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
THE RELIGION OF Mar. Luther NEITHER CATHOLICK NOR PROTESTANT Prov'd from his own Works With some REFLECTIONS In ANSWER to the Vindication of Mar. Luther's Spirit Printed at the Theater in Oxon. His Vindication being another Argument of the Schism of the Church of England OXON Printed by Henry Cruttenden One of His Majesty's Printers MDCLXXXVIII The Religion of M. LUTHER neither Catholick nor Protestant Prov'd from his own Writings I. LUTHER's Religion not Catholick in Eight Instances Inst 1. BEgin we first with his impious Doctrine concerning the Blessed Trinity of which he thus speaks The Divinity is threefold as the three Persons are c. And from hence the reason may well be why Luther expunges out of the Litany this Verse Holy Trinity one very God have mercy on us And hereupon he is not afraid to say that the word Trinity is but an Human Invention and sounds coldly And then further adds that his Soul hates the word Homousion or Consubstantial for thus he writes Anima mea odit Homousion optime exigerunt Ariani ne vocem illam prophanam novam regulis fidei statuiliceret My very Soul hates the word Homousion or Consubstantial and the Arians not without reason requir'd that it should not be lawful to put this prophane and new Word among the Rules of Faith. Luther's Blasphemy against the B. Trinity was such and so odious that even Zuinglius did purposely write against Luther about this very point So relates Zuing. of Luth. tom 2. in resp ad confut Luth. fol. 474. Luth. in Ench. praecum ann 1543. Luth. in postil majori Basiliae apud Hervagium in Enarrat Evang. Dom. Trin. Contra Jacobum Latomum tom 2. Wittemb latine edit ann 1551. Zuing. tom 2. in respons ad Confess Luth. Inst 2. Concerning the event of things Luther holds That all things come to pass through a certain Stoical and Fatal necessity for he defending this Heresie thus writes Nullius est in manu c. It is in no man's power to think good or evil but all things as Wickliff's Article condemn'd at Constance did rightly teach proceed from absolute Necesssity And again fate or articulum c. I do confess Wickliff's Article of all things coming to pass by Necessity to have been falsly condemn'd in the Conventicle of Constance In assert damnat per Leonem art 36. Luth. de servo arbitrio c. 32. Inst 3. To the dishonour of Christ's Passion and also to the Merit of his Redemption he teaches that Christ not only suffer'd in Body but likewise his Divinity suffer'd too for thus he writes Cum credo quod sola humana Natura pro me passa est Christus vilis nec magni praetii salvator est c. If I believe that only the Human Nature of Christ suffer'd for me then is Christ a Saviour but of a base and small worth and himself needeth a Saviour And Luther speaking of this point in another place thus reprehends the Zuinglians The Zuinglians did contend against me most pertinaciously that the Divinity of Christ could not suffer A Doctrine so Blasphemous as that it was refuted not only by the Zuinglians in Luther's days but even by Beza too Luth. in Conf. Majore in Coena Domini Vide In Concil part 2. Ep. Theol. c. epist 60. Inst 4. Concerning the Administration of the Word and Sacraments Luther teaches that all men and women also have authority and power to administer These are his own words The first Office of a Priest is to preach the Word c. But this is common to all Next to baptize and this also all may do even women c. The third Office is to Consecrate Bread and Wine But this also is common to all no less than Priests And this I avouch by the Authority of Christ himself saying Do this in remembrance of me Christ speaking to all then present and to come afterwards If that then which is greatest of all is given indifferently to all Men and Women I mean the word and Baptism then that which is less I mean to consecrate the Supper is also given to them Thus Luther Nay Luther proceeded so far herein that as Dr. Covel witnesses in his Defence of Mr. Hooker art 15. p. 101. he was not afraid to affirm that the Sacraments were effectual tho administred by Satan himself With Dr. Cavel agrees the Protestant Hospinian thus writing Lutherus eo usque progreditur c. Luther proceeds so far herein that he maintains the Sacrament to be a true Sacrament etiamsi a Diabolo conficeretur tho it were to be Consecrated by the Devil Luth. tom 2. lib. de Min. Eccl. instit fol. 368 369. Vide lib. de abrog Missa privata tom 2. fol. 249. lib. de captivit Babilon c. de ordine In hist Sacr. par altera fol. 14. Inst 5. For absolute denial of Temporal Magistrates an Heresie indifferently condemn'd both by Catholicks and Protestants we find Luther thus to write Among Christians no man can or ought to be a Magistrate But every one is to other equally subject c. And again As Christ cannot suffer himself to be tyed and bound by Laws c. So also ought not the Conscience of a Christian to suffer them Luth. de seculari potest in tom 6. Germ. Luth. in tom 7. Wittenb fol. 327. Inst 6. Concerning Luther's denial of certain Books of Scripture And first the Epistle of St. James is call'd by Luther Contentious swelling strawy and unworthy an Apostolical Spirit The Book of the Apocalyps is also rejected by Luther by the acknowledgment of Bullinger for which he says good and learned Men were offended with him I will add Luther's contempt of Moses and some of the Apostles against Moses he thus writes Habuit Moyses insecunda labia irata c. And again Moyses habuit labia diffusa felle ira Of St. Peter he says St. Peter did live and teach extra Verbum Dei contrary to the Word of God. Luth. praefat in Jac. edit 4. Ienensi Tom. 3. Wittenberg in psal 45. fol. 423. In ep ad Gal. c. 1. tom 5. Wittenb ann 1554. fol. 290. Inst 7. Luther also taught an Heresie whereby the Propagation of Christian Religion is much endanger'd to wit That it was not lawful to wage War against the Turks his words are these Praeliari contra Turcas est repugnare Deo visitanti iniquitates nostras per illos To wage War against the Turks is to resist God visiting our sins by them Of which Erasmus thus writes Many of the Saxons following herein that first Doctrine of Luther deny'd to Caesar and K. Ferdinand Aid against the Turks c. declaring they had rather fight for a Turk not Baptized than for a Turk Baptized Luth. in tom 2. Witt. In assert damnat per Leonem decimum assert 34. In ep ad fratres Inferioris Germaniae Inst 8. Concerning Faith and good Works Luther taught an Heresie disallow'd by all learned Protestants He says
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
Authority and those that would not submit must expect his Apostolical Censures notwithstanding it was easie for Dissenters to produce more reasons for leaving him than he could for leaving the Church Yet this Certainty of Doctrine the Vindicator calls Protestant Certainty and is much in love with it and wonders the Considerer should not understand it I guess he means when one of so narrow a capacity as himself fully comprehends it But I dare challenge him and all his Party to shew me which of the Protestant Churches is the true wherein this pretended Certainty of Doctrine may be found A little after the Vindicator compares Luther's Condemning his Brethren the Sacramentarians and their returning the Censure notwithstanding the great difference between them in the point of the Real Presence to the feud of Hierom and Ruffinus of Epiphanius and Chrysostom of Victor and the Greek Bishops of Paul and Barnabas The very recital of this absurd passage is a sufficient Reflection 12. Luther's Evil-speaking so ill becoming an Apostle the Vindicator does not undertake to defend but confesses it to be such as neither Friends nor Enemies could approve However he would have Luther's way of Writing to be the Humour of the Age. But why should then the Tigurine Divines blame his Confessio Parva That it was full-fraught with Nick-names as Devil c. and other Unchristian terms of Reproach so cramm'd with lewd nasty ribaldry stuff so full of anger maliciousness fury and madness that none that were not as mad as Luther himself could read it without astonishment at so unfortunate and unheard-of an Example c. And another Zuinglian said That God for Luther's pride had taken from him the good Spirit and given him a Lying one in it's stead And does not the whole current of Writers of his own time in a manner say the same thing For a Gentleman to write a scurrilous Satyr even upon an Heretick may be a great fault but for an Apostle to be an Evil-speaker a Blasphemer of Kings of the whole Catholick Church and of God Almighty himself is certainly an unpardonable Crime The Considerer observes of Calvin another principal Reformer that he was of the same Spirit with Martin Luther and gave as ill Language where he ow'd submission and obedience This the Vindicator calls stepping out of the way and thinks himself not oblig'd to take notice of it because perhaps less able to defend him than Luther In the same page the Vindicator takes up the Considerer for saying St. Peter's Example not Doctrine was false and will have St. Peter's Doctrine to have been false and he gives you this reason for it Elymas withstood Paul Alexander withstood Paul and they err'd in Doctrine therefore St. Peter Err'd in Doctrine Why so because Paul withstood him and it is highly probable that he withstood Paul again and so became an Elymas Good God! that such a blasphemous Argumentation should be Licens'd in a Christian University But I cease my wonder when I hear that lately a whole Sermon was Preach'd before the University against this great Apostle and pass'd Uncensur'd 13. Proceed we next to Luther's famous Disputation with the Devil Luther confesses it The Vindicator will have it to have been either a Dream or a strong Temptation But which should know best Luther or the Vindicator Mr. Walsingham in King James's time was convinc'd by it He went to the King as Head of the Church to be satisfied The King sent him to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and he turn'd him over to his Chaplain Dr. Covel for satisfaction who had nothing to Reply but what Confirm'd this Gentleman in the belief of this story of Luther and of the Devil 's being the Author of the Reformation His Book call'd His Search then Baffl'd the whole Church of England and remains unanswer'd to this very day This Argument likewise convinc'd the Ingenious Mr. Chillingworth and his Reply to it after his Lapse says only That for ought he knew it might be a Melancholy Dream and it might not No force at all of an Argument in this as indeed in none of his Replies to his own Motives Which made the Learned Protestants say That Chillingworth had better have sleighted and contemn'd his Motives than to have return'd such weak Answers to them as were not able to bring his own Old Mother back again to the Church of England To return to the Vindicator Afterwards he seems to own the Disputation and endeavours to vindicate the Devil's Arguments as being the same that are now used by the Reformers The Devil 's first Argument That in the Church of which Luther then profess'd himself a Member there was no true Faith or knowledg of Christ no true Priesthood the Vindicator passes by as knowing that the Learned Protestants have left the Devil in this point and for him to appear on his side alone would look ridiculous to his own Party The Devils second Argument was That according to Christ's Institution the Priest ought not to Celebrate the Blessed Sacrament alone as Luther had done for many years The Considerer's Answer is solid and not touch'd by the Vindicator Luther might have answer'd That his partaking it alone was not his fault Nor yet the fault of others who were no way engag'd to Receive it with him so often as he Offer'd it But this did not hinder that he might not partake himself when others did not Nor was he oblig'd by any Precept of our Lord to forbear either Partaking or Offering tho there were none to Communicate with him And as for the sense of those Texts of Scripture urg'd by Satan and now by his Vindicator he was to adhere not to Satan's or his Own but the Church's Judgment thereon And the Church always judg'd as is manifest from her practice that the Consecrator might partake alone when no others presented themselves The Devil goes on to object That Luther in his publick Mass did not give the Sacrament entire because not in both kinds to the People The Considerer replies That Luther might have answer'd the Devil as the Church doth her Adversaries That there is no Precept of our Lord 's commanding a necessary receiving in both kinds Neither modern nor ancient Church so interpreting the words of Institution the ancient Church frequently giving the Eucharist to Sick and to Absents from the publick Service only in one kind holding that she Offended herein against no Command of our Lord. To this the Vindicator answers That the Bishop of Meaux on this subject says the clear contrary But then he must say it contrary to the Fathers St. Dionysius in the second Age Eccl. Hier. c. ult prope finem Tertul. l. ad Uxor St. Cypr. Serm. de Lapsis n. 10. in the third Age. St. Ambr. Orat. de ohitu Satyr Eus in the Fourth Age. In the fifth St. Austin l. adv Julian Pelag. c. 4. prope finem Tom. 2. Ep. 106. post medium Lest therefore the Vindicator