Mahumet, Theft, Homicide, Sodomy, or any other flagitious Crimes whatsoever; maintaining, that the committing of any, or all of them, can bring no hurt or loss to the soul. Interrogate 
(8) I●●●●. ●. 18.  gentes, quis audivit talia herribilia? enough hereof, seeing much of this matter is delivered before upon other occasions, and respects.   

The 13. Parallel, Whether Mahumetism, or Lutheranism do more depress, and visify Virtue, and good Works? CHAP. XIV.  
AS we have balanced the Sentences of Mabuinet, and Luther, touching the extenuation and lessening of Sin; So in this place we will take into our consideration, whether Mahumet, or Luther with his Partners do more depress and vility Good Works, as in no sort conducing to Man's Salvation. And first we find, that Mahumet thus teacheth in his Alcoran, as above is alleged: Omnis (1) rectè vivens bonique gestor, indubitanter divinum amorem consequentur Every man living well, and doing Good, shall doubtlessly obtain the divine love; then consequently his own Salvation.  
Thus in this Azoara Mahumet seems to exact two things to be performed for the gaining of Heaven. One, that a Man should live well, and commit no sin; The other, that he should do good, and practice works of Piety, which is signified in those former Words: Bomque gestor. The first Point we have briefly examined touching mohammed, and Luther. Now to the second. Let us see, how little Luther and his Sect regard Good Works, and the practice or exercise of them, & ●ow with all contempt in their writings they tread the worth of them under their feet.  
To come then first to Luther himself: He thus teacheth: It 
(2) Luther, upon the Galathi●us  is wickedness to mai●● 〈◊〉; that Faith not beautified with good Works, doth not justify. And further Luther thus averreth: ●ides, 
(3) Luther, come 1 Propos. 3.  nisi sit &c Excop● faith be without good Works, it doth not justify; nay it is hot Faith. So he. And Illyricus, Luther's Scholar, thus treadeth his Master's steps: It is 
(4) Illyricus in praefat. ad Romanos.  a Papistical Error to say, That good Works are meany respect necessary to Salvation Conradus Schlusselburg (so often above alleged) writeth. That Good 
(5) In Catalogue. Haretici in Epist. Dodic●t.  Works are not necessary to Salvation, only necessitate praesentiae. Finally to contract this point Amsdorphius (a remarkable Novellist) was not ashamed to write a book bearing this Title: Quòd bona opera perniciosa suns ad salut●●; That good Works are p●●nicious, or hurtful to Salvation.  
Thus far now hereof. And here Idem and of you (My Countrymen, Whether you think mohammed) or Luther was more precipitious▪ and headlong in extenuating of sin and disallowing of pious, and good Works? If you say that Luther and his Party were inseriour to mohammed herein; then I will you to show, where in the Alcoran, or in any books written of the Religion of mohammed and the Turks, you can find such virulent say for the lessening of fin●e, & depressing of good Worker, as here from 〈◊〉, and his Scholars I have produced?  
Thus to conclude: According to these men's Principles, the Faith of our Nouellist● in respect of Good Works, may be fitly compared to Mare mortuum, which never bringeth forth any thing with life. And so commonly the Soul of such a Man may be termed, Paralytisks, seeing it doth not perform the faculty, and operations of a good Christian Soul.   

The 14. Parallel; Whether Mahumetism, or Lutheranism seek more to frustrate the Promises of God, made for reward of Good Works, in the holy Scripture? CHAP. XV.  
I Will next briefly lay down the Sentences of mohammed, and of some of our Great Ghospellers; and see, whether doth more wrong the holy Scriptures, for the vilifying and dishonouring of Good Works: I mean only so far forth, as the Scripture promiseth most immense, & honourable Rewards to such, as practice good Works. Mahumet discovereth his judgement hereof in his Alcoran in these Words: De D●● 
(1) Azoara ●0.  promissionibus in lege, & Euangelio propositis, non est dubitandum: We are not to doubt of the Promises of God, proposed in the Law, and the Gospel. His meaning is touching, A good Life. Thus Mahumet encourageth his followers to the performance of Good Works, and embracing of Virtue.  
But to confront this, and to disanimate men from practising of Virtuous Works, and living piously, Swinglius (see here how Infidelity, and misbelief masketh itself under the veil of the Gospel) teacheth: 
(2) S●ingl. tom. 1. de providensia Dei. fol. 371.  Si ris ad vitam ingredi. serua mandata etc. He●, & quaecunque alia promissa oper●bus nostrisfacta, sunt Hyperocha, atque Hyperbolae etc. When it is said in the Gospel, Tf thou wilt enter 
(3) Mach. 1●.  into life, keep the Commandments etc. this, and all other like promises, made in the Scripture to good Works, are but Hyperbolical speeches, surpassing the Truth of the matter, or intention of God, or of our Saviour speaking them. Here you see the difference between Mahumet, and Swinglius herein.   

The 15. Parallel: Whether the doctrines of Predestination, and Reprobation, differently taught by mohammed, and the Lutherans, induce man more to sin? CHAP. XVI.  
THe next Parallel shall touch other Doctrines, differently maintained by mohammed, and Luther, and according to which doctrines, it will appear, whether Mahumet, or Luther do more or less exhort a man to live a Virtuous life, and to avoid sin. These doctrines respect Predestination, and Reprobation.  
Mahumet teacheth, that these points of Predestination, and Reprobation depend of a Man's belief, and of a Virtuous of Wicked life, according to the Azoara so often abou● recited: Omnis 
(1) Azoara ●.  recte vivens, bonique gestor indub●tanter divinum amorem assequotur. A Principle so much insisted upon by mohammed, as that he maketh it his first Azoara in the Alcoran: He thus persuading men, that the obtaining of divine Love, and purchasing of Heaven doth depend of pract●●ng of Vor●●●, and avoiding of Sinne.  
Contrary hereto our Prim● Gospelers ●oach, that Predestination, which hath reference to Heaven, and Reprobation to Hell, proceed only from Gods Secret Will, without any relation, or respect to a Good, or Wicked Life, or to virtuous, or impious Actions; thus they then further catechising their Scholars: That let a man who is predestinated to Heaven, perpetrate never so many atrocious sins, he cannot thereby lose Heaven, or be damned: As on the other side, if a Man be re●orobated, though he regulate all his actions in all Virtue and Godliness, yet he cannot escape Hell, and Damnation. According hereto we find Luther (as abou● we shown) thus to dogmatise: 
(2) Luther, in ●ssere. damnat. per Leonem. Ar●. 3●.  It is not in ●●ns p●●●er to ●●inke good or ●●ill, but all things proceed from a●●lute Necessity. If all things, than Predestination &c Reprobation (which are the chiefest things) proceed from the like obsol●●e Necessity. But Caluin delivereth this doctrine, more articulately, and in more express words, saying: Consilio, 
(3) Calu. Instit. l 3. c. 23. sect. 6.  nuiuqueve suo etc. God doth ordain by his Counsel, and decre●, that among men some be borne ordained to certain damnation from their Mother's Wonibe, who by their perdition may glorify God etc. And Beza teacheth the same, affirming, 
(4) Beza 〈◊〉 respons. ad act. Colloq. Moutisbelg. part. 2. p. 23●.  That God decreeth some men to perdition, and createth to damnation Peter 
(5) Peter Martyr in his loc. Com.  Martyr, and others jointly affirm the same: A doctrine most derogatory to God's justice, and which strongly inviteth man to sin, and deadeth all Virtuous attempts. Thus we see, that Mahumet is not so large in his Alcoran for persuading man to sin, as these Protestanticall several doctrines of Reprobation, and Predestination do impel him thereto.   

The 16. Parallel; Whether the first Composer of Mahumetism, was of a more flagitious lyf●, and conversation in manners, than the chief disseminatours of Protestancy? CHAP. XVII.  
IN this place I will descend from the Theory to the Praxis, I mean, from the different doctrines of mohammed and Luther with his brood, to the putting in execution the said doctrines; That is, whether, He, who first compiled the Alcoran, was of greater exorbitancy in course of life (according to the speculation of their several doctrines) than such, as were the Headmen, in enlarging of Protestancy.  
To begin then. It is evident, that Sergius by the authority of Mahumet composed the Religion of Mahumetism; I do here pretermit the balancing of Sergius with Luther. (as already performed) & will briefly compare, concerning manners and life, Sergius with Luther's chief descendants: I mean, with Swinglius, Caluin, and Beza. Touching Sergius his personal sins (though I presume he was a most profane, and spicked apostata) we read little; But that through procacity, and disobedience, he was cast out of his Monastery; and thereupon through livour, and discontent, ventilated his most blasphemous doctrines.  
Now first touching Swinglius: His own Writings do indite, and accuse him of Carnality, and raging lust: For he thus confesseth of himself, and other Ministers his Associates: Hoc 
(1) Swinglius, ●ow. 1. fol. ●15.  verò sunimis precibus contendimus &c We humbly entreat that the Use of Matrimony be not denied us, who perceaning the weakness of our own fle●h, observe, that the rout of Chastity is not given to us by God etc. That lustful desires of the flesh do burn in us, we cannot deny; seeing by reason thereof we are become infamous in the sight of our Congregations. And more: Carnis 
(2) Swingl. Ibid. fol. 110.  nostra infirmitatem experti sutuus etc. We have made tri ill that the weakness of our flesh hath been (O the grief!) the cause of our often thamefull. fall. And yet further: Arsimus 
(3) Swingl. ibid. fol. 12●.  proh puder 〈◊〉 etc. We have so burned (O the ●hame!) as that we have commuted many things very indecently.  
To come to Caliun, who besides his other less sinful pleasures, was charged with the execrable Crime of Sedo●●y, committed in Noyon, a City here in our own Country for which his said Crime he was burned upon the shoulder with a Hoat-iron, as the public Records of Neyo● yet extant, do witness. A point so clear and confessed that Couradus Schlusselburg (the often above alleged Lutheran) thus discourseth hereof, as also of Caluins most miserable death, occasioned through his slagitious life: Deut 
(4) Schlusselburg. in Theolog. Caluinst. l. 2. fol. 7●.  manu sua potenti etc. God by his powerful hand, did so strike Caluin, as that despairing of his Salvation, he called upon he Deuill●, and swearing and blaspheming be rendered up his wicked Soul. And then further: Haec publicis scripits Caluina ob●jctuntur; videlices de ipsius flagiujs & Sodomiticis lib dinibus ob quas stigma ferio candenti derso Caluini impressum suerat à Magistratis etc. These matters are objected to Caluin by public write to wit of his enormous crimes & Sodomitis all Lusts, for which the Magistrate did sear Caluins back with a burning Iron; de quo dum vixit horrenda narran u●● Of whime whiles he lived, horrible things are related. Thus far this Protestant discourseth of Caluin.  
To come to Beza, who, as he was consociate with Caluin in spreading of Protestancy; so was he also consociate with him, in the abominable sin of Sedemy. Who, besides that he kept his strumpet Candida several years before he espoused her, did also through unnatural lust, abuse the body of a fair Young boy, called Andebertus, and in compare of his different pleasures, with Candida, and Andeber●, he made certain beastly Verses (of which most of Christendom took notice) and in the end of the said Verses, preferreth for lustful pleasure his Ganimeda Andebert, before his Queen Candida. The Verses thus begin:  
Abest Candida, Beza quid moraris?  
Andebertus abost, quid hâc morares? etc.  
Beza his keeping (as Concubine) Candida before his marrying of her; as also his writing these Verses upon this occasion, is so undoub edly true as that the forsaid Protestant Schlusselburge thus writeth of both these points: Constat 
(5) Schlusselb. in Theolog. Caluine●t. c. 1. fol. 18.  Bezam cum Candida quatuor annos consuevisse, ea Concubina viende antequam illam urorem duxerit etc. It is clear, that Beza did accompany his Candida as his Con●●hine, four years before he married her. And concerning Beza his Verses, the said Protestant thus speaketh: Constat Bezam 
(6) Schlusselb. Vbi jupro fol. ●●.  obscanesiimos versus ad Andebertum Aurelis electum; & cundem tanquam Adonidem à Beza factum esse. It is evedent that Beza did write most obscene Verses to Andebertus, huing at Orleans, whom Beza (by abusing the boy's body) made his adonis. In like manner Hesihusius. (the Protestant) recordeth the same of Beza in these words Beza 
(7) Hesshusius in his book called Verae & sacae Coutessiours 〈◊〉.  nefandos amores, illici●or concab●tur, foor●●●●●nes, foody adul●oris, sacrilego carna●● de●antaui● Orbi. Beza did publish to the whole wor●● in his sacrilegious Verses his own a recrable lust, his unlawful use of pleasures, his whoring, and filthy adulteryes. Thus far in balancing these three sublimatours, and refiners of Protestancy concerning wickedness of life, with Sergius the Authout of the Turkish Alcoran.  
But now to turn my Pen upon the Premises, and to you, my deate Countrymen of the Reformed Religion: Such is the deformity of this your Reformation as that notwithstanding you see, that Protestancy doth consist of doctrines, which even evaporate and ●●●ath forth all Libettinisme, and impurity of manners; and this in a more full degree, and excess, than Mahumetism doth; and that your first diwlgers thereof, personating in themselves their own doctrines, do surpass in liberty of life, the first ●●mper of Turkism: and yet nevertheless you will still perunaciously insist in your present Innovations, with all scorn and neglect of our Roman Catholic lay. Why will you thus cease to be yourselves; I mean, why will you abandon the use of Reason, the Character imprinited in your souls by gods own hand: Fecit 
(8) Genes. 1.  ●●mi●●m ad imaginem suam? You are men, therefore proceed in your Actions, as men God hath even settled this privilege in Man's Soul, that according to the last di●●amen of his Understanding he ever those to in his election of things that which is best, at lest which 〈◊〉 bo●●● Why then is the choice of your Religion will you prefer Protestancy, and Hugenotisme, which in a clear judgement is neither good (much less the best) not but apparently good, before our ancient, and Roman Religion?  
Must mixed and compounded Miscreancy he advanced by you, before pure, and true Christianity? Must a Religion, whose Centre is nothing but Sensuality (extending its lines to all sorts of several sins whatsoever) be by you still professed, & that sacred Religion of ours, which is Lex 
(9) Psalm. 18.  Domini immaculata, be betrampled under your feet with all Indignity? Or did God invest himself with man's flesh, & suffer a most cruel and opprobrious death for the cancelling of all sin, and yet would institute a Religion for the saving of Man's soul, most forcibly (yea irresistably) impelling Man to sin?  
If you think this to be a secure course, & if you will needs still give assent to these your Thearems, and Speculations of saith; then my best Counsel is, that you cease to be men; then expunge, and obliterate in your Souls the print of Reason; Finally then (d'vne belle gentillesse d'esprit) out of a gallantry of resolution, contemn and slight that admonition of the Prophet: Nolite 
(10) Psalm. 31.  fieri sicut equus▪ & mulus etc. And as spurning thereat, say ●ch of you freely to yourselves, Volumus fieri secut equus, & mulus, quibus non 〈◊〉 e●●●ellectus. But then withal in recompense of this your spiritual madness, let me entreat you to interest yourselves, in that most dreadful relegation of our Saviour: 
(11) Math. ●●.  Discedita à me maledicti in ignem aternum, qui parasus est▪ Diabolo, & Augelis suis.   

The 17. Parallel; Whether Mahumetism; or Lutheranism consist of more ancient conde●aned Heresies? CHAP. XVIII.  
TO go on in my undertaken Method. My next Parallel shall show, whether Mahumetism, or Lutheranism doth consist of more explorate, & condemned Heresies. In the former part of this Treatise, I made a Symbolisme between Mahumetism, and Lutheranism, showing that both of then did conspire and agree herein; To wit, that both of them were engendered of ancient Heresies: Now here I presupposing the foresaid combination, between them, do by way of parallelling them together, evidently prove, that Lutheranism is engendered incomparably of far more old damned Heresies, than Mahumetism ever was, though I still grant, that in reference to the atrocity of his blasphemies, Mahumet (as laying battery to the chief Mysteries of Christianity) did infinitely surpass our Novellists.  
It is showed above, that Mahumet did borrow his blasphemous doctrines (though in respect but few in number▪ yet in weight and importance most execrable) from Sabellius, arius, E●●omius, Nestor●●, Manich●us, and the Donatists. Now in live hereof. I will demonstrate, that at least sixty Articles and Circumstances of those of our New Gospel, or Hugen●tisme, are but the same Articles or Circumstances (and therefore I call them so many Identities) condemned in the firster times of the Church, by Epiphanius, Athanasius, Theodoretus, jereme; Austin, and other Orthodozall Fathers. But because the discovery and vnfoulding of this Point will require some prolixity of discourse. I have therefore purposely seposed (as I intimated above in the first part) the ensuing Appendix to that end, which I do style, The Huguenots second Glass; wherein I hope (My Countre●●●) you may more clearly see your own faces.   

The 18 Parallel; The different respect given by Mahumet, and Luther to the New Testament, and to the Evangelists, CHAP. XIX.  
THe next Parallel shall balance together the different respect, which mohammed, and Luther do give to the New Testament, and the Evangelists, though this in general by way of Symbol hath been in pa●t touched. We find then Mahumet (as above is said) to speak thus honourably of the New Testament: Deus 
(1) Azoara 5.  ●ius & misericors, prius Testamentum Vetus▪ d●●●ce●s Euaugel 〈◊〉 rectas ●ia●●●●●●ibus tradidi●▪ God being prou● and merciful, did first give the Old Testament, and then after▪ the Gospel, as direct ways for men 〈◊〉 follow. According to which Sentence C●sanus discoursing of the Alcor●●, thus speaketh: Mahumet●● 
(2) Cusonus in cri●●●●● Alcoran●. 〈◊〉 ●● c. 1. & 14. & l 3. c. 2.  approbat Euangelium tradi●●● jesu Christ●, filio Mariae Virgins. Mahumet approveth the Gospel delivered to jesus Christ, the Son of Mary the Virgin.  
Thus we see, that Mahumet acknowledgeth, as sacred, the Gospel, 〈◊〉 it was first given. But the reason, why the Turks do not admit the Gospel, as they find it now written, is delivered by ●ibl●●nder in these words, wherein he showeth the pretext of mohammed at his first appearing: Christians, 
(3) Bibliender in prae●a●. Alcor●●●, pag. 3.  qui iam à longe temp●re Legem, atqu● Euang●lium perdiderum, ●ū propter discessum Christi, 〈◊〉 ●●iam propter mortem Apostolorum, atque discip●larum, legem suum perfectè doce●it Mahumetus, Mahumet undertaketh, that he will perfectly teach Christians his Law, the which Christians had for a long time lost, ●oth the Law, and the Gospel, partly through the departure of Christ, and partly through the death of his Apostles, and Disciples.  
Thus we see the reason to be, why Mahumet did not allow, the Gospel, as now it is written; because he presumed (though falsely) that it was corrupted▪ in process of time. But the Case here is different with Luther and his Seed; for Luther Categorically. and positively disualeweth three Gospels of louvre, even as they were, and are, first written by the Evangelists themselves; Thus he not transferring the Cause of the supposed Errors in them, through the corruption or depravation of the Originals of the Gospels (as Mahumet did) but upon the Euangelisti themselves as committing Errouts in them, in their first writing, and penning; so far was Luther from thinking, that the Evangelists in writing of the Gospels were assisted infallibly by the Holy Ghost.  
But let us for the more particular dissecting hereof, recurre to Luther's own Words, who first preferring the Epistles of S. Pau● much before the first three Gospels, doth finally in the libration of the four Gospels in themselves, thus pronounce: The 
(4) Luther in serm. de Phavis. & Publicanis.  Gospel of john is to be advanced in worth & digmity (as fair, pure, and chief) above the other three; thus implicitly, and covertly charging the first three Evangelists with errors, and faults in writing their Gospels. In like sort the said Luther thus speaketh in other of his Writings (a testimony upon other occasion above alleged, in the first part of this Treatise.) Qui 
(5) Luther. in praefat. Epist. Petri.  potissimum, & maiore pracateri● study etc. Such Evangelists are the chie●●●●, who more carefully teach (than other Evangelists) that faith in Christ only without our Works, doth make to Just, and in state of Salization; insinuating in these Words, that some of the Evangelists did tench erroneously, touching the doctrine of good Works, and justification.  
And thus much for some touch, to make it evident, that Luther had a far more unworthy conceit of some of the Gospels, than ever Mahumet had; Since Mahumet admitted them all, so far forth (as above is said) as they were first penned by the Evangelists, & remained incorrupted; Whereas Luther misprizeth, and rejecteth three of them, as they were first written by the Evangelists, presuming (and that truly) that they were not corrupted.   

The 9 Parallel; Concerning the Mahumetane Clergy, and the Lutherane Clergy. CHAP. XX.  
HEre I will treat of the Turkish Clergy, and of the Prolystants Clergy, and will in part observe the disparity between them; since we shall find, that the Clergy of Mahumet enjoyeth several privileges▪ which 〈◊〉 wanting in the other. For example▪ First we 
(1) Th●u●●. Cosm●graph. V●●●ersal. l. 6. c. 8.  read, that the Turks in honour of their Religion, cannot brook, that such stronger's as do not profess their Religion▪ should enter into their Temples, or be present at their Service; much less, that they should minister the Mysteries of their Religion: Where●● our New Gospelers will admit such men as are created Priests by the Bishop of R●●● (whom they teach to be Antichrist) without any new Creation of them, to exercise the rites of the Protestants Religion. And herein it is evident, that the Turkish practi●● in this point is more conformable to the practice of Christ's Primitive Church▪ (he● the Practice of our New brethren are: Since in those times, one, that was Catechi●m●nu● only (that is, who was of the number of the faithful but not as yet baptised) should not be suffered to see, and be present at the celebration of the Myst●ryes of Christian Religion; much less to preach the Word, & to dispense the Sacraments, as S. Austin 
(2) Austin, tract. 11. in joan.  relateth, and Beza 
(3) Beza, in Epist. Theolog, ●p 8.  acknowledgeth.  
Secondly, the Turkish Priests are obliged by their Profession 
(4) Septem. castrensis de religione Turcarum, cap. 1●. Richerius, l. 1. de moribus Turcorum.  to spend more time in prayer, both for themselves, & for the People, than our Evangelicall Ministers either are bound to do; or actually do. For the Turkish Pries●▪ (as above is showed) are t●e● by Mahumets rule) to pray five times euer● day. Now how little our late illuminated Ministers are given to prayer; I refer to ●ch Man's experience herein; seeing that among them, a●kiling Inuective (which they g●●e● with charity of Preaching) must for the most par● supply all want of Prayer.  
Lastly, the Mahometans and Turkish Priests have wives, and such Women are reputed, and taken of their lawful Wines 〈…〉 like sort the Children begotten on their Wiver▪ are accounted the lawful issue of their Fathers, & may inherit lands, & other goods of their Parents; and all this by the first Institution of Mahumetism: Whereas if the book styled, Schisma Anglican●m, relate the Truth, the Ministers, who in England do marry, are in that respect reputed Adulterer: In proof whereof, the Children are accounted Bastards by their Municipal Law, still remaining in force in England, and unrecalled; So as they are wholly deprived in rigour of Law, from all title of Inheritance. Thus we see, with what Prerogatives (to pretermit some others for brevity) the Turkish Clergy is honoured, the which in the Lutheran Clergy we find most wanting.   

The 20. Parallel; Whether the Turks, or the Lutherans may seem to have mere erred in their different Belief of some inferior Points of Faith; and consequently, whether may seem more to be punished for such their Misbelief? CHAP. XXI.  
THis twentith, & last Parallel shall consist in a Perisma, resulting from the due observation of several 
(*) See touching the contents of this Chapter, Chronica S●●r●ce●orum.  Parallels above expressed; And it shallbe this, to wit, That in regard of divers of the former Parallels (abstracting only their denial of the Blessed Trinity, of the Incarnation, and Passion of Christ; blasphemies, I most willingly acknowledge infinitely transcending any Errors, believed by the Lutherans;) the Turks may seem to have less erred, than the Lutherans, and consequently may seem to be less punished for such their Heresies, than the Lutherans, and our Evangelicall Brethren are to be. For it is to be believed, that such men, who labour (more than others) to depress in their Writings the dignity of jesus Christ; who convitiate in words the Mother of the Redeemer of the World; Whose Religion is engendered of more old condemned Heresies; Finally, whose doctrines, do more vilify good Works and virtuous life, and do more extenuate Vice and Impiety, than the doctrine of others doth; It is necessarily to be believed (I say) that these men so more offending in all these points, do sin more grievously, than other men, who do not in such measure offend in the same points; and therein may seem to be worthy of greater Punishments.  
Now it is clearly evicted out of divers of these former Parallels, that Luther, and the Lutherans do believe and write of these Passages in greater estuation and heat of malice, and with less reverence, than mohammed, and the Turks have done. How probable then at lest is it, that Luther and his Sect, as having more erred herein, are for such their Errors to be punished with greater severity of pains, than mohammed & the Turks in that particular respect are? Hear I (say) I balance the punishments due to Luther and his party, only for such their wicked proceed, and not with reference to the torments allotted to mohammed, and the Turks (which no doubt are, and shallbe infinitely greater, and more grievous) for their denial of the most Sacred Trinity, and rejecting Christ, not acknowledging him for the Redeemer of the World.  
To the fortifying of this Parallel, I add, that Luther, and his followers have impugned (in hostile manner) the authority of God's Universal Church, teaching that it hath wholly erred in doctrine for the space of sixteen hundred years, as may be gathered by his and their charging of all the Fathers since the Apostles days with superstition and Errors, (as above we have showed. mohammed first contemned the Authority of the Church, but for six hundred years at the most: Is not then Luther's sin far greater, and are not his punishments to be proportionably more intolerable therefore?  
Again, certain it is, that such men, who have received from God greater means of finding out the true Religion (if so they neglect, & contemn those Means) do stand in a far higher degree of God's indignation and wrath, than others do, to whom the like means of searching the Truth have not been afforded. Well then, not only in several ages before Luther's bursting out but even after his appearing, God hath vouchsafed to work many most stupendious miracles, in confirmation of ou● Catholi●e Religion. Witnesses hereof (to omit former Ages) 
(1) S●o this point confessed of former ages by the Centurist●, Cent. ●. c. 11. & Cent. ●0. c. 13. Ber●ard. in Visa Malachiae, See Also the History of Matthew Paris, printed at Tyguro 1589, touching the great Miracles of S. Francis.  are the Miracles exhibited at Loreto in Italy, and but the last day at Sichem in the Low Countries, in the Province of Brabant; The truth of which Miracles done in both those two places, Impudence itself hath not the forehead to deny. Which Miracles have no doubt come to the ears of our Evangelicall men, according to the difference of the times wherein they were wrought. And yet the Consideration of these Miracles (though often exhibited in proof of our Catholic Religion) is so far from winning ground upon our Adversary's judgements therein, as that the Lutherans (acknowledging them, as truly done) commonly style them, Antichristian 
(2) Osiander, Cent. 10.11. & sequentib.  Wonders, and lying signs, as also, prestigious 
(3) Peter Martyr, l. contra Gardi●●●um.  sleights of the Devil.  
Now I say, the report of these Miracles as being wrought here at home, were never made known to the Turks, through the great distermination of Countries. And if they had come to the intelligence of the Turks, in all likelihood they would have wrought more efficaciously (for less they could not) with them, than they have done with Luther, and his Sectaries: So as perhaps that saying of our Lord (with reference to the Turks, and our New Evangelists) might here have been justified: If in 
(4) Luc. c. 10.  Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the Miracles, which have been wrought in you, they had done penance in sackcloth, and ashes long ago. From hence then I conclude, that Luther and his Sectaries, as contemning all such true Miracles, stand far more culpable for such their neglect of them, and consequently are with greater severity to be punished, than the Turks, who had no perfect Notion of the said true signs, and astonishing Effects; they being of that force for proof of what they were wrought, as that we may say of them in the words of the Prophet David: Mirabilia 
(5) Psal. 91.  tua credibilia facta sunt nimis.  
And thus fare of the Parallels between Mahumetism, and Lutheranism; where we evidently discern, even by force of all true judgement, and strength of Reason, that several chief Persons of Luther's Religion have been far more wicked (at lest as wicked) in their deportment, than the first broachers of Turkism have been; And that many doctrines, ventilated and introduced first by Luther, and his false Coapostles, are more pernicious in their own Nature, and more exiciall to the Believers, then are the different doctrines, and Positions to them, maintained by mohammed, and the Turks.   

That Mahumetism, or the Turkish Religion, is first, most foolish or ridiculous; Secondly, that it warranteth all sensuality, and unlawful Pleasures; Lastly, that it is most horrid, blasphemous, and damnable. CHAP. XXII.  
TRue it is, that Protestancy, or Hugenotisme seems to stand in a higher degree more chargeable, and iniustifiable in the Points above paralleled, than Mahumetism doth: Nevertheless, my project in discoursing of the said Comparatives, is to lay open the deformity of Lutheranism, or Hugenotisme, and not in any sort to advance a good opinion to be had of Mahumetism. For although this later be in some points less▪ Evil, yet followeth it not, that therefore it is in any sort Good; since there is a great disparity or difference betweens a Positive and real Good, and a tesser degree of Evil.  
Now therefore for fear, that men should in any fort worthily conceive of Mahumetism, I have thought good to reserve this Chapter, for the preventing of such a spiritual Mischief, wherein the Ugliness of Mahumetism shall summarily and briesly be dismanteled, and laid naked. And for the more perspicuous and methodicill accomplishment of this my design, I will reduce what here followeth, to these several Heads. First, I will insist in the fabulous & ridiculous fooleries, which mohammed and the Turks do maintain as true. Secondly, I will sh●w, that Mahumetism in doctrine principally tendeth to the patronising of Lust, & sensuality, which mohammed tastes to be no sin. Lastly, and chief I will lay open how Mahumet and the Turks greatest atrocity and blaesphemy consists in the denial of the most Blessed Trinity, and of Man's Redemption by Christ jesus.  
To begin with the first branch, and to gather but dispersedly here and there. First then we 
(1) Cuspin. in Mahumeto pag. 514 Thenet Cosmographia. l. ●. c. 3 Codrenus Chronograph. Zonaras.  read, that the spirit of God did descend upon mohammed in the form of a Dove, dictating unto him, what to write in his Alcoran. The which doctrine while it was promulgated, a fierce and untamed Bull did run to mohammed, prostrating himself before his knees, and kissing and sicking his Hand. The Mahometans further report, that the Angel Gabriel accompanied with seaventy thousand Angels (so prodigious is this fiction) descended from Heaven to visit mohammed, being then but four years of Age; moving the minds of men to give Credit to that, which mohammed should after teach, touching his doctrine and Religion.  
In like manner Mahumet thus writeth in his Alcoran: Emina 
(2) Azoara ●0.  mater Mahumetis, testabatur filium Mahumetum nec in vter● nec in parto ullum sibi dolorem fecisse. Emina the Mother of Mahumet did witness, that her son Mahumet caused no grief to her, remaining either in her womb, or at his birth. See here how this ambitious Impostor (emulous of our Saviour's Honour) thought good (to ennoble himself the more) partly by prestigious forgeries, partly by force, to assume to himself the like credit and dignity in some of these former relations, which we find the holy Scriptures, & the authority of the Church of God do ascribe and give to our Saviour, jesus Christ. But to proceed.  
Mahumet further teacheth, that Christ in the New Testament did admonish the jews of Mahumets after coming into the World; For thus he introduceth Christ saying: N●ntium 
(3) Aroara ●4.  vobis affero, de Nuncio post 〈◊〉 venturo, cui nomen Mahumetus. In like manner the Al●oran 
(4) Azoara 71.  reporteth, how in the Old Testament also the Nativity and Birth of Mahumet was foretold.  
To pass on further; It is 
(5) Georgensis de Turca. ●●m moribus.  recorded (such are the Portentive sables touching mohammed) that at Mahumets prayer, God commanded every Mountain, or great Hill near to Mecha, to bring a certain heap of stones for the building of the Temple of Mecha. And whereas one Mountain (called Araphat) was more slow in coming then the rest, and seeing the Temple to be already finished, the Mountain did abundantly weep, that it was not present at so great, & fair a work; But Mahumet did compassionate the Mountain, and willed it to lay down its heap of stones in a fair place near to Mecha; the which stones Mahumet had no sooner gently strooke with his foot, but presently there did rise up a most large, and sweet fountain of Water from out of the stones. Is not this strange fooling? But let us relate yet more.  
The writers 
(6) Vide Bellonium des singularites. l. 3. c. 7.  of the manners of the Turks record this ensuing fictitious Narration; To wit, that Mahumet being accompanied with the Angel Gabriel, did once ride up to Heaven, for the approbation of his Alcoran; being carried upon a learned beast called, Alborach, (de la grandeur d'en Ausne) of the greatness, and shape of an Ass (an Ass indeed was mohammed for forging this, and Asses are the Turks for believing it:) The which Beast would not suffer mohammed to ride upon him, till before he had gravely disputed with mohammed, and till Mahumet had seriously promised the Beast, that he should not be left at the Ga●e of Heaven, but should enter into Heaven with Mahumet. And thereupon Mahumet entered Heaven, and passing through fair spacious Halls, hanged with Tapestry and Arras, he was at the last brought to the sight of God, who sat in a Chair of Estate; and yet as the Alcoran saith, he stood, Tanti 
(7) Azoara ●●.  (spatij interuallo, quantum, sagi●ta bis transcurreret) so far distant from God, as an Arrow might be shot at twice.  
The foresaid Author 
(8) Bellonius ubi suprà.  relates, that the Porter, or doorkeeper of Heaven would not open the door to the Angel Gabriel, until he heard the name of Mahumet pronounced. But Mahumet coming into Heaven, he saw several Great Halls; wherein were many kinds of Angels, some bearing the shapes of men, others of Beasts, Horses, Oxen, and Birds. But enough (if not too much) of these commentitious and incredible fantasies, which are sufficient alone to discover the futility and Vanity of Mahumets own Religion. From whence we may further gather, that Mahumet (contrary to all Philosophy, and Divinity) supposeth, and dreameth, that God, and the Angels are corporeal, and have Bodies. In like manner, we may infer now incompatible these Untruths are with true Faith, & how displeasing they are to God, since we read: 
(9) job. 13.  Numquid Deus indiged vestro mendacio?  
Finally I refer the Reader to that mad, and fantastical Protestation of Mahumet above related, in warrant of the Truth of his doctrine: Per 
(10) Azoara 61. 6●. & sequentibus.  ventos inflantes & nubes, & naves aquore currentes; per montem Sinai, per stellam vespertinam, per stellas retrogradas & combustas quod non sum damomacus aut Magus; sed Dei Optiminuncius etc. So certain it is, that Mahumet was a man, wholly made of Sophistications, and imposturs.  
To descend to the second Point; Which is, that the doctrine of Mahumet wholly tends to Pleasure, sensuality, and Lust, with all warrant of Impunity to the Practizers thereof. For first touching his doctrine, even steaming forth lust during a man● life in this World, we have above showed, that Mahumet thus ordaineth in his Alcoran: We 
(11) Azoara 43.  constitute and decree, that it shallbe lawful for thee, to have the Company of all Women which as bondslaves thou buyest, & subiectest to thy hand; as also the daughters of thy Father's sisters, or thy Mother's sisters; and to have the company of all fair Women, who are willing thereto. According to which his doctrine, it will not be impertinent to repeat that other passage of his Alcoran, above related, teaching the same: Vx●res 
(12) Azoara 8.  quotiescunque placuerit duas, tres, an't quatuor ducite etc. Take as many wives, as you will, either two, three, or four; except you fear, that they cannot live quietly together; And when it shall so chance, that you cease to love any of them, than it shallbe lawful for you to make exchange of such an one, for any other.  
And mohammed for the greater warrant of his sensual doctrine, doth vaunt of himself in his Alcoran, 
(13) Azoara 43.  that he had a special power and ability of body, conferred upon him from Heaven, (see what bestiality, & filth this miscreant disgorgeth) for the exercise of his lust, as that (said he) he was able to deflower forty Virgins in one night. O! can that be the Religion of God, which is first invented by him, whose brutish Animality (so to call it) transgresseth all limits and bonds of humane Verecundy, and shame? Animalis 
(14) 1. Cor. 2.  homo non percipit ea, quae sunt spiritus Dei.  
We have heard, how Mahumet alloweth to man in this life all pleasure of the body, ex●●ing all chastity and purity. Now hereafter the Reader shall take notice, that Mahumet placeth the joys of the future life, in like corporal pleasures, and sensuality; for thus he writeth in his Alcoran: In 
(15) Azoara 54.65. ●0.  paradiso sideles habeb●ant hortos, & font●s, vestientur seri●is, & purpu●â; puellas habebunt cum oculis claris & immensis quorum albugmes candid●ssima, & pupilla nigerrimae. In Paradise (he meaning hereby Heaven) the faithful shall have Gardens & fountains being clothed in Silk and Purples they shall also have young Women with cleave and great Eyes, the brightness whereof is most whit●, and the pupil, or sight of the Eye most black.  
The Turks further believe, 
(16) Bellonius, ubi supra, cap. 9  that when they shall arrive to Heaven, they shall presently be entertained with a most exquisite banquet; and there shall most fair young Women come forth, each one to embrace her Turk, and shall accompany him to his bed, and shall enjoy the pleasure of each others body, for the space of fifty years, without intermission. How nauseous and displeasing is but the thought of this doctrine to chaste ears; and how fare discosted, and estranged is this luxurious Course from the Words of Christ? No 
(17) Galat. ●.  foruicatours shall inheris the kingdom of Heaven; since the way of pleasure is the 
(18) Math. 7.  broad Way leading to destruction, provising 
(19) 1. Peer. 3.  Libery, and transferring 
(20) jude. v. ●.  the Grace of God into wantounes.  
Now to come to the third & last branch, which infinitely exceedeth (in impiety and Horror) the former two Heads; since this woundeth Christianity in its Mayster-veyne; for it consisteth in the absolute denial of the most sacred and undivided Trinity, and of the Incarnation of God for the Redemption of Mankind. For to recapitulate that, which (touching this point) we have above in this Treatise shown mohammed to have taught in his Alcoran; He there thus further teacheth: Indredul● 
(21) Azoara 12.  sunt, qui jesum Maria filium, D●●● dicunt esse. They are incredulous, who say, that jesus, the Son of Mary, is God. And 
(22) Azoara 49 & ●3.  more: Constanter dic ultis Christianis, 〈◊〉 nec genuit, nec genitus. Speak constantly to those Christians, that God did neither beget, nor is begotten; thus speaking against Christ the Son of God. And further against the death and Passion of Christ: judai 
(23) Azoara 1●.  Christum Dei ●uncium nequaquam interfecerunt, sed alterum ei simil●m. The jews did not put to death, Christ the Messenger of God, but one like unto him. To conclude, Mahumet thus execrateth most blasphemously in his Alcoran: Confundat 
(24) Azoara 10.  Deus Christianos, qui Maria filium, loco Dei venerantur. Let God confound the Christians, who worship the son of Mary, in place of God. And hereupon it is. that (as above I noted) Bibliander saith: Prim●s 
(25) Bibliander in praesat▪ Alcoran. p. 3.  & manimus error Turcarum est, quòd Trinitatem in V●●tate negant. In like for: Cusa●us. 
(26) Cusanus no cribation● Alcoran. l. ●. c. ●. & l. 2 c. 14. Richard●o in conf●legis Sar●●●●●.  and Richardus Ordinis Pradicat●rum do thus write: Principalis intentie Mahumet j●st pers●adere, Chri●tum ●aque Deum▪ neque 〈…〉. Both which authorities are (upon other occasion) above expressed.  
O the Incredulity of mohammed & his Sect, who will not acknowledge him, whose lineaments (as I may say) of body, I mean, whose several Passages of his Birth, Life and Passion are most lively drawn, and pourtrayted by the pencils of the Prophets in the Old Law. To insist only in some few points. His birth of a Virgin was prophesied in Esay c. 7. The Place of his birth, in Michaeas' 5. The death of the Innocents' killed by Herod, in jeremy 31. His Miracles, in Esay 35. His betraying by his own disciple, in Psalm. 41. His preaching, in Esay, 61. That he should suffer divers Kind's of Torments, in Esay. 53. That he was to suffer for our sakes, in Esay. 53. His four Evangelists, in Ezechiel, 1. His Crueisixion, in Psalm 22. His Resurrection, Psalm. 15. His Ascension into Heaven, Psalm. 14. The sending of the Holy Ghost, joel, 2. Thus mohammed by disclaiming from Christ, as his Redeemer, disclaimeth withal from the authority of the Old Testament; and with like contempt sleighteth the dignity of the New Testament, under pretext, that both the Old and the New were corrupted from their original Purity. In a serious perusal of which New Testament, our Soul is of power to lance forth into an Ocean of Mysteries touching Christ; but our Understanding through the gloriousness of his worth, is not able to apprehend them (so the stars are darkened through over much light) and our eyes are too weak to behold those radiant beams of his divine Majesty.  
For we therein read, that it is He, who being the comfort of Angels, vouchsafed 
(27) Math. 4.  to receive comfort from Angels; Who was nourished 
(28) Math. 20.  with meat, & yet first gave to meat the Virtue of nourishing; so as when he did eat, or drink, than did the Earth after an unaccustomed manner, nourish the Heavens. It is He, in whose Incarnation the Celestial 
(29) Math. 17.  sun received its light from the Earth: (Orietur 
* Malach. 4.  Sol justitiae) (to wit, from the B. Virgin:) and thus did the Earth pour out its influence upon the Heavens. It is He (O happy Sinicon!) who, when thou 
(30) Luc. 2.  in●ou●des him within thy Arms, did enfold within his Arms the whole Universe. It is He, who being Lapis Angularis, 
(31) Act. 4.  became Petra 
(32) il Petr. 2.  scandali; And who being Humilis 
(33) Math. 11.  cord, was filius 
(34) Marc. 9  Alussimi. It is Herald who being Puer 
(35) Luc. ●●  was before All time, (in 
(36) john 1.  principio crat Verbum) and but proficiens 
(37) Luc 1.  Sapientia. then enjoyed omnes thesauros 
(38) Coloss. ●.  sapientiae Dei.  
It is He, Who conversing here upon Earth, did suspend for the time his own Greatness, thereby the more easily to accommodate himself to Man; and who ruling the whole frame of this World, subiecteth himself (in the patration of Miracles) to the Voice of Man: obedient Deo 
(39) jesus. c. 10.  voci bominis; Who also being Plenus 
(40) john 1.  gratia, & veritatit, semetipsum 
(41) Philip. 2.  exinanivit. It is He▪ who being the Light made, Ego sum 
(42) Iohn ●.  lux mundi, was derived from the Light unmade. It is He, who through the mist, or cloud of his Humanity, darted forth beams of his splendour, and brightness Lux in tenebris lucet, 
(43) john 1.  & tenebra cam non comprehenderum; Whose glory was really the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father, & yet recorded to be but, quasi Vnigentii 
(44) john 1.  à Patre. To conclude, It is He, who invested himself with our Humanity, that through an opprobrious death he might save mankind. O how many Christians have shed their blood, in defence, that Christ for them did sheed his blood▪  
Since then the sacred Scriptures do further most largely celebrate the incomprehensibleness of thy Mercy (Most Blessed Redeemer) for therein we read, that God the Father said: Propter 
(45) Esay, ●3.  scelus populi mei percusii cum: For the wickedness of my People I have strooken him; That Christ for our sake was made obedient 
(46) Philip. 2.  unto death, even the death of the Cross; That Christ loved us, and 
(47) Ephes. 9  delivered himself for us, an Oblation and Host to God, in an odour of sweetness; That Christ is the 
(48) 1. joan. ●.  Propitiation for our sins, and not for Ours only. but for the whole world: Finally (to omit infinite other texts of like Nature) that God 
(49) 1. john. ●.  hath sent his Son, a Propitiation for our sins. Seeing then I say (Most Blessed jesus) so many Passages of thy Divine Word, do even proclaim forth thy Mercy, I (poor wretch) most humbly beseech thee, not to suffer my sins to overthrew that in my Soul, which thy goodness hath builtt therein: Acknowledge in me what is thine, but absterge and wipe away what is not thine.  
Thou once didst take mercy on the Woman of Canaan, of Mary Magdelen, of the Publican, of Peter thy Apostle, and of the Good th●ese hanging upon the Cross with thee. Vouchsafe (I humbly beg of thee in all prostration of Body, & Soul) to make me partaker of thy like ineffable commiseration and goodness. I do acknowledge I have sinned more highly, than any of these former: For I grant with the Woman of Canaan, my daughter (my poor Soul, I mean) hath been vexed with the Temptations of the Devil; say then to me (Good Lord) through the intercession of the intemerate Virgin, thy Mother and my Patroness (and with all make it good) that which thou saidst to the Canaan: O Woman, 
(50) Math. 15.  great is thy faith, be it done unto thee, as thou wilt. I have committed uncleanness; let thy words spoken to Magdelene; that Blessed sinner (though blessedness be incompatible with sin) be also spoken to me: Thy sins 
(51) Luc. 71  are forgiven thee. I pray with the Publican: God be 
(52) Luc. 18.  merciful to me, a sinner; Vouchsafe then to pronounce of me, as thou didst of that Publican: This Man departeth home justified. I have denied thee with Peter, in my works, and badness of life: O let it be said of me with Peter, through the force of thy Grace, causing in me a most feeling Contrition: 
(53) Math. 2●.  Plevis amar●: To conclude, I have committed theft with the Fuangelicall thief (and yet the Euangell brooketh no thief) in robbing thee (by committing of sin) of the Honour due unto thee; Say unto me upon my true confession of thy goodness, in my last sickness, and at the point of my dissolution, as thou said, to him: This day 
(54) Luc. 24.  thou shalt be with me in Paradise. O most merciful Redeemer, even by the merits of thy five most Dolorous wounds, and bitter Passion, accomplish all this in me, poor sinner.  
And now before I close up this short discourse, give leave (You of the reformed Religion) to my Pen to take more room to turn itself in; and to direct its words to your Country, and mine. Then (O France) who hast begot, and nourished us all: Blushest thou not, that thou, who heretofore hast brought forth Kings, who for their Piety, have been honoured with the Title of the most Christian Kings, should now produce men, who are Enemies to all true Christianity; contracting a most straight combination with that Hellish mohammed, in misbelieving most points of faith, and Religion; As also in maintaining with their own Prime-Maysters, divers other points of faith, and circumstances thereof (both for the speculation, and the Practice) in a more pernicious and wicked degree, than either mohammed, or his Sect have done? Alas is thy Flower de▪ Luce thus turned into a Briar? Is thy former glory thus overclouded with the mist of Miscreancy▪ O what disparity is there between the King, and the Subject?  
But pardon (O my Country) this my sudden Rapt. There is a near Conjunction between thee and me; It is no weak twyne wherewith I am tied to thee: Thou hast begot, and brought me forth; Thou hast nourished. & said me; Thou hast euen shewred down dignities, and Honours upon me: How then can I suddenly cease to evaporate out my grief (in thy behalf) into disconsolate sighs? Therefore my dear Mother, my Nurse, my Mecanas, give care to what I shall now say.  
Are these of the Reformed Religion in thee (I mean the Hugenotes) true French Men, who swear fealty to such their first Doctors, who thus compart with mohammed in Religion, or otherwise do exceed him in malice against Christ, and his Church? No, they are not; They are Gallo-mahumetani, but spurious, and adulterate Embrio's, wanting the true french shape. Thou dealest most liberally with them, in not denying them to breathe thy wholesome Air; in not withdrawing thy hand, from affoarding them thy Natural Benefits; and in not suffering them to statue in thy fecundity: Thou dost charitably, and well herein with them (O my Country) since thou art Mother to them All, howsoever they become but Moles, & blemishes to the face of thy Honour. And with this I here end, and give a full Pause to this Treatise.    

AN APPENDIX ENTITLED, The Huguenots second Looking-glass.  
Wherein is demonstrated, that threescore Points of Faith, and Accessories thereunto, maintained, and first invented by the old Heretics, were condemned by the ancient Fathers of Christ his Primitive Church, for explorate, and damned Heresies; and the Inventors' of them for Heretics: And yet the same doctrines are believed at this day, by the Lutherans and Caluinists, as most true, and Evangelicall. And in this respect (as being without any difference) they are here called so many Identities.  
You have seen (My Countrymen) how in the former discourse, you may take a picture of your own Religion out of the Turkish Alcoran; glassing your faith (I mean, with reference to very many points) therein. Now in this Appendix. I present to your View, A second Mirror, or Lookingglass of your said Religion: understanding hereby, the ancient heresies condemned by God's Church in those Primitive times. In those heresies (I say) you shall behold your own Articles of faith; they being coincident, and the same with the said Heresies, only revived in these our unfortunate days, by the first broachers of Lutheranism, or Hugenotisme.  
By this than we may gather, that what may seem defective and wanting in Mahumetism, to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and fullness of an Erroneous Religion in the highest degree, that is supplied and made up, by the accession of beliese of many old Condemned heresies. And thus Mahumet, and the Old Heretics have jointly contributed much to your Reformed Religion; each of them as being ready to bring several stones for the raising of the Walls of your false Evangelicall Church.  
But before we particularise the heresies revived by your men (in the number of which you shall find (as I said in the former Treatise) that Hugenotisme doth greatly, or rather incomparably, surpass Mahumetism;) I hold it convenient to prefix this ensuing Prolegomenon; In the which I will briefly insist in these Points following, to the end, that the said Heresies, (n'ayent powoir d'esbranler autres hommes,) may be of less force to shake the unsteedy judgements of other men.  
First, we will take into our Consideration, What Heresy is in its own Nature. Secondly, how Heresy is condemned both in Holy Writ, & by the ancient Orthodoxal Fathers, as being incompatible with man's Salvation. Thirdly, I will show, that the Opinions, or Paradoxes hereafter set down, were condemned in those Primitive times, for most explorate heresies, and now are renewed by the first Planters of Protestancy.  
To begin with the first▪ Heresy in its own Nature, is of that Vility, and Irreality, as that it is but a denial of a Truth (and consequently, it is but a Privation (as blindness is of sight.) Now, in that Heresy is but a Privation, it therefore in itself hath no Reality, Entity, or subsistence; but only Is (in respect of its Nature) in that, it Is not: And in regard hereof, as having no Efficient, but only a deficient Cause, it proceedeth not from God, who 
(1) G●●●s. 1.  made all things; For God's Word was God's hand, wherewith he created the whole World.  
From this ground than it resulteth, that Every Heresy is in itself false, and not true, according to that Principle in School divinity: Falsuns 
(2) S. Thomas part. 1 quaest. 17.  est id quod non est apprehendere,  esse; & quod est, Non esse. That is false, which is not to be apprehended▪ as it is a thing, but as it is not. And again: Verum 
(3) S Thomas uhi suprà, Durandus l. 1. distinct. 80. quaest. 6.  non potest apprehendi, nisi apprehendatur sub ratione Emis. Truth cannot be apprehended, but as it is apprehended as a thing, which hath a Real Being. Now from all this the inevitable in erence is, that every Heresy (as being a Privation) resting only in the denial of what is true, is therefore false, and proceedeth not from God, who is Truth itself: Ego sum 
(4) joan. 14.  Veritas. And though perhaps some heresies may be delivered in Positive terms; yet they are bu● Negative affirmatives (as I may call them) since potentially they ever include the denial of some affirmative Truth.  
To come to the Second Point, which is, to show the Atrocity of Heresy, both from God's Holy Word, as also from the learned Monuments of the ancient Fathers; from both which it appeareth, that Heresy, and man's eternal felicity cannot stand together; but that Every Heretic, in that he is an Heretic, is subject and obnoxious to sempiternal damnation. O then (My Brethren of France) why will you by embracing of heresies, even espouse your Souls to Hell, since by force of your Creation, that which is the Circumference to your Bodies (Heaven I mean) ought to be the Centre to your Souls?  
First then may occur that Sentence, or rather commination of the Apostle: Haereticum bominem 
(5) Ad Titum 3.  post unam & alteram correptionem devita, sciens quia subversus est qui eiusmodi est; & delinquit, cum sit proprio ivalicio condemnatus. A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid, knowing that he, who it such, is subverted: and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement. Thus the Apostle precludeth the Gate of Salvation from all Heretics. Again, we find the same Apostle thus to preach to the Galathians: The 
(6) ad Gol. 8.  works of the flesh be manifest; which are Fornication, Vncloanes, Sects etc. They which do such things, shall not obtain the kingdom of God. Now, if Sects in profession of faith do exclude man from Heaven, much more then, Heresies (as being in their own Nature more pernicious, and exitial to the Soul) exclude man from Heaven. Hence therefore it is, that S. Paul, speaking of certain Heretics, saith: Quidam 
(7) 1. Timoth. c. 1.  circa fidem naufragaverunt; Certain men have suffered ship wrack touching faith; meaning thereby. that through their maintaining of Heresies repugnant to the true faith of Christ, they were not to arrive to the Haven, and Port of Salvation.  
To descend to the Fathers. They are most luxuriant in this subject; but I will content myself at this time, by retailing some few of their Authorities. S Cyprian thus writeth: Cum Dominus 
(8) Cyprian, l. 1. Epist. 6. ad ●●lagnum.  noster Iesus Christus etc. Where our Lord jesus Christ did testify in the Gospel, that those were his Enemies, who were not with him; He noted not any one Heresy, but manifestly showeth, that all Heretics whosoever, are his Enemies, saying: He that is not with me, is against me; and he, that doth not gather with me, disperseth. S. Ambrose saith: Negat 
(9) Ambros. l. 6. in Luc. c. 9  Christum qui non omnia, quae Christi sunt, confitetur. He disclaimeth from Christ, who doth not confess and hold all the points of faith, concerning Christ. S. Austin: Imagine 
(10) Au●●. l. 4. contra Donatist. c. 8.  a man be chaste continent, ministering hospitality to the poor and needy etc. Yet it he be an Heretic, no man doubteth, but in this alone (that he is an Heretic) he shall not possess the kingdom of God.  
I will pretermit many other Fathers (to avoid prolixity) and will conclude with Fulgentius, who thus pronounceth of Heretics: Firmissimè 
(11) Fulgent. l. de side ad Petrum, c. 38. & 39  tone etc. Believe firmly, & waver not; that not only Pagans, but also jews, Heretics, and schismatics who die out of the Church, are to go to everlasting, and inextinguishble fire. Thus you of the Reformed Religion, do see, in what dreadful manner both the Holy Scriptures, as also the ancient, and learned Fathers do thunder out their threats against Heretics; depriving them of the hope of Eternal Salvation, and mancipating them to the interminable, & Horrible torments of Hell.  
Now I will come to the third and last poin●; to wit, to demonstrate, and make clear, that those Opinions, which hereafter I am to recite in this discourse, truly and deservedly were condemned for heresies by the Doctors of the Primitive Church; and now of new are entertained and embraced by Luther, Swinglius, Caelui● etc. and yourselves. For the proof of so illustrious a Verity, I will use several Media, of which the first shallbe this. Vincentius Ly●mensis, I●ene●●, Jerome, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Austin, Theodoret, and others most eminent and Learned Watchmen of Christ's Church, according to that of the Apostle: Christ hath 
(12) Ephes. 4.  placed in his Church, Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of Saints etc. These former Fathers (I say) by several ways of writing, much laboured and toiled to condemn and record for acknowledged Heresies these ensuing Positions; in which their different courses they always had their Eyes fixed upon the conformity of the Heavenly Faith, first planted by the Apostles: so the Celestial Orbs are ever changing their places, but never change their Centre.  
Now, we read not, that any other ancient Orthodox all Fathers, either in those ages, or in the Ages succeeding, reprehended these Fathers for their ranging the said Opinions in the Caralogue of Heresy; Therefore it followeth, that the whole Church of God did conspire, and agree with the said Fathers in such their proceeding. For if other Orthodox all Writers, either of the then present times, or of subsequent ages, had disliked the Condemnation of the said Opinions, they would instantly have sharpened their Pens against the registering of the said Opinions; as we find the succeeding Fathers did write against the confessed Errors of Origen, Tertullian, and S. Cyprian.  
Secondly, Vincentius Lyrinensis, Irenaeus, & the rest above specified, were most literate, and most godly religious men; Can any man then of a clear judgement be persuaded, that through Ignorance they could mistake true doctrine, for false and erroneous doctrine; or through want of Charity, they would injustly insimulate men within the compass of believing presumed Heresies, they not being Heresies?  
Thirdly, those Fathers, who first registered 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 Principal Members thereof; Whereas these other men making choice of doctrines different from the whole Church, did thereby manifestly discover themselves to be Heretics, according to the Etymology of the word. Haeresis, as coming of the Greek Verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eligo: And thus they, by their Election; and Choice of strange Opinions, did range themselves in the number of those, of whom S. john writeth: Exierunt 
(13) 1. Iohn ●.  ex nobis, sed non erant exnobis.  
Now than if these former learned and pious Fathers should have er●●d in the condemning the said Doctrines for Heresies, and in wrongfully anathematising the broachers of them; then might it be inferred, that the whole Visible, and Primitive Church of God could err, and then actual did err: Which granted, how then could the Apostles words stand inviolate, and immoveable, he styling the Church: Colu●●a, 
(*) 1. Tim. 3.  & Firinamentum Veritatis? Or could the praises given, even by our Adversaries, touching the Infallibility of the Universal Primitive Church in matters of faith, be true? For thus we read in these alleged writers following▪ all being remarkable Protestants: 
(14) Sarauta in defence. tract. de diversis Ministro●um gradibus. pag. 8.  Sarauta saith: Spiritus Sanctus, qui in Ecclesia presided etc. The Holy Ghost, who presideth over the Church, is the true Interpreter of the Scriptures, Therefore it is not a thing reasonable to reject the authority of that spirit, which presided over the primitive Church, and governed the sams by its Bishops. Thus this writer. Kempnitius (thus averreth: 
(*) Kempnitius in Exam. Concil. Trident. part. 1. pag. 74.  We doubt not, but that the Primitive Church received from the Apostles, and Apostolical men, not only the Text and Words of Scripture, but also the right and Native 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 read: The ancient Church is the true and best Mistress of Posterinty, and she going before, leadeth us theway. Thus much of the Protestants Confessions in this point.  
Fourthly, and lastly, divers Theorems or Speculations of faith, and the professors of them (by me urged) did take their denomination and names, from the Authors of them (being but illiterate, ignoble, & obscure man) the very impression, or indelible stamp● of Heresy. according to those words of S. Chrysostom's Prout 
(15) Chrysost. ●omil. 3● in Act. Apost.  Haerestarcha nomon●ita sec●● vocatur: As the name of the Heretic is, so is the Sect, or Heresy called. These Names (being imposed upon the men so believing, after the beginning and first rising of the said Heresies, and taken from the first Coiners of them) were invented out of Necessity, and constraint; that by such their Appellation, they might be distinguished, and divided from the true, & Orthodoxal Professors of the Christian Faith. Thus the Manichees, the Arians, the Eutichians, and the like, do borrow their Appellation from Manichaus, Arius, Eutiches, and accordingly their Heresies are called, Ma●ichenism●, Arianisme, Eutichianisme etc.  
Here now I will pause, & stay myself; 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 God's Church, and now in this Iron Age revived with a most strong bent, and endeavour by Luther, Swinglius, Caluin, & others of the later brood; in all whom are justified the words of an ancient Father: Haereses 
(16) Tertul. l. do prescript.  apud eos mul●um valen●, qui in fide parùm valent. Now, in reading hereof I would entreat you (My Countrymen) casting of your former sluggish security (touching the presumed certainty of your faith) to recur in a secret reflex of mind to the former Advertisements of this Proleg●m●●n, and to what here followeth; and withal to observe by application of what is delivered in the first Part of the former Treatise, that the Catastrophe, or Closure of all is, that ●ug●●●tis●●s is engendered between Mah●●●●s●●●, and old condemned. Heresier. O how much is the deformity of that Child to be bewailed, which is begotten of such ugly Parents?  

Identity 1.  
But to begin with these Heresies. The first Heresy shallbe of certain men, who denied the Eucharist to be the true flesh of Christ; teaching, that it was but only a Figure thereof. These Heretics were condemned in those ancient times 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 etc. These Heretics do not admit Eucharisties and Oblations, because they acknowledge not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which flesh suffered for our sins. These men were in like sort condemned in the seaventh Synod: So hardly could such men (being immersed in sense) believe, that the Eye of faith seethe things invisible.   

Identity 2.  
Simon Magus taught, that God was the Author of sin, of whom Vincentius 
(18) Vincent. Lyr. l. advers. Haeres. post med.  Lirinensis thus saith: Who before Simon Magus was bold to affirm God, to be the Author of our wickedness and deeds? And S. Austin: Detestanda etc. 
(19) Austin, ad artic. sibi falso impositis, Art. 10.  It is a detestable opinion, to believe, that God is the Author of any ill will, or works. Finally the Heretic Florinus taught the same doctrine, of which Irenaeus thus speaketh: This 
(20) Apud Eusebium, l. 5. histor. c. 80.  Opinion is more, than an Heresy.   

Identity 3.  
The Heretic Aerias taught, as Epiphanius 
(21) Epiph●●. Haeres 7●.  & S. Austin 
(22) Aust. Haer●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. Jerome: 
(23) jerom. in praefat. ●1●. log. contra Pelag.  Manichaet damnant hominum naturam, & liberum auferunt arbitrium. The Manichees do condemn the Nature of Man, and do take away free will. And S. Austin; 
(24) Aug. Haeres. c. 4●.  Peccatorum originem non tribuunt Manichaet libero arbitrio. The Manichees do not ascribe the origin of sin to Free will.   

Identity 5.  
The Heretic Xenaias, was the first, who denied the Due worship to Images; Of whom Nicephorus thus writes: Xenaras 
(26) Nicephor. in hist. Eccles. l. 16. ●. 27.  iste primus (O a●●●cem animam, & os impudens!) vocem illam evomuit, Christi, & illorum qui illi placuere, imagines renerandas non esse. This Xenaias was the first (O shameless, and impudent Man!) who belched out, that the Images of Christ, & of those that pleased him, are not to be worshipped. This point Functius (the Protestant) confesseth in these Words: Xendias' 
(27) Inl. 7. Comment. in praced. Chronolog. it anno, Christi, 494.  primus in Ecclesia bellum contra imagines excitavit.   

Identity 6.  
Denial of Voluntary Poverty, and monastical Profession is reached by Vigilantius, of which jereme saith: Quòd 
(28) ●●rou●. contr● Vigilantiuna propofine.  asseres eos mebles fac●re, qui viuntur rebus suis etc. Where thou (Vigilan●us) affirmest, that it is better for a man to use his own riches, and by degrees to give part of them to the poor then to sell all his Possessions, and to part with them allat one time: Thou thalt receive an answer hereof not from me but from our Lord, who saith, If 
(29) Math. 19  thou will be perfect gee, and sell all that thou hast, and give to the Poor, and come, and follow me In like sort the Heretic januarius is condemned for this doctrine by S. 
(30) Aust. serm. 49 ex ●●uersis, cap. 1.  Austin.   

Identity 7.  
In like manner the said Vigilantius is condemned for denying Worship to the bodies of Mantyrs, and their Relics, by S. Austin, thus writing: Sanctorum 
(31) Austin. de Eccles. ●ogm●e. 73.  Corpora & pracipuè beatorum Marryru● resiquias, c●si Christs membra sincerisume honoranda credimus●si quis contra haue sententiam venerit non Christianus, sed Eunom●●nus, & Vigilanti●us creditur. We do beliene, that the bodies of Saints, but especially the Relics of the Martyrs, are most sincorely to be honoured, as the members of Christ; If any one shall impugn this doctrine, he is to be accounted not a Christian, buran Eunemian, and Vigilantian.   

Identity 8.  
The denial of the Necessity of Childrent Baptism, is recorded of the Pelogians, by Innecentius in these words: Illud vero 
(32) Innocent. in rescript, ad Milcuitan. Concil. post med.  quod vostra Fraternitat eos asserit praeditare, paruales aeternae vitae praemijs, absque Baptismatis gratia posse donari perfatuum est. That is most simply spoken, which your Brotherhood affirms the Pelagians to teach, that little Children may be on dued with the rewards of Eternal Life, without the Grace of Baptism. The same is in like sort condemned in those Heretics, by 
(33) August. Haeres. 88 &, contra julian. P●lag. l. 6. c. 7.  S. Austin.   

Identity 9  
The denial of Remission of sins by Baptism, is condemned in the Manichees, as appeareth from the Confession of the Protestant writer Whitakerus, thus saying: Peccatae 
(34) Whita●●. l. contra Duraeum. p. 883.  remini & gratiam conferri in Baptism, negare soliti sunt Manichat. The Manichees are accustomed to deny, that sins are remitted, and Grace conferred in Baptism. Now how the Protestants (though not all) are interessed in this doctrine of the Manichees, may appear from the small account they make of Baptism: of which point peruse the former Treatise.   

Identity 10.  
The denial of our ability in keeping the Commandments, was taught by certain Hereti●●● of ●hose days, but in p●gned by S. Jerome, who thus writeth hereof: Exceramer 
(35) jerom, in explanat. Symbol. ad Damasum.  blasphemiam corum, qui dicunt impossibile aliquid hoturni à Des prace ptumsesse. We accurse the blasphemy of those Heretics, who reach, that any thing, which is impossible, is commanded to man by God.   

Identity 11.  
The denial of the B. Sacraments reservation for some days after, was taught by the Authropomorphyts, of whom Cyrill thus speaketh: 
(36) Cyril ad Cerosyrium.  I here say, they say (meaning these Heretics) that the Mystical blessing is unprofitable to sanctification, if any remnants thereof be reserved, till the day following; But they dote in affirming so; for Christis not made another, neither shall his Body be changed; but the Virtue of Benediction, and lively Grace doth over cominue in it.   

Identity 12.  
Diversity of merit of works, was denied by the Heretic jovinian, whom S. Austin brandeth in these words: joviniam damnamus 
(37) Aust. do Temp. ser. 198.  errorem, qui dicit unllain in futuro meritorum distantiam. We condemn the Error of jovinian, who affirms, that there is no disparity of merits, in the time to come S. Jerome 
(38) jorom l. 1. advers. jovinian. c. ●.  also chargeth jovinian with the same Heresy.   

Identity 13.  
The denial of enjoined times of Penu●nce, was taught by the Heretic Alldinn●, of whom Theodoret 
(39) Theod. l. 4. bared. Pab. de Au●●nis.  thus speaketh deigned Confessis etc. They (Andians) give remission to such, as are confessed, without prescribing time for Pennancé, as the Law of the Church commandeth. Thus Theodoret.   

Identity 14.  
The denial of Single and unwearied life in the Clergy is taught by the Heretic Vigilantius, whom S. Jerome condemneth in this sort: Quid faciunt 
(40) jerom. contra Vigilant. c. 1.  Orientis Ecclesiae? Quod Egypt's, & sedis Apostolica? Quae aus Virgines Clericos accipiunt, aut continentes; aut si uxeres hahuerint, marit●esse desinunt. What do the Churches of the East herein? What the Churches of Egypt, and of the Apostolical Sea? The which do take and allow to be of the Clergy, those, who are Virgins, or at  continent; or if they have wyues, do nevertheless cease to live as married men.   

Identity 15.  
That Concupiscence is a sin, and not taken away by Baptism, but as it were cast a sleep by faith, is condemned in Proclus, whom Epiphanius introduceth thus speaking: Constat 
(41) Epiphan. haeres. 14.  contrahi quidem, ac sopiri per fidem nunc peccatum Concupiscentiae, vine frectus noxtos producat, non tamen radicis us tollitur. It is evident, that the sin of Concupiscence still remaineth, being cast a sleep by saith, yet so, as that it is not pulled up by the root. Thus Proclus: Which very doctrine is renewed by 
(42) Mela●th. in loc. come.  Mela●c●ho●●, and 
(43) Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 15. ●, 10.  Caluin.   

Identity 16.  
Overthrowing of Altars, is condemned in Donatus by Optatus; who writing against the Donatists, thus saith: 
(44) Optatus l. 6. contra Donatistas'.  Quid est tans sacrilegum, quàm Altarin Des (in quibus vos aliquando obt●listis) frangere, raders, removere? What is so sacrilegious, as to break, to cast down, & remove the Altars of God, upon which you (Donatists) have sometimes offered up sacrifice? etc. Quid est enim Altar etc. For what is an Altar, but the Scate of the Body and blood of Christ? Quid vos offenderit Christus, etc. In what hath Christ offended you, whose body and blood do remnine upon the Altar for a certain Season?   

Identity 17.  
Denial of Chrism, or Confirmation by a Bishop, to the Baptised, was condemned in the Novatians; For Eusebius thus speaketh of Novatus, being baptised: Neque 
(45) Euseb. ●ist. l. 6. c. 35.  caetera, quibus post baptismum (secundum Ecclesiae Canonem) imbui opertuerat, acquisivit; neque Domini sigillo ●b Episcopo obsignatus fuerit: quo quidem neuti quam potitus, quo●●odo quaeso, spiritum sanctum adeptus est? Neither did Novatus seek to have those things, which (according to the Canon of the Church) he ought to have after Baptism; Neither was he signed with the seal of our Lord by a Bishop; the which he not enjoying, how could he obtain the Holy-Ghost? Theod●re● 
(46) Theod. l. 3. Haret. ●●b.  also chargeth the Novatians herewith.   

Identity 18.  
Exorcisms, and exafflation, was denied by julianus the Pelagian, of whom S. Austin thus relateth: julianus 
(47) Aug. de nupt & Concupis. l. 2. c. 2●.  antiquissiman 〈◊〉 Traditionem nefariscrimine asp●●get, qu● exercizantur, & vidixi, exufflantur par●ul●. Iul●anus doth cast a wicked aspersion upon the most ancient Tradition of the Church, by force whereof little Infants are exor●ized, and (as I have said) ●●eathed upon. Thus S. Austin.   

Identity 19  
That Adam lost the Image of God, was maintained by the Origenists, but condemned by Epiphanius, thus writing: At 
(48) Epiph. hoeres. 64.  vero quòd secundum Imaginem est. Adam per●idisse dicit. Origen affirmeth, that Adam did lose that, which was according to the Image. And again: Et 
(49) Epiph. Haeres. 70.  Vide. quòd corr●● se●●●● corum qui dic●●nt Adam id, qu●● sec●nd●m I●●●ginem Dei, perdidisse. Benold, ●ow the words of those men (he meaning the Origen●●ts) fall away, who maintain, that Adam did lose that, which was according to the Image of God. Now this Heresy of the Origenists is revived by Caluin. who thus expressly writes of Adam: Obl●terata 
(50) Calu. l. ●. Instit. c. ●. sect. 1.  fuis in ●o calestis Image: as also by Illyricus 
(51) Lib. de orig, P●●cat.    

Identity 20.  
The Visibility of the Church was denied by the Donatists, whom S. Austin reproved as being Heretical, in that they laboured to certain texts of Scripture:  ea (saith this Father) detorquere 
(52) Aust. de Vnitat. Ecclesiae c. 1●.  in Ecclesiam Dei, ut tanquam defecisse & perijsse de to●o orbe videatur: to the end, to misapply them against the Church of God, that it might be thought to have suffered a defection, and to have perished out of the whole world. And according hereto this Father alleged the Donatists own words (the very dialect of the Protestants of these times,) which are these: Apostatquit 
(53) S. Aug. repeateth this saying of the Donatists, in Psal. 101. con. 2.  & perijt Ecclesia de ommbus Gentibus. The Church of Christ hath apostatated, & perished away out of all Countries. To the which words S. Austin thus answereth presently: Hoc dicunt quim illa non sunt. O impudentem vocem! They speak this, who are not in the Church. O shameless tongue of theirs!  
Thus far I have proceeded in showing, that twenty main Articles of Protestancy were condemned in the Primitive Church by the ancient, learned, pious and Orthodoxal Fathers of those times; Which Fathers stood as so many Sentinels to discover the approach of any new arising Heresy; and being discovered, were as many Spiritual Captains, ready with their Pens to encounter the same. I have thought good (you see) in the former Instances, (though with some tediousness) to set down the Father's condemnation of those heresies in the Fathers own Words, thereby to assure you (My Countrymen) of my Candour, and Integrity herein; for I hope to prove none of those. Qui mendaciorum funiculis 
(54) Hester c. 16.  ●onautur subvecriere.  
Hear now shall follow Faur●y more Points of Protestancy and other circumstances concerning Protestancy, in like manner professed by the Heretics of those ancient times, and registered for heresies & Errors by the said former lights of God's Church. In setting these forty down, I will only rest (for greater expedition) in the references of the Father's Books and Writings, wherein they are for such condemned, without expressing their particular words of condemning them. I hope you, or any judicious Reader, will rest assured, that I use no fraud, or calumny herein. And if any man shall think otherwise, him I provoke hereby to recurre to the Father's books themselves, for the greater trial of my plain and upright deportment. But I should presume this Admonition of mine to be less needful, considering, that in the former twenty Protestant Articles, being more weighty, than most of these following, he may see, how fully I have displayed the condemning of them, even from the Fathers own Sentences.   

Identity 21.  
Well then, the one and twentith Article shallbe, the denial of the Devils to be really cormented at the Relics, & monuments of Martyrs; This point was condemned in Vigilantius, as S. Ambrose, 
(55) Ambr. serm. 93. de initent. Cor●. Geruas●● & Protasij,  & S. Jerome 
(56) jerom. contra Vigilantium.  do testify.   

Identity 22.  
The referring of the Church's Miracles to Witchoraft, was condemned in the Arians, as 
(57) Victor in persecus. Vandal.  Victor recordeth. And do not the Centurists. 
(58) Cent. 4. col. 1445.  & 
(59) Osiander. Cent 10.11.12. etc.  Osiander (all Protestants) seek also to avoid the force of Miracles performed in our Catholic Church, by styling them, Antichristian, and lying Wonders?   

Identity 23.  
The denial of the Devils flying away at pronouncing of the Name of jesus; and at the sign of the Cross, was condemned in the seduced of those times, by the Fathers, as Theodoret 
(60) Theod. hist l. 3. c. 3. , & Arnobius 
(61) Arnobius contra gentes, l. 10.  do witness.   

Identity 24.  
The affirming, that the Godhead of Christ did suffer in his Passion, was condemned in Eutiches. The same doth Luther, and his scholars teach, as appeareth in the former Treatise. And Musculus 
(62) As Checavorius a Protestant, witnesseth.  in like manner teacheth the same.   

Identity 25.  
The denial of the Reverence to the holy Cross, condemned in Probianus, as the Tripartite History 
(63) Histor. Tripere. l. 8. ●. 89.  witnesseth.   

Identity 26.  
The affirming of the Ignorance in Christ, was condemned in Themistius, and in the Agneites Herotil●s (who took their Name upon this their Heresy) as we read in S. Ambrose 
(64) Am●●. l. 5. de fide. cap. 8. , and 
(65) Grag. l. 8. Epist. 42.  S. Gregory.   

Identity 27.  
The denial of Visible Sacrifice, was condemned in the Manichees by S. Austin 
(66) August. tom. 6. cont. Adverse. leg. & Proph●●. c. 19 & Tom. 6 count Faustum. Manich. l. 20. c. 18.  as himself witnesseth.   

Identity 28.  
The Appointed fasts upon Sunday, was condemned in the Arians; of which point see 
(67) Epiphau. Haros. 75.  Epiphanius; and the first Council of Carthage 
(68) C●●●●●. 64. . And do not many of our more Precise Caluinists choose to make their firsts upon Sundays, rather than upon any other days?   

Identity 29.  
The denial of the Mixture of Wine and water in the Chalice, was condemned in certain Heretics, who would not allow such mixture in the Celebration of the Eucharist, as 
(69) Theoph. in john. 1●.  Theoph●lac● witnesseth.   

Identity 30.  
Absolute Reprobation was holden by certain Heretics, and condemned by Vincentius 
(70) Vin●●●. Lyrin. aduer. Haeres c. 34.  Lytinensis, and S. Austin 
(71) Aug. add artic. sibi fals● imposis. art. 10. . The same condemned in Florinus, by 
(72) Euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 3.  Eusebius.   

Identity 31.  
That there is 〈◊〉 Originati ●●inne, especially in the children of the faithful, was taught by Pelagius 
(73) So affirmeth S. Aug. l. ●. contra luli●a.  (as in the former Treatise is showed) do teach the same.   

Identity 32.  
The Arians taught, as Epiphanius 
(75) E●i●h. Idaeros. 69.  relateth, that the Son of God was lesser than his Father; The New Arians in Polonia, Transiluania, and other Provinces (who are all Protestants, or rather Caluinists) teach the same.   

Identity 33.  
The Civil Magistrates Claiming of Ecclesi isticall Primacy, was condemned in the Emperor's Co●istantius and Valentinianus; see S. Athanasius 
(64) Athan. 〈◊〉 Epist ed foliear.  hereof, and 
(65) Ambr. Epist. 32. & 3●.  S. Ambros.   

Identity 34.  
The Assembling of Counsels without the Sentence and Authority of the Roman Bishops, was condemned in the Arians, and Dioscorus. See Histor. Tripart. 
(66) Tripart. l. 4. c. 9 , and 
(67) Socrates, l. ●. c. 5.  Socrates.   

Identity 35.  
The demolishing and impropriating of Monasteryes to secular uses, was condemned by the 
(68) Cahon. ●3.  Council of Chalcedon.   

Identity 36.  
The pretended sufficiency of only Faith. was condemned in Eunomius, and Simon Magus. See hereof Trenaus 
(69) Iren. adver Haeres. l. 1. c. 20. , Theodo●●● 
(70) Theod. de Haeres. Faballs, l. 1. c de Simons. , and S. 
(71) Aust. haeress. 54.  Austin.   

Identity 37.  
The eating of the flesh in 〈◊〉, was condemned in the Aerians, and others, as Epiphanius 
(72) Epiph. haeres. 75.  S. Ambrose 
(73) Ambr. serm. 25.34.36. , and the eight of Council 
(74) Can. 9 and the Laodicean Council C●●. ●0.  of Toledo do witness.   

Identity 38.  
The affirming of our justies, not to be an inherent Grace, or Quality, but extrinsical, and consisting only in remission of sin, was condemned in the Pelagians, and others, as Celestinus 
(a) Ep. 1. c. 10. , chrysostom 
(b) Chrys. hom. 3. de po●nit. , S. Austin 
(c) Aust. Epist. 100 act Bonifacium. , and the Milevitan 
(75) Canon 3.  Council do record.   

Identity 39  
The denial of Christ's descording into Hell was condemned in certain ancient Heretics, as S. Augustine's 
(76) Aust. Epist. 57 ad●●ord. & ep. 99 ad Eunoditim.  teacheth.   

Identity 40.  
The allowing of Marriage again, in ease of divorce upon Adultery, was condemned in certain ancient Heretics, by the old Council of Eliberis 
(77) Elib. Canon. 9 , by the Council Mil●nit anum 
(78) Milevit. c. 17. , at which S. Austi● was present, and by S. 
(79) jerom in epist. ad Oceanum de obitu Fabiolae.  Jerome.   

Identity 41.  
The Rejecting of ancient Fathers, and Antiquity, was condemned in the ancient Heretics, by S. 
(80) Aust. ●om. 7. contra, I●●l, Pel. l. 2. c. ● l. 1. c. 2.  Austin.   

Identity 42.  
The denying of the Books of Sapieutid, the Macha●eas, and certain Parts of Da●●el, to 〈◊〉 Canonical, was condemned in certain ancient Heretics, as S. Austin 
(81) Aug. l. ●. de praedest. Sa●ct. c. 14.  witnesseth. And touching Daniel being rejected, see S. 
(82) jor. 〈◊〉 Apol. ●. ad. ●●●rs. Russinis.  Jerome.   

Identity 43.  
The Urging of 1. T●●. 4. against Abstinence, and singl● life of the Clergy, and of accounting the same to be Manichisme, was condemned by S. 
(83) Touching Abstinence, see S. Austin, condemning the denial of it in Faustus▪ the Manichee▪ l. 3●. c. ●. con●. P●●st. and touching single life, see S. Austin contra d●as, Epist. Pelag. l. 1. c. 2.  Austin.   

Identity 44.  
The expounding of that Text: I and the Father, are One, joah. 10. to be one in Will▪ and not in Substance, was condemned by all ancient Fathers, who ha●● commented upon that place; yet received by Caluin 
(*) Caluin, in Ioa●. c. 10.  Whitakerus 
(84) Whi●●●● contra ●amp●a●. 8. , and most o●●ier Caluinists.   

Identity 45.  
The Condemning of the ancient Prima●● of the 〈◊〉 Church▪ was condemned in john Bishop, of Constanti●●●●, as S. Gregory 
(85) Epist. ●●. ad Eus●●iuin.  witnesseth.   

Identity 46.  
The affirming, that the Clergy is to be ordained by popular Election, Was condemned by the ancient Fathers of the La●dicean 
(86) Can. ●●.  Council.   

Identity 47.  
The Undertaking of Ecclesiastical sanction, without Ordination by a Bishop, was condemned in certain Old Heratiks, as Socrates 
(89) Hist. l. ●. c. 10.  relateth, as also by Theodoret 
(90) Theod. l. 2. c. 8. , and S. 
(91) Cypr. l. 1. Epist. ●. ad Magnum.  Cyprian.   

Identity 48.  
The insisting upon Only Scripture without Tradition, was condemned in the ancient Heretics, by S. Austin 
(92) Aust. contra Maximin. . & Theodoret 
(93) Theodor. Dialog l. 3. c. ●. & 4. . This point was further partienlarly condemned in Nestorius, and Dioscorus, as the second Council of Nice 
(94) Concil. Nic. Act 1.  witnesseth.   

Identity 49.  
The denial of a Triple Immersion in Baptism, was condemned in Eunomius, as Theodoret 
(95) In Haeret. Fab. l 4. de 〈◊〉 etc.  witnesseth.   

Identity 50.  
The neglect of Kneeling at time of Prayer. in the Church, and at the Priest's benediction, was condemned by S. 
(96) Chrysost. homil. 40. ad Popul. Autioch. & in Act. Apost. homi●. ●●.  chrysostom.   

Identity 51.  
The Profaning, and contempt of Sanctuaryes was condemned in Bonifacius, as S. Austin 
(97) Auct. to●●. 2. Epist. 1●7. ad ●●●●fac. & dec●uit. Dei. l. 2. c. 4.  relateth. 
(97) Socra●. hist. l. 6. c. 5.  The like doth Secrates (98) witness, and Concilium 
(99) Can. 29.  Agathense.   

Identity 52.  
The forbidding to disinherit ourselves, of our Posterity, for the Church's use, was condemned in the wicked Tyrants, by 
(100) Prudent. in bym. de S. Leuren●●●.  Prudentius.   

Identity 53.  
The objecting of the Epistle to the Hebrews (cap. 10.) against Sacrifice, is condemned by S. chrysostom, S. Ambrose, Occumenius, and Theophilact, in their Commentaries in Hebr. c. 10. And yet are some Texts produced out of this Chapter by the Caluinists at this day, against Sacrifice.   

Identity 54.  
The affirming of Pharo's Induration, was condemned in some ancient Heretics, by 
(1) Philast. l. de Haeresib. Haeres. 77.  Philastrius.   

Identity 55.  
The restraining of the Text in Genesis, Cap. 4. touching cain's dominion over sin, was condemned by Philastrius 
(2) Thilast. de Haeresib. Haeres. 80. , and S. 
(3) Aust. de civitat. Dei. l. 85. c. 7.  Austin.   

Identity 56.  
The denial of. the Epistle to the Hebrews, was anciently condemned by Philastrius 
(4) Haeres. ●●.  Which Epistle is in like sort rejected at this present, by many Lutherans, as is showed above in the former Treatise.   

Identity 57  
The denial of the Apocalypse by the Heretics Alogiani, was condemned by S. Austin 
(5) Aust. de Haer. Haeres● 30. , and Epiphanius 
(6) Epiphan. Haeres. 3●.  The same book is not accounted Canonical by Luther, and some other Lutherans, as may appear in the former discourse.   

Identity 58.  
The objecting (in respect of the Sacrament) the gross, and Carnal ●ating of humane flesh (the which Objection the Sacramentaries make at this present) was condemned by justinus 
(7) justinus, in colloq. cu● Triphone.  Martyr, Tertullian 
(8) Tertull. in Apolog●●. c. 7. , Origen 
(9) Origen. l. ●● contra C●lsum. , Eusebius 
(10) Eusebius Histor. l. 5. cap. 1. , Prudentius 
(11) Prudentius, in Hy●●no oe S. L●●rentio. , and others.   

Identity 59  
Appearing Innovation, without coming out from of an Elder Society, was condemned in the ancient Heretics, by Vincentius 
(12) Vincent▪ adversely. Haer. c. ● c. & ●●. & 34.  Lyrinensis, S. 
(13) Aug. l. 3. de Baptism. contra Donat.  Austin, and S. 
(14) jerom. contra Lu●●●▪ in fine.  Jerome: And yet the Lutherans (though late appearing) cannot prove, that they came out (touching doctrine) from any elder Society.   

Identity 60.  
Lastly, which here I will allege; The objecting of many Parts of our Christian Religion to be taken from the G●●ills (the which Kemp●●tius 
(15) Kemp●●tius, in Exa●●. Con●. Tridp●rt. 3. pag. ●●. & 8●. , and Rep●●id●s (an English 
(16) In his book de Romen. Eccles. Idolas. pa. 100L. 24●. ●●●. etc.  Writer) do object against us Catholics) is condemned by S. Austin 
(17) S. Austin condemneth this in the Manichees, contra Faust. Maniech l. ●0 〈◊〉. & ●●. and de Civitate Dei, l. 10. c. 19 and Epist. 49. , Tertullian 
(18) Tertull. l. de Prescript. cap. 40. , S. Jerome 
(19) jerom. l. ●. contra jovin. post medium. , and Origen 
(20) Origen, l. ● contra Celsum, ante medium. .  
Lo here (My Countrymen) I have presented to your eye, a large Glass, to behold your faith in, made of threescore Protestanticall Points, (formees sur le moul des anciens Heretics) wrought upon the Anuise of the old Heretics, and condemned for Heresies by the Church of Christ in those days. What can you say hereto? Will you urge, that howsoever this be, yet this proveth your Religion to be ancient? If any of you be of such transparency of judgement, as thus to reply; let him remember, that as these his doctrines were ancient; so also that they were anciently condemned. And we ought to have as great a loathing of ancient? Heresies, as of but yesterday Novellismes.  
Secondly, we are to observe, that Protestancy was not n●re in being in its full Orb in those days; Because only this, or that point thereof, was holden by this, or that Anonymus, or obscure Fellow: Whereas now all the former Points above rehearsed are become (as it were) so many seu●rall Ingredients, of all which the Comp●and of your Reformed Religion is made. And the men believing in those firster days the said Points, were in compare of the worth, and celsitude of the Father's condemning them, but as Bow thrubs, 〈◊〉 to be moden upon by every on●, in respect of 〈◊〉 high Cedi●●● of 〈◊〉.  
Well, here I am to acquaint yet, that some of our more learned Adversaries, who are not a little moved through the great scandal risen against them, for their own known Opinions, so condemned by the Primitive Church, have therefore, not as in clearing of themselves (which they cannot) but by way of recrimination, endeavoured to return the like upon us; thinking insufficient honour, if they can be able, but to leave things perplexed, and doubtful▪ They hearing themselves herein like to that man, who in a Duelism, or single Combat, doth not so much expect to get an absolute Victory over his Enemy; but holds it glory enough, if he can come off with giving as many, and as dangerous wounds, as himself received. O Weakness of judgement▪ since Truth consisteth in a f●●●e establishment of itself, and not in a seeming redargution of the Contrary Doctrine. According to this Method some of our Adversaries have pretended, that many of our now Catholic. Opinions were in like manner condemned by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church. I will particularly insist in the writings of one Willett●s, a Protestant of England, making choice of some few of his Instances of this nature, thereby to show the impost●●●, pe●sidy, and want of all Ingenuity, and vpright●es in such his proceed.  
This Author then in hi● book cati●●led: Intrastyl●n Papism, giveth an example of a Woman, saying: Harcellina (the companion of Carpocrates) was noted of Heresy, in that the used worship to the Images of jesus and of Paul, as S. 
(20) August. Haeref. 7.  Augustine witnesseth. I answer, that this Author useth fraud herein; For S Augustine's words are: Colebat Imagines jesus, & Pauli● & Homeri, & Pythagorae, adorando incensumque ponendo. She did worship the Images of jesus, of Paul, of Homer, and Pythagoras, and she offered incense unto them. Which point Epiphanius further exployneth, saying of this Carp●crates, and his followers: Insuper 
(21) Epiphan. Haeref. 27.  Philosopher's quorundam etc. They placed the Image of jesus, with the Images of the Philosophers, Pythagoras, Aristotle etc. and, did afterwards keep the ●●tes of the Pagans. Now what is this to us Catholics? Do we worship the Images of the Philosophers? Or do we observe the rites of the Pagans? Or do we offer incense to any Image?  
He secondly produceth the Heretics, called, Heraclionitae, who (he saith) after a new custom purged, and redeemed those that were dead by anointing their bodies with Oil, and Balm. S. Austin 
(22) Haeref. 1●.  witnesseth also this. Now how impertinently is this objected against us? S. Augustine's words are these: Feruntur, suos morieutes novo tuedo redimere; id est, pet Oleum, belsamum, & aquam, & invocationes, quas Hae●●aicis verbis dicunt super capita eo●um etc. But we Catholics do neither anoint, nor baptise the dead; neither do we pray, by using such Innocations over the heads of the dead: such strange detortion of S. Augustine's words is here used.  
Thirdly he insimulates the Catholics 〈◊〉 the Heresies of the Ta●●ani, who (saith he) did condemn Marriage, and accounted it no better than Fornication; and did not receive any married Persons (in suorum numerum) into their number. S. Austin 
(24) Austin so witnesseth, Haeres. 24.  How can this touch us? For we do not equal Marriage with Fornication; We know all our Ancestors were married; and we teach, that Marriage is a Sacrament.  
Fourthly, he saith: The Pepusiani allow Women to be Priests; In like manner, the Papists do suffer their Women to confer Baptism. Austin witnesseth this of the Heretics Pepusiani. 
(25) Austin, Haeres. 27.  To this I answer, that the Pepusians Error consisted in making Women the ordinary Ministers of Baptism, and of all other Priestly functions. Now, this is impertinent to the Ministering of Baptism by Women, or Laymen, in the only Case of Necessity.  
Fiftly, he proceedeth further, saying: The Heretics called Apostolici, did not admit into their Society and Communion those, that had wines, or proper Possessions. Austin 
(26) Aust. Haeres. 40.  And further, Those Apostolici would not in any sort suffer those, which had vowed single life, to marry, as Epiphanius 
(27) Epiph. Haeres. 6●.  saith. To the authority of S. Austin I first answer; S. Augustine's words are these; The Apostolici receive not into their Communion, those that have wives, or Possessions, Quales habet Catholica Ecclesia, & Monaches, & Clericos pl●rimos: Which the Catholic Church hath, and (besides these) ●he also hath Monks & Clergy men▪ Now these Apostolici are Heretics (saith S. Austin) for that they think those to have no hope of Salvation, who use these things, which themselves do want. Thus S. Austin. But this toucheth us nothing at all. For do not our married money, & such as have Possessions live within the Unity of our Church?  
Touching the produced words of Epiphanius, this Father is mightily wronged by this Protestant; For Epiphanius delivereth not prohibition of Votaries to marry, as being the doctrine of the Heretics Apostolici themselves; for Epiphanius his Words following are these: Tradidorunt Sancti Dei Apostoli peccarum esse, post decretam Virginitateni ad Nuptias vener●i: The Holy Apostles of God delivered it to be a Suine, to marry after one hath vowed Virginity. Thus what Epiphanius spoke in the name of the Apostles, this Author fraudulently produceth in the name of the Heretics, called Apostolici. Belike this man is of a short sight, not being able to distinguish between these two words, Apostoli, and Apostolici. But to proceed.  
Sixtly, he allegeth the Hierarchites (being Heretics) saying: The Hierarchites admit only Monks, and Nuns to their society Austin 
(28) Aust. Haeref. 47. . But what is this to us? Doth our Church admit only Monks, and Nuns into its Society? How rovingly is this testimony alleged?  
Seavently, This Author saith: There is an Heresy, of which the Professors walk with bare feet; because God said to Moyse●k 
(29) Exod. ●3. ▪ Put off thy these. Austin. Thus this writer glanceth at such of our Religious men, who go barefoot. But S. Austin 
(30) August. Haeref. 68  in the very place alleged, thus presently addeth: Ind ergo Harests est, quia non propter corporis afflictionem sic ambulabani, sed quia testimoniae taliter intelligunt. But this is an Heresy, 〈◊〉 that they did walk bare foot, not thereby to punish their bodies; but because they did understand the testimony of the Scripture in their own sense; So untowardly doth this Protestant allege S. Austin, against his own true, and evident meaning.  
He further enlargeth himself, saying: There were certain Heretics, who believed, that by Christ's descending into Hell, the Vnbelievers believed; and that all Scales were delivered out of Hell, at Christ his coming thither Austin 
(31) Haeres. 79. . This example is alleged against the Catholic doctrine of Limbus Patrum. But what doth this Instance concern us? Do we think, that Christ by his descending into Hell, delivered the damned from thence, or any offers, but such as were faithful? This Testimony is so idly and impertinently extended to us Catholics, that 
(32) Danius de Haeres. 79.  Danius (a learned Protestant) confesseth most plainly. That these Heretics Error concerned only the damned.  
The foresaid Author allegeth, that the Heretics, Coluthians affirmed: Deum non facer● ma●●t That no evil was wrought by God, expressly repagnant to that saying of the Scripture: Ego ●●u● creani mal●; as Austin 
(33) August. Haeres. 15.  Witnesseth. From this Heresy the Papists are not clear, saith he. Thus far this Writer; understanding plainly in this place by the Word; Eui●●, not the ●a●t of punishment (which he knoweth, we grant is from God) but the Evil of sin, 
(34) Danaeus in his Commentaries upon S. Austin & Haere. ●ib. Haeref. 61.  whereof indeed we deny that God is the Author. I answer herto with the foresaid Protestant Danaus; That, Coluthiain Deum poenas, & supplicia sceleratis hominibus immittere & irrogare negarunt. The Coluthians denied, that God did inflict any pains or Punishment upon wicked men etc. And then Danaeus further saith: Est malum duplex, quem admodum ipse Augustinus docet; Aliud malum Culpae, aliud Poenae: Mali Culpae non est Authour Deus; Poenae Deus est Author. There is a twoofould Evil, as Austin teacheth; To wit the Evil of the Fault, and the Evil of Punishment▪ God is not the Author of the Evil of the Offence, or Fault, but he is author of the evil of Punishment. Thus this Protestant, with whom we Catholics agree herein. So ignorantly (at least maliciously) is the Heresy of the Coluthianes objected to us by this Willettus.  
He goeth yet forward, and saith: The Anthropomorphites (being Heretics) did imagine, that God was in shape and proportion like to a man; As Austin 
(35) August. Haeres. 50.  recordeth: So the Rhemists do teach, that God may be pictured like an old man. Hereto I answer, that this no more proveth us to hold with these Heretics, that God is in proportion, like to a Man, than our picturing of the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove, or of the Angels in form of young Men, that therefore we think the Holy Ghos● to be a Dove, or Angels, young Men. And we hold it no more unlawful to paint these so, as they visibly and corporally appeared, than it was undecent for them to appear in such forms; or, than it was unlawful for the Scriptures so to report the same.  
He after insimulats us catholics within the Heresy of the Pelagians; saying: The Pelagian Heretics did hold; That a Man may be perfect in that life, and keep all the Commandments ●● Austin witnesseth. The like do the Papists hold: But how can this touch v●? For the Pelagians affirmed, that their natural hability for the performance hereof, without God assisting them with his Grace, was sufficient. For thus S. Austin speaketh of them: Pelagiani 
(36) August. Ep. 20. ad Aselicum.  ipsi Gratiae Christi su adversantur. ut se humanis Viribus divina existiment implere mandata The Pelagians were such Enemies to the Grace of Christ, as that they thought themselves able to keep the divine Commandments by human strength. But do we teach this? No, we acknowledge it to be a blasphemy against Christ.  
I will conclude, with this same Authors imputing to us the Heresy of the Manichees. Who (as he saith) condemned the eating of flesh, as being unclean, and impure: See 
(37) August. Hares. 4●.  Austin hereof. How can this example endanger us Catholik●? Do we condemn the Creature, for impure? Do we not also eat flesh? Therefore what is the Manichees doctrine of ever abstaining from flesh (as impure by Creation) to our observed abstinence, upon appointed days, without condemning of the Creature?  
Thus fare now for some taste of the impurity of this Author; Out of whose book I have insisted only in a dozen of his immaterial, and frothy Instances. Of these I have made choice in particular, as seeming more conducing, than the rest, though they conduce nothing are all▪ As for some other few examples in him (by me here omitted) they are so grossly impertinent; as that I will not abuse your longer Patience with recital of them. Only I say, by this already set down, ye● may consecture, what the rest of his Book is. A Book (barren of matter) is commonly termed, Vn liure set, A dry Book; yet perhaps I might be thought to wrong this his Book, in calling it so; for you see it is still of Froth, and Frosth is moist.  
Well, having thus answered the chief objected Examples of our Adversaries (all which, or any other by them objected, are so pregnantly o●●●enting, and different from our doctrine, that not so much as any one of them can be a●amed, which being holden, as it was by the Heretics of those times, and for such in them condemned, is not as yet to this day by us in like manner condemned;) I further answer, as in further Explication, and Prevention in general, that Heresy is not (in some sort) an open Ane●ay to Religion; But is a subtle Corrup●cy thereof, by absitacting from it, or adding to●h: So as Truth, and Error having one Material object or ground work, are divided (though ever really) oftentimes (as to the conceauing of the unlearned) but in a seeming slender nicety, or difference of Words, or in a point (to common Understanding) s●arce divisible. In which respect he, that will object pertinently in this ●ynd, must object not any nearness, resemblance, or likelihood, but an Identity of Opinion (as I have done in my objecting of the Sixty Articles of Protestancy, maintained by the Did Heretics, and in those days condemned for heresies by the Church of Christ;) Since otherwise the now wicked Objecting by the New Ari●ns (both against but Adversaries, & us) of the Heresy of the Tru●●●●●, as a sti●ming three Gods, might, in regard that both of us hold three several Persons, (every of which is God) be more insisted upon, against both of us, and with more colour, than any of the former alleged Examples be. And with this I ●nd this Appendix.   

The Conclusion.  
IT is an accustomed Dialect of many of your Prime-Maysters both in the Pulpit, and in their writings, to vociferate & try out, That the Catholic Roman Religion is Antichristian, and the Pope Awit●●st, & in proof hereof they produce certain Teats, put of the second of the Thes●●●nians 
(1) 1. Thess. 2. , and the 
(2) Av pocal. 8. & 12.  Apocalypse, which they ●●ench and disi●ynt (as it were) with their stained, & violent. Constructions. But if they were able to set down thirty or forty Articles of says, which Antichrist hall teach; and these to be acknowledged his particular ●act●ines, by the consent both of You Protestants, and V● Catholic; as also could allege so many old forests condemned by the Pr●●mitiue Church of God: And withal, if further they could produce out of our Catholic willets, that we Catholics do ●each, and be●●●● the said Antichristian Articles, and the said anathematised Heresies: I say, if your Men (O you Huguenots) could effect thus much, how would they insult? What words even of brass, would they yell ou●? What Prophies of Victory, and Triumphan● Arches would their Pens have erected before this day, and all in memory of our overthrow, and dishonour of the Roman Religion, and its Professor? But the Case here (God be praised) is fare otherwise▪ for they are your Writters (My Countrymen) who stand at this time chargeable.  
I have (you see) set down forty Articles, touching the Turkish Religion, and divers Circumstances thereof, chief out of the Turkish Alcoran (the Book (as above I said) wherein that Law was first written) as also out of warrantable Authors, both Catholics, & Protestants, who have written of the Religion and Manners of the Turks: So as, it is acknowledged 〈◊〉 all sides, that the Turkish Articles produced by me, are indeed the Articles at this day believed by them. I have in like sort insisted in threescore Old Heresies, condemned by the Church of God in ancient times, and for heresies at this day acknowledged; by us Catholics, & by the more learned & moderate Protestants. I have further proved, even from the express Testimonies, taken out of the first & chief Lutherans, that themselves have taught in their Writings (articularly, and punctually) the said Mathemetan; or Turkish Articles, and in lieu of some others, Articles more pernicious, even by the light of Nature; as also that they have pertinaciously defended (and their Followers do at this day defend) the said explorate Heresies for Good Lutheranisius, and Euangelical doctrine.  
Now than what remaineth for us to doc I Not unkindly, and uncharitably to insult over you, and in virulent and gaulfull terms to exprobate you there with, but in all Christian zeal, to pity your poor distressed states, and to pray, for your abandoning those most wicked Turkish Doctrines, and other Helli●● heresies; and for your future in corporating into our Catholic Church; To him (I say) who upon man's true repentance, hath pronounced: Numquid 
(3) Ezech. 18.  Voluntatis meanest m●rs impi●● And again: Nolo 
(4) Ibidem.  mortem morientes, conueru●mini & vivite.  
Well then (My Countrymen of France) to repeat what above I have faith (that thereby my Words may more intensely, and forcibly s●rike your Memory,) since you have seen, how your own chief Doctors in Forty Points of their Religion, do commilitate and serve under the Colours of mohammed; Since also it hath been made plain, that in twenty passages of Faith, or necessary Circumstances thereof, Protestancy is less warrantable, than Mahumetism: Lastly, since it is demonstrated, that in Sixty Positions of Faith, and other collateral points thereof, Protestancy, or Hugenotisme comparts with the ancient heresies, or rather is identifyed with them; what then may seem to be inferred (O pardon me for speaking that with grief, which you are to hear with shame!) but that a Mahometan, and an Old branded Heretyke, and a French Hugen●is, are (In part) word● Sy●o●ymons?  
Now therefore, if notwithstanding all this, you will still prefer your own Religion before ●oe encient Roman Faith, (which even by y●ar own brethren's 
(5) Whitak ad respons. Cam●. ra●. 7. Huttevus de Sacris. missatieo p. 377. beside divers others:  acknowledgements hath brens perpetuated from hand to hand, from the Apostles, and in which (by their like 
(6) Hum f●idus jesuit. part. 2. rat. 2. Osined, C●nt. 12. pag. 30●. Luther in colle●. Germ. c. de Miss●.  Confessions) men dying, may be saved;) If (I say) by your persevering therein you will violently and desperately run upon the Hykes of your own damnation I cannot but commiserate your forlorn Souls, & (though with inconsolable sorrow) close up my speack●s, with the Acclamation of the Apostle; O 
(7) Galas. 30  O insensati Galata (siue Gall●) quis vos s●sc●●●u●●on obedire veri●nat●! O sansi●s French Hugenois, who hath bewitched you not to ●h●y the Truth?  
●aus Deo, & Beat● Virgini Mariae.    

A Table of the Contents of this Treatise.  

First Part, consisting of Symbols. 

THe Preface of the Author. Chap. 1. pag. 7.  
The Method h●ld in this Treatise. Ch. 2. p. 19  
The particular passages (or Azoara's) of the Alcoran, alledg●d in his Treatise. Chap. 3. pag. 12.  
Of Symbolisms in general, Chap. 4. pag. 26.  
Touching the w●●●ings of the Apostle, Chap. ● pag. 33.  
Touching the erring of the Apostles, Chap. 6. pag. 35.  
Touching the holy Gospel. Chap. 7. pag. 36.  
Touching the Ancient Fathers. Chap. 8. pag. 38.  
Touching General Counsels. Chap. 9 pag. 40.  
Concerning Traditions. Chap. 10. pag. 42.  
Touching the Necessity of Faith in Christ. Ch. 11. p. 44.  
That Mahumetism and Lutheranism are engendered of old Heresies. Chap. 12. pag. 48.  
Touching the Plantation of Mahumetism and Luthranisme. Chap. 13. pag. 51.  
Touching the want of Miracles. Chap. 14. pag. 54.  
Conceining Mahumets and Luther's pr●te●tati●● for proof of their Religion. Chap. 15. pag. 55.  
Touching the dewfall of the B. Tr●●ty. Chap. 16. p. 57  
Concerning the suffering of Christ. Chap. 17. pag. 61.  
Touching the second Person of B. Tr●●ty. Ch. ●8. p. 64.  
Touching the denial of Christ's Passion. Ch. 19 p. 66.  
The particular Motives of Mahumets and Luther's Apostasy. Chap. 20. pag. 68  
That the Turkish, and Protestant Clergy do marry. Chap. 21. pag. 72.  
Conjunction of Ecclesiastical, with Temporal Authority. Chap. 22. pag. 75.  
Touching the denial of Original Sinne. Ch. 23. p. 77.  
That Baptism is not necessary. Chap. 24. pag. 79.  
Polygamy jointly taught by mohammed, and the Lutherans. Chap. 25. pag. 81.  
Touching the Contempt of the Cross. Chap. 26. p. 84.  
Touching other several points of Faith. Chap. 27. p. 85.  
That Catholics and Turks agree in the doctrine of Sacrifice, and Vows. Chap. 28. pag. 90.  
The Conjunction of Turks, and some temporal States, against Catholic Princes. Chap. 29. pag. 94.  
Reasons of friendship betweens the Turks, and some Lutheran States. Chap. 30. pag. 98.  
Of divers Caluinistes, that became Turks. Chap. 31. pag. 102.    
Second Part, consisting of Parallels. 

A Demonstration, wherein Mahumet is paralleled with Luther. Chap. 1. pag. 108.  
Mahumet paralleled with K. Henry the Eight of England. Chap. 2. pag. 111.  
Sergius the Monk, & Luther paralleled. Ch. 3. p. 117.  
Touching the dignity of Christ. Chap. 4. pag. 125.  
Concerning the B. Virgin Mary. Chap. 5. pag. 131.  
The Antiquity of Mahumetism, and Lutheranism. Chap. 6. pag. 139.  
The Universality of Mahumetism and Luther●●●●● Chap. 7. pag. 141.  
The Unity in doctrine between Mahumetism, & Lutheranisme. Chap. 8. pag. 141.  
Whether mohammed or Luther d● were teach God 〈◊〉 be Author of Sinne. Chap. 9 pag. 144.  
Of the Paschall Supper of the Turks, and the Comu●●nion of the Caluinists. Chap. 10. pag. 147.  
Whether Turks, or Lutherans pray more. Chap. 11. pag. 149.  
Proceeding of Turks against Christians, and of Protestants against Catholics. Chap. 12. pag. 151.  
Whether Mahumetism, or Lutheranism inclines more to Vice and Sinne. Chap. 13. pag. 157.  
Whether Mahumetism, or Lutheranism do more depress Virtue, and Good works. Chap. 14. pag. 160.  
Whether Mahumetism, or Lutheranism seek more to frustrate the Promises of God. Chap. 15. pag. 16.  
Of Predestination, & Reprobation differently taught by mohammed, and the Lutherans. Ch. 16. p. 163.  
Whether the devisers of Mahumetism, or Protestancy, were of more flagitious line●. Chap. 17. pa. 165.  
Whether Mahumetism or Lutheranism consist more of old condemned Heresies. Chap. 18. pag. 17●.  
The different respect given to the New Testament by mohammed and Luther. Chap. 19 pag. 172.  
Concerning the Mahometan, and the Lutheran Clergy. Chap. 20. pag. 175.  
Whether the Turks, or Lutherans have ●●re erred in their Belief. Chap. 21. pag. 177.  
The ridiculousness of the Turkish Religion etc. Chap. 22. pag. 182.  
An Appendix, though that threefore Points 〈◊〉 Faith, and Accessories thereto, which a● thirday are believed by the Lutherans and Caluinist●, more first invented by the old Heretics, and condemned by the Fathers of the ●●●●tions Church; and for this respect, they be termed so many Identities. pag. 199.  
The Conclusion of the wh●le Treatise. pag. 233.     
FINIS.