It is impiety to affirm that Faith without Charity justifies not Nay he adds further Fides nisi sit sine c. Except Faith be without the least good Works it doth not justifie nay it is not Faith. And lastly the more to debase good works he thus saith Works take their goodness of the Worker and no Work is disallow'd of God unless the Author be disallow'd before Luth. upon Gal. English'd in c. 2. Luth. tom 1. prop. 3. Luth. Serm. Engl. 204. c. II. LUTHER's Religion not Protestant in Eight Instances Inst 1. HE ever maintain'd the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist and that to the Elements upon Consecration And his Followers for their peculiar Defence of this Doctrine are stil'd Lutherans by Zuinglius Calvin the Church of England c. who impugn the foresaid Doctrine Inst 2. Luther also defended Prayer to Saints for their intercession to God for us Of which point he thus writeth De intercessione divorum c. As to the Doctrine of Intercession of Saints I hold with the whole Christian Church and it is my judgment that Saints ought to be honour'd and invocated by us Luth. in purg quorund Artic. in epist ad Georg. spalat Inst 3. He also taught the Doctrine of Evangelical Counsels to wit that a man might do more than he is commanded as appears out of his Book De Assertionibus Art. 30. Inst 4. The Doctrine of Purgatory he taught of which see Tom. 1. Wittenberg in resol de Indulgentiis Concl. 15. in disp Lipsica cum Eckio And upon this ground he is confessed by Urbanus Regius a Protestant to defend Prayer for the Dead In 1. par operum formula caute loquend cap. de Sanct. cultu Inst 5. Luther further taught and approv'd the use of Images in Churches as Beza witnesses In resp ad art Coloq Mont. part alt in praefat Inst 6. The indifferency of Communion under one or both kinds is allow'd by Luther in these words Quamvis pulchrum sit c. Altho it were very seemly to use both the species or forms in the blessed Eucharist and tho Christ commanded nothing herein as necessary yet it were better to follow peace c. than to contend about the forms Luth. in epist ad Bohemos Inst 7. Concerning the making of the Sign of the Cross upon our Foreheads Johannes Crevelius a Lutheran thus witnesseth Cum imus cubitum sive surgimus electo cruce nos juxta Lutheri aliorum piorum institutionem signamus When we go to bed or rise from thence we sign our selves with the sign of the Cross according to the advice of Luther and other pious men In his Refutation Caeremon Missae printed at Magdeb. 1603. p. 118. And Johan Maulius Luther's Scholar thus writes of Luther Respondet Lutherus signo crucis facto Deus me tueatur Luther answers at the making the Sign of the Cross God defend me Loc. com 7. pag. 636. Inst 8. Finally to omit divers other points wherein Luther never dissented from the Church of Rome Luther ever maintain'd that the Government of the Church is Monarchical and neither Aristocratical nor Popular of which point Luther thus writes Cum Deus voluerit c. Seeing God would have one Catholick Church throughout the whole World it was needful that one People imo unum aliquem Patrem istius unius populi eligi yea some one Father of this one People should be chosen ad quem suos posteros spectaret totus orbis to whose care and his Successors the whole world should belong In loc com class 1. c. 37. p. 107. Thus much to shew that Luther after his Revolt from the Catholick Church did still retain many Catholick Doctrines that are denied by modern Protestants and consequently was no true Protestant REFLECTIONS in Answer to the Vindication of Martin Luther's Spirit Printed at the Theater in Oxford THE Vindicator of Luther's Spirit seems to have writ with the same spirit His first Cavil is at the Considerer's Rule of trying the spirits of the Teachers of new Doctrines by their fruits And he is willing p. 2. to stand to this Test and that Luther's spirit should be try'd by his morals but yet he sees no necessity neither of his submitting to such a Rule the reason is obvious of which more afterwards and therefore he chuses rather to appeal to St. John 1 Ep. 4. 2. every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. But certainly such Confession must be fruitful of good Works or else what differs it from that of the Devils But be the sense of this Text as the Vindicator would have it yet Luther gains nothing by it For he that denies that Jesus is Consubstantial with the Father is not of God. But this did Luther as is evident from the Instance of his hatred to that Article of the Christian Faith. Next The Vindicator endeavours to clear Luther of the Solifidean Doctrine contrary to Luther's own words cited by the Considerer as also Inst 8. in this Paper Thirdly Concerning Luther's vilifying Vows Acts of Mortification Pennance single Life c. before he makes any defence he puts the Question why the Considerer in giving so long a List of Luther's Doctrines slipt that of Indulgences For the Answer of which the Vindicator is referr'd to the Considerer's Tract of Pennances and Indulgences that for so many years has baffled the most Celebrated of the Church of England and therefore may safely defy his less considerable Pen. As to the Charge against Luther concerning Vows the Vindicator replies that Luther was not utterly against them But yet afterwards he pleads for the Lawfulness of Luther's breaking his Vows without assuring us that he could not by continuing in his Cloyster and using the ordinary means of Prayer and Mortification have kept them That Text of Scripture urg'd by the Vindicator All men receive not this saying Mat. 9. 1. does not prove that God denies this Gift to any or that any ever fail'd the attaining of it that sincerely endeavour'd after it Tho the Church of England Version in favour of this loose opinion to say no worse of it has in this place corrupted the Original And thereupon the Vindicator seems to applaud Luther for relinquishing his Habit his Canonical Prayers c. for the sake of Bora a Prostitute Nun a fit Mother of such a Reformation as incapable of Marriage as himself For how could he have the leisure and the retiredness of the Cloyster says the Vindicator to perform all those Acts of Devotion when the Burthen of the Reformation and Bora lay upon his shoulders But if I well remember the Vindicator's killing Argument that Luther might break his Vow and Marry is because Costerus says 'T is less sin for Priests to Fornicate than to Marry Therefore for Luther to Marry was no sin A wise Consequence But suppose this Quotation out
and ancient Custom And to averr That if there be nothing to be reply'd in answer to the Fathers better however to deny all the Fathers than grant the Mass to be a Sacrifice What Luther drolls upon the Fathers in his Table-talk will not pass with the Vindicator to have been in earnest because I suppose he thinks it was in his Cups But it is strange that his serious preferring Melancthon before all the Fathers should by the Vindicator be call'd not an affront or contempt against the Fathers but a complement to Melancthon And yet some of the Church of England that think themselves Learned have been heard to say That they do not see why Dr. Tillotson Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Tenison Dr. Sherlock c. may not pass for Fathers of as good Authority in the Church as St. Ambrose St. Austin c. 7. To the Proof of Luther's setting up his own Authority against the Church and maintaining his own Doctrines as infallible nothing is answer'd The instance which the Considerer gives is the Doctrine of Consubstantiation wherein Luther pretends Certainty and Revelation in God's Word Could any man have perswaded me says Luther Epist. ad Argent there was nothing but Bread and Wine in the Sacrament he had much oblig'd me For being in great perplexity I took great pains in Discussing the point I endeavour'd with all my might to extricate and free my self as well perceiving I should thereby very much incommode the Papacy But I see I am caught there is no way of escaping left me For the words of the Evangelists This is my Body c. are too plain and clear to be forc'd to any other meaning It is evident that in this Doctrine Luther was neither Catholick nor Church of England Protestant But yet so much a Catholick he was as to hold the real presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Sacrament Being forc'd to it as himself Confesses by the words of Scripture But how one that holds a Doctrine so contradictory to the sense and reason of a Church of England man should deserve the extravagant Encomiums of the Vindicator I cannot understand 8. To Luther's altering the publick Liturgy and reforming the Service of the Mass the Vindicator replies in great fury that the Considerer has mistaken Hospinian But yet he saves me the labour of examining the Quotation and rectifying the Folio by his yeilding the cause For he confesses that Luther was deputed to throw out all that Part of the Service of the Mass that made the Sacrament a Sacrifice And what is throwing out but Altering and Reforming the Service of the Mass But then he says Luther did not impose his Form as obligatory Not as obligatory si quid melius illis revelatum fuerit if any new Revelation could supply them with a better But can any one say he did not impose it as obligatory before and instead of the ancient Form of the Church Or otherwise what signified his writing a Book for the abolishing the most ancient and venerable Service of the Mass To Luther's taking upon him the Authority of Ordaining Bishops and Ministers the Vindicator admits the fact but says it was done not out of choice but necessity A worthy Answer What necessity was there Were there no Bishops in Germany at that time Or does it any where appear that ever the Church allow'd of any such necessity Yes the Vindicator presents us with a well known passage of St. Austin In Alexandria per totum Aegyptum Si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter This passage is well known not to be St. Austin's but the words of another Author see St. Austin's Works Qu. de utroque Test 101. Nor does the word Consecrat signifie Ordaining The Presbyters in Aegypt or any other place being never permitted to Ordain upon any pretence whatsoever But Consecrat here may signifie the same with Consignat and by this is meant Consecration of Chrism which tho proper to a Bishop yet it seems in Aegypt was done by Presbyters in the Bishop's absence But it was not for the Vindicator's purpose to give the true sence of this passage For if the Presbyterian Ordination fails where will the Church of England find Refuge when her own Ordination shall be call'd in Question 10. To Luther's sentencing the Canon-Law consisting of the Decrees of Councils and Popes to the Fire and Burning them in a solemn Assembly of the University of Wirtenberg the Vindicator owns the fact to be true But he denies that it was done upon Luther's own Authority For he had a Commission as a Preacher of God's Word and he had taken an Oath at his going out Doctor to confound as much as in him lay all pernicious Doctrines A very solid Defence Luther it seems did pass sentence upon the Decrees of Councils c. for the confounding Doctrines which in his own private Judgment he thought pernicious But he did it as a Preacher of God's Word and a Doctor not as the Arch-Reformer Martin Luther But the Vindicator distrusting this Argument says Luther had other motives And what were those His Books had been solemnly burnt at Rome as Heretical His own people were startled at it so that he was fore't boldly to make Reprisals to buoy up his Followers courage A fair Concession The Church Censur'd Luther's Books as Heretical Luther returns the Censure upon the Church and Condemns her Decrees as pernicious And yet this in a Reformer was no Usurping an Authority but only declaring his Opinion as the Scholars did at the Oxon Decree against Bellarmin and other Jesuits without knowing or being able to shew that those Writers held any such pernicious Tenets 11. To Luther's pronouncing Anathema's and Excommunicating the Reform'd that dissented from him the Vindicator replies in a Question Is there no difference between a Judicial Anathema and a Wish of Execration So that Luther might Curse but not Anathematize his Dissenting Brethren The Monks says he writ upon their MSS. Anathema to all that should violate them I suppose he means by MSS. the Registers of Founders Statutes and Donations belonging to Monasteries The weight and effects of which Curses if we may believe Reform'd Writers themselves are both felt and dreaded to this very day But the Vindicator after three or four unhandsom Sarcasms pretends to prove his point from the Considerer's own words Luther requir'd not Conformity to his Doctrines out of any Authority he claim'd to impose them which Authority he renounc't Here the Vindicator leaves off in the middle of a sentence very politickly and like a Reform'd Controvertist lest the other end should sting him The sentence goes on but yet which is somewhat more he required a Conformity to his Doctrines from a Certainty of Divine Truth which he pretended to be in them And so the Obedience he refus'd as a Magistrate he claim'd as an Oracle and would have his own pretended Apostolical certainty of Doctrine set up instead of the Church's
should seem to have said nothing he advances a stale Objection many times urg'd and as often answer'd I should perhaps have pass'd it by had it not been lately vigorously press'd by some of the Oxford Divines to a serious Gentleman for the Confirming him in the Church of England The Objection pretends that Communion in one kind was Decreed in a Council with a non obstante to the Custom of the Primitive Church The Decree of the Council as to this point Defines That altho Christ Instituted this venerable Sacrament and administred to his Disciples in both the species of Bread and Wine and that after Supper tamen hoc non obstante yet notwithstanding such Institution and administring in both kinds and that after Supper yet the Church hath and doth Observe and Command That this Sacrament may not be Celebrated after Supper nor be receiv'd by any that are not fasting unless in such cases of Necessity allow'd of by the Church And in like manner That altho in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd by the Faithful under both kinds yet for the avoiding some Hazards and Scandals this the present Custom was upon good reason introduc'd of Consecrating under both kinds and the Laities Communicating under the species of Bread only it being firmly to be believ'd and no way to be doubted but that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is truly contain'd under either species as well that of Bread as that of Wine All sides grant that our Saviour Instituted in both kinds and that he did it after Supper but where does it appear that he commanded all should receive in both kinds and that they should receive after Supper And yet if he in his words of Institution commanded the one he also commanded the other for both are equally contain'd in those words And if the Church can Interpret and Command as also the Church of England does that people should communicate fasting why may she not also Interpret and Command that people shall receive in one kind only Thus much of this fraud But is it not a shame that such falsities should be Authoriz'd by an University that was Founded for the defence of Truth and the increase of God Almighty's Church and not for deluding of unwary Souls The Devil 's next Objection against Luther's being a Priest is That the Mind and Institution of Christ was That other Christians also should communicate in this Sacrament but Luther was Ordain'd not to give the Sacrament to others but to Offer Sacrifice The Considerer replies That according to this argument neither would the Priest have Authority to give the Sacrament to himself And besides that Sacrificare in the Church's sense takes in also the distributing part Here the Vindicator pretends that it is not the Church's sense and he takes his argument from the Catechism of the Council of Trent Cap. de Euch. § 75. There says he the Eucharist is said to be Instituted upon a double account the one that it might be a spiritual Food for our Souls the other that it might be a Sacrifice for our Sins From whence he infers that certainly the Ministring the Eucharist to the people belongs to it as it is the Food of our Souls and therefore as a Sacrament not as a Sacrifice The Church in this place holds that it is Ministred to the people as a Sacrament but does she not also hold that it is Offer'd to God Almighty as a Sacrifice first and afterwards distributed as a Sacrament And does not the word Sacrificare include both The Vindicator would have baffl'd himself if he had but put down the remainder of the Paragraph which expresly explicates the Eucharist's being both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament by its Figure and Type the Paschal Lamb that being first Offer'd by the Children of Israel as a Sacrifice and then Eaten as a Sacrament But for a fuller account of the Church's sense the Vindicator is referr'd to her Decrees where he will find that Priests have power given them of Consecrating Offering and Distributing the Body and Blood of Christ as also to Remit and Retain Sins to Bless Govern Preach Baptize c. And is not all this more than to Offer Sacrifice In this point the Devil and the Vindicator are at odds The Devil urges the nullity of Luther's Orders upon the account of his being a Sacrificing Priest The Vindicator distinguishes upon him That tho the Form of making him a Sacrificing Priest should be a little defective yet where the Church Intends to convey Orders there they are actually convey'd and his being made a Sacrificing Priest did not prejudice Luther's Orders at all That is to say he might be a Sacrificing Priest and a not-Sacrificing Priest by the same Form. Had he also by the same Form a new Authority given him of beginning a new Ordination that should be opposite to that of the whole preceding Church These are the Goliah-Arguments in which the Vindicator exposes himself and his Party to defie the Church of God. The Devil proceeds to another Objection against Luther's Orders His using the Mass as a Sacrifice Propitiatory for Sins contrary to Christ's Institution The Vindicator closes with him and waving the word Propitiatory puts the Question Whether it be truly a Sacrifice In which he might have satisfied himself out of any of the Catholick Writers who would have told him that the Mass is a true proper unbloody Propitiatory Sacrifice for Sins and that according to Christ's Institution who at his last Supper gave his Body for his Disciples Offering it up first to God as a Sacrifice before he gave it to them as a Sacrament This is my Body which is given to God for you And the ancient Fathers are full of Testimonies to this purpose See Bell. The Vindicator seems not to have read the Fathers and therefore is advis'd to consult them before he Replies and take great care how he denies the Daily Sacrifice of the Church and the Christians only Propitiatory Sacrifice for Sins 13. The Vindicator takes no further notice of Luther's Conference But is very angry that the Considerer should meddle with his Friend Zuinglius another principal Reformer and that he should say of him that he also had a Visit from an Evil Spirit that help'd him to an Interpretation of Hoc est Corpus meum for the establishing his Virtual Presence and that Zuinglius confess'd it with this asseveration vera narro adeoque vera c. What I tell you is true nay so true tho I would have conceal'd it yet my Conscience forc'd me to utter what the Lord would have me impart notwithstanding the many Scoffs and Jeers to which I know I shall expose my self thereby c. And lastly that Luther said of it That it was as clear as the Sun at Noon-day that the Zuinglian Heresie was nothing else but the Mockery of the Devil who had shamm'd Zuinglius with a sorry but crafty Interpretation This Apparition to
of Costerus to have its full force yet if he held Fornication a mortal damnable sin as certainly he did neither Priests nor the Vindicator would be any gainers by it for both he that fornicates and he that marries after Vows are equally liable to eternal Damnation But if Luther could have liv'd continently as he says he did whilst a Monk and nothing appears to shew he could not what can be alleg'd in defence of his doubly wicked sacrilegious Marriage 4. To the Objections of Luther's rejecting the Authority of the present Church and the denying it to be a true Church the Vindicator knows not what to answer However to blind the matter something must be said and therefore the Church which Luther contemn'd must be the Court of Rome But then to the Question which himself puts concerning the Visibility of the Church for many Ages even according to Luther's Note of it viz. the true and sincere preaching of the Word he gives you no other Answer than what might be expected from an ordinary Quaker That in all that dark midnight of Popery Midday is darkness to some sort of Creatures which filled the Earth for so many Ages there were still some Gleams of Light some Witnesses that arose to give Testimony to the Truth to protest against Innovations But whether those Gleams those Witnesses were Lutherans or Calvinists or Zuinglians or Cranmerians or Parkerians he knows not They seem to me to have been an invisible people and like the Spanish Black-Bills in Oates's Plot to have liv'd under ground or at least the saying there were such people may serve or a time to beguile the unwary and to keep on foot and carry on the holy Cheat. But instead of a proof that they were indeed the Visible Church of Christ he refers us to a testy saying of Scaliger's that has nothing of Truth in it But the Vindicator seems much offended that Luther should be charg'd with denying the Validity of the former Clergy's Ordination Yet he does not reflect that Luther argued no true Consecration of the Eucharist from the defect of Ordination as being convinc'd of it by the Devils argument And as for the Flourish he speaks of 't is his own not Luther's Nor doth Luther's proceeding in the Work of the Ministry prove that he own'd his Mission from the preceeding Church but rather that he look'd upon himself to have had an extraordinary Mission or otherwise what Authority could he pretend and certainly so great an Apostle would do nothing without just Authority to Ordain and Commission others Of which in its proper place To Luther's calling the Pope Antichrist Bishops his Apostles and Universities his Lupunaria the Vindicator seems to subscribe and applaud him in it and I doubt not but he would contribute his Faggot towards the Burning of him in effigie But yet this is an Error exploded by learned Protestants Hammond Thorndyke Grotius and others and has been preach'd against in this University by much learneder men than the Vindicator Here I must beg leave to digress with the Vindicator to two gross mistakes of his p. 27. whereby he thinks he has given the Church of Rome a terrible blow The first is That to give an inferior sort of Cult or Respect to the Elements is to worship them with Divine Worship which is false ex terminis unless it be true that an inferior worship is the supreme The second mistake is That for a Priest to operate the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ which Church-of England Ministers pretend to do after their fashion is neither more nor less than to make God. So then to operate the presence of a thing is to make the thing To operate e. g. in Baptism the presence of the Holy Ghost is to make the Holy Ghost And so also to occasion the presence of the Vindicator of Luther in the Divinity or Logick School would make him a Vindicator of Luther which is utterly impossible 5. To Luther's rejecting Councils the Vindicator writes pro and con 1. That he did so when in his private Judgment they went contrary to Scriptures and so says he do all the Reformed he might have added and all Hereticks in the world all of them preferring their private interpretation of Scripture to that of the Church But secondly Luther did not so because he never refus'd if we may believe his Defender to be concluded by the Authority of a Council legally summon'd The noise of his Adversaries says the Vindicator who were perpetually crying Councils and Canons when they had nothing else to say for their Cause and was not that enough might perhaps force out an expression or two from him c. He had fire in his temper and a German bluntness and upon these provocations might possibly strain a phrase with too great freedom And what was the innocent freedom this Reformer took It was only to asperse the most sacred and famous Councils that ever were the Apostolical at Jerusalem and the first Nicene submitted to by Protestants themselves Arguing from the Injunction of the first to abstain from Blood and things strangled which was only Temporary that it is lawful not to obey the Decrees of Councils And saying of the second That its Canons were Hay Straw Wood Stubble and particularly concerning the Third Canon of that Council prohibiting the Clergy to have with them in their House any Women unless their Mother Sister Grandmother or Aunt That he did not understand tbe Holy Ghost in this Council What Has the Holy Ghost nothing to do but to bind and burden its Ministers with impossible dangerous and unnecessary Laws And lastly he affirm'd That the Christian Doctrine receiv'd more Light from the Children's Catechism than all the Councils This one Text beware of false Prophets Mat. 17. 15. says swaggering Luther may suffice against the Authorities of all the Popes Fathers Councils and Schoolmen who attribute to Bishops and Ministers the sole power of Judging and Deciding Controversies In the very Council of Nice the best that ever was before or since even then began they to make Laws and claim that power Wherefore since such an Error and so great Sacrilege has been able to prevail so long I will and command once for all that those Sophisters hold their Prating c. And is all this in a Reformer nothing else but straining a phrase and so great a wickedness in him no sin 6. The Arraignment of Luther for speaking contemptuously of the Fathers the Vindicator says is a rank Calumny But is at a Calumny to say he speaks contemptuously of the Fathers who was not afraid to assert In the Writings of every one of the Fathers how great Errors are there how oft do they contradict themselves who is there of them that does not very many times wrest the Scriptures Is not that a Contempt of the Fathers to call the Thomists Blockheads for proving the Sacrifice of the Mass by a multitude of the Fathers