THE RELIGION OF Mar. Luther NEITHER CATHOLIC NOR PROTESTANT, Proved from his own Works.  
With some REFLECTIONS In ANSWER to the Vindication of Mar. Luther's Spirit, Printed at the Theatre 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 Catholic nor Protestant, Proved from his own Writings.  

I. LUTHER's Religion not Catholic, 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, etc. 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 Homoousion, or Consubstantial; for thus he writes, Anima mea odit Homoousion, & optime exigerunt Ariani, ne vocem illam prophanam & novam regulis fidei statuiliceret. My very Soul hates the word Homoousion, [or Consubstantial,] and the Arians, not without reason, required, that it should not be lawful to put this profane 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. latin 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 Heresy, thus writes, Nullius est in manu, etc. It is in no man's power to think good or evil; but all things (as Wickliff's Article, condemned at Constance, did rightly teach) proceed from absolute necessity. And again, fate or articulum etc. I do confess Wickliff's Article, of all things coming to pass by Necessity, to have been falsely condemned 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 suffered in Body, but likewise his Divinity suffered too; for thus he writes, Cum credo, quod sola humana Natura pro me passa est, Christus vilis, nec magni praetii salvator est, etc. If I believe, that only the Human Nature of Christ suffered for me, than 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 Zwinglians; The Zwinglians 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 Zwinglians 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, etc. But this is common to all: Next, to baptise; and this also all may do, even women, etc. 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, though administered by Satan himself. With Dr. Cavel agrees the Protestant Hospinian, thus writing, Lutherus eo usque progreditur, etc. Luther proceeds so far herein, that he maintains the Sacrament to be a true Sacrament, etiamsi a Diabolo conficeretur, though 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. Babylon. c. de ordine. In hist. Sacr. par. altera fol. 14.]  
Inst. 5. For absolute denial of Temporal Magistrates (an Heresy indifferently condemned both by Catholics and Protestants) we find Luther thus to write, Among Christians no man can, or aught to be a Magistrate; But every one is to other equally subject, etc. And again, As Christ cannot suffer himself to be tied and bound by Laws, etc. 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 called by Luther, Contentious, swelling, strawy, and unworthy an Apostolical Spirit. The Book of the Apocalypse is also rejected by Luther, by the acknowledgement 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, etc. And again, Moses 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. jenensi: 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 Heresy whereby the Propagation of Christian Religion is much endangered; 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, denied to Caesar and K. Ferdinand Aid against the Turks, etc. declaring, they had rather fight for a Turk not Baptised, than for a Turk Baptised. [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 Heresy disallowed 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, etc. Except Faith be without the least good Works, it doth not justify; 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 disallowed of God, unless the Author be disallowed before. [Luth. upon Gal. Englished, in c. 2. Luth. tom. 1. prop. 3. Luth. Serm. Engl. 204. etc.]   

II. LUTHER's Religion not Protestant, in Eight Instances.  
Inst. 1. HE ever maintained 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 styled Lutherans by Zuinglius, Calvin, the Church of England, etc. 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, etc. As to the Doctrine of Intercession of Saints, I hold with the whole Christian Church, and it is my judgement, that Saints ought to be honoured and invocated by us. [Luth. in purge. 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 approved 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 allowed by Luther, in these words, Quamvis pulchrum sit etc. Although it were very seemly to use both the species, or forms, in the blessed Eucharist; and though Christ commanded nothing herein, as necessary, yet it were better to follow peace etc. 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, cruse nos juxta Lutheri & aliorum piorum institutionem signamus: When we go to bed, or rise from thence, we sign ourselves 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. come. 7. pag. 636.]  
Inst. 8. Finally, to omit divers other points, (wherein Luther never dissented from the Church of Rome,) Luther ever maintained, that the Government of the Church is Monarchical, and neither Aristocratical nor Popular: of which point Luther thus writes; Cum Deus voluerit, etc. Seeing God would have one Catholic 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. come. class. 1. c. 37. p. 107.]  
Thus much to show, that Luther, after his Revolt from the Catholic Church, did still retain many Catholic 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 Theatre 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 tried 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 chooses 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, Penance, single Life, etc. before he makes any defence he puts the Question, why the Considerer in giving so long a List of Luther's Doctrines, slipped that of Indulgences? For the Answer of which the Vindicator is referred 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 Cloister, and using the ordinary means of Prayer and Mortification, have kept them. That Text of Scripture urged 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 failed the attaining of it that sincerely endeavoured 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, etc. 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 Cloister (says the Vindicator) to perform all those Acts of Devotion, when the Burden of the Reformation [and Bora] lay upon his shoulders. But if I well remember, the Vindicator's kill Argument, that Luther might break his Vow and Marry, is, because Costerus says, 'Tis 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 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 lived continently, as he says he did whilst a Monk, (and nothing appears to show he could not) what can be alleged 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 contemned 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 Zwinglians, 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' Plot) to have lived 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 Scaligers, that has nothing of Truth in it.  
But the Vindicator seems much offended, that Luther should be charged 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 convinced of it by the Devil's argument. And as for the Flourish he speaks of, 'tis his own, not Luther's. Nor doth Luther's proceeding in the Work of the Ministry prove, that he owned his Mission from the preceding Church; but rather that he looked 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 effigy. But yet this is an Error exploded by learned Protestants, Hammond, Thorndyke, Grotius, and others; and has been preached 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 Logic 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 Judgement) they went contrary to Scriptures; and so (says he) do all the Reformed; he might have added, and all Heretics 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 refused (if we may believe his Defender) to be concluded by the Authority of a Council legally summoned. 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, etc. He had fire in his temper, and a Germane 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 the 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 affirmed, That the Christian Doctrine received more Light from the Child'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 than 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, etc. 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, and ancient Custom? And to aver, That if there be nothing to be replied 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 called not an affront or contempt against the Fathers, but a compliment 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, etc. may not pass for Fathers of as good Authority in the Church, as St. Ambrose, St. Austin, etc.  
7. To the Proof of Luther's setting up his own Authority against the Church, and maintaining his own Doctrines as infallible, nothing is answered. 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 persuaded me (says Luther Epist. ad Argent.) there was nothing but Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, he had much obliged me. For being in great perplexity, I took great pains in Discussing the point; I endeavoured with all my might to extricate and free myself, 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, etc.] are too plain and clear to be forced to any other meaning. It is evident, that in this Doctrine Luther was neither Catholic, nor Church of England Protestant. But yet so much a Catholic he was, as to hold the real presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Sacrament. Being forced 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 public 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 yielding 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 allowed 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 signify Ordaining: The Presbyters in Egypt, or any other place, being never permitted to Ordain upon any pretence whatsoever. But Consecrat here may signify the same with Consignat; and by this is meant Consecration of Chrism, which though proper to a Bishop, yet, it seems, in Egypt was done by Presbyters in the Bishop's absence. But it was not for the Vindicator's purpose to give the true sense of this passage: For if the Presbyterian Ordination fails, where will the Church of England find Refuge, when her own Ordination shall be called 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, etc. for the confounding Doctrines which in his own private Judgement 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 forced boldly to make Reprisals, to buoy up his Follower's courage. A fair Concession. The Church Censured 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 show, that those Writers held any such pernicious Tenets.  
11. To Luther's pronouncing anathemas, and Excommunicating the Reformed 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 Anathematise 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 Founder's Statutes, and Donations belonging to Monasteries: The weight and effects of which Curses (if we may believe Reformed Writers themselves) are both felt and dreaded to this very day. But the Vindicator after three or four unhandsome Sarcasms, pretends to prove his point from the Considerer's own words, [Luther required not Conformity to his Doctrines out of any Authority he claimed to impose them, which Authority he renounced;] Hear the Vindicator leaves off in the middle of a sentence very politicly, and like a Reformed 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 refused as a Magistrate, he claimed as an Oracle; and would have his own pretended Apostolical certainty of Doctrine set up instead of the Church's Authority; and those that would not submit, must expect his Apostolical Censures; notwithstanding it was easy 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 show 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 Nicknames, as Devil, etc. and other Unchristian terms of Reproach; so crammed 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 unheardof an Example, etc. And another Zuinglian said, That God for Luther's pride had taken from him the good Spirit, and given him a Lying one in its 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 satire (even upon an Heretic) may be a great fault; but for an Apostle to be an Evil-speaker, a Blasphemer of Kings, of the whole Catholic 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 owed submission and obedience. This the Vindicator calls stepping out of the way, and thinks himself not obliged 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 erred in Doctrine, therefore St. Peter Erred 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 Licenced in a Christian University. But I cease my wonder, when I hear that lately a whole Sermon was Preached before the University against this great Apostle, and passed Uncensured.  
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' time, was convinced by it. He went to the King, as Head of the Church, to be satisfied: The King sent him to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he turned him over to his Chaplain Dr. Covel for satisfaction, who had nothing to Reply, but what Confirmed this Gentleman in the belief of this story of Luther [and of the Devil's being the Author of the Reformation]. His Book called His Search, then Baffled the whole Church of England, and remains unanswered to this very day. This Argument likewise convinced the Ingenious Mr. Chillingworth; and his Reply to it after his Lapse, says only, That for aught 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 slighted and contemned his Motives, than to have returned 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 professed himself a Member) there was no true Faith, or knowledge 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 touched by the Vindicator. Luther might have answered, That his partaking it alone was not his fault: Nor yet the fault of others, who were no way engaged to Receive it with him so often as he Offered it. But this did not hinder, that he might not partake himself, when others did not. Nor was he obliged by any Precept of our Lord, to forbear either Partaking or Offering, though there were none to Communicate with him. And as for the sense of those Texts of Scripture urged by Satan (and now by his Vindicator) he was to adhere, not to Satan's, or his Own, but the Church's Judgement thereon. And the Church always judged (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 public Mass) did not give the Sacrament entire (because not in both kinds) to the People. The Considerer replies, That Luther might have answered 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 public 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 satire. & 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 should seem to have said nothing, he advances a stale Objection, many times urged, and as often answered. I should perhaps have passed it by, had it not been lately vigorously pressed 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 although Christ Instituted this venerable Sacrament, and administered to his Disciples in both the species of Bread and Wine, and that after Supper, tamen hoc non obstante, yet notwithstanding such Institution, and administering 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 received by any that are not fasting, unless in such cases of Necessity allowed of by the Church. And in like manner, That although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the Faithful under both kinds, yet for the avoiding some Hazards and Scandals, this (the present) Custom was upon good reason introduced, of Consecrating under both kinds, and the Laities Communicating under the species of Bread only; it being firmly to be believed, and no way to be doubted, but that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is truly contained 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 contained 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 Authorised 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 Ordained 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 Ministering 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 Ministered to the people as a Sacrament, but does she not also hold, that it is Offered 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 baffled himself, if he had but put down the remainder of the Paragraph; which expressly explicates the Eucharist's being both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament, by its Figure and Type the Paschal Lamb, that being first Offered 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 referred 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, Baptise, etc. 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 though 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 conveyed; 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 defy 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 Catholic 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 advised 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 helped him to an Interpretation of Hoc est Corpus meum, for the establishing his Virtual Presence; and that Zuinglius confessed it, with this asseveration, vera narro adeoque vera, etc. What I tell you is true, nay so true, though I would have concealed it, yet my Conscience forced me to utter what the Lord would have me impart, notwithstanding the many Scoffs and Jeers to which I know I shall expose myself thereby, etc. And lastly, that Luther said of it, That it was as clear as the Sun at Noonday, that the Zuinglian Heresy was nothing else but the Mockery of the Devil, who had shamm'd Zuinglius with a sorry but crafty Interpretation. This Apparition to Zuinglius the Vindicator calls an ordinary Dream, as if he himself had had many such. But does he not at the same time deny the Testimonies of Zuinglius and Luther? And he that will give the Lie to his own Party, even those he pretends to Vindicate, what Arguments can be sufficient to convince him! If such a clear Discovery of the variety and subtlety of Satan's temptations and wiles, as the Considerer, consonant to the Word of God, has made, (which all good men thankfully receive), is therefore rejected, because it condemns the principal Reformers out of their own Works and Confessions, what wise man (that consults his eternal good) will not rather abominate such Reformers than deny the Truth.  
14. To the Resemblance of Luther's Change of Religion in several particulars with that of Mahomet's, the Vindicator replies, That he was almost tempted to return the kindness with a Parallel between some body and Judas. Intimating, that every one that leaves the Church of England, and becomes a Catholic, must be a Judas. And consequently, that the Greatest and most Excellent Person in the Nation must be so too, and yet at the same time remain the Supreme Head of the Church of England. But he not daring to speak out what he meant by some body, chooses rather to asperse Pope Boniface, as if he had begun a new Kingdom in the Church about fifteen years before Mahomet. For the proof of which he gives us no Argument, and yet he would have us believe it; though at the same time Demonstration on our side will not convince Protestant's of Luther's beginning a new Kingdom. As to the Book he mentions, called Turcopapismus, if he means by it, that Roman Catholics are Turks, I suppose the Church of England will not bear him out in it. Unless such as lamented the taking of Buda, and wished less prosperous success to the Christian Arms. But upon the whole matter the Vindicator thinks the Parallel childish, and the Considerer not skilled in hitting features. Let us see then: Did not Luther resemble Mahomet in those particulars urged by the Considerer? As, 1. In rejecting the Sense and Exposition of Scripture received in former times. This Innovator urging, that the Sense and Meaning of the Scriptures, as the other that the Words and Writings thereof, were falsified. And was it not Luther that said, That he scorned to submit himself or his Doctrine to the Judgement of Bishops (the Fathers of the Church), and that the World had been long enough guilty of such a foolish Humility? And did Mahomet ever say any thing more rebellious? 2. Did not Luther resemble Mahomet in the manner of his Coming. Neither of them working Miracles, yet pretending to an extraordinary Authority in Reforming the World. Both of them destitute of the Virtues of the Holy Spirit, temperance, meekness, etc. propagating their Principles, the one by his Railing Tongue, the other by his Sword. Some of Luther's own Brood said of him, That he had much of the Evil Spirit in all his Reproofs, very little of the meek amicable Spirit of God. Even his Friend Melancthon said little less, when he wrote to Calvin, That for twenty years he had expected Banishment from Luther, upon the account of some difference between them, concerning the Bread-Worship of some of Luther's Followers. 3. Did not Luther resemble Mahomet in Sensuality, and the indulging his Appetites; pleading much for the Necessity of Marriage; scouting the Counsels of Perfection and of a stricter Life, as Celibacy, Monastical Poverty, Obedience, etc. Dispensing with his own Vows. The Vindicator's Argument, pag. 23. That Luther might Dispense with his own Vows without having recourse to the Judgement of the Church is new Divinity; for though it be true, that no Power in the Church can Dispense where the cause is not just, yet it is as true, that the Votary (v. g. Mart. Luther) is incapable of judging of the justness of the cause, or taking upon him Authority of Dispensing in his own case. And therefore the Reasons that Luther and his Vindicator seem to offer, that his Vow was not binding, aught to have been weighed in the Sanctuary, and have passed the Judgement of the Church: His own private thinking his Vows null not being sufficient to make them so, unless his pretended extraordinary Mission could also give him an extraordinary power of Dispensation. The Vindicator's darling reason of Luther's picking out Bora, for the making the Precedent he was going to set the more conspicuous, and the declaring openly, that the Quarrel between him and Rome was irreconcilable, is the publishing his own and Luther's shame. And what he says against Celibacy (one of our Lord's Counsels of Perfection) that many that made profession of it lived wicked lives, may as fitly be applied against Matrimony (one of the Holy Sacraments), and Sodom and Gomorrah as easily there be found (for I do not read that any in those Cities professed a single Life), and yet both Celibacy and Matrimony remain Holy Institutions in the Church of Christ for bringing Souls to Heaven. 4. Did not Luther resemble Mahomet in his attempting to degrade the formerly received Head of the Church upon Earth, as Mahomet did the Head thereof in Heaven; pronouncing the Chief Pastor of Christ's Flock Antichrist, and the Church of God his Spouse; applying to him all the Marks of that great false Prophet, whose steps Luther himself notoriously followed. The Considerer gives more Instances of the Parallel: But I remember what the Vindicator answers to the Considerer's pressing Luther's preferring Turcism to Christianity, the Alcoran to the Bible, and Mahomet to Christ, That here his fancy had made a Giant of a Windmill. The Considerer had no thought of Windmills, but the Vindicator it seems had, which made him slip (as he phrases it) from one Paragraph to another, without answering the Arguments of any of them.  
Lastly, To the Considerer's Sentence upon Martin Luther, according to our Saviour's Rule, (by their fruits you shall know them), That it was easy to discern this Person (Martin Luther) not to have been possessed with the Good, but the Bad Spirit, the Vindicator seems to answer, That one that teacheth true Doctrine may be a bad man; and that the Doctrine of the Apostles and the Primitive Church is ne'er the worse for such men's Preaching it. But he should have observed, That Luther was no ordinary Preacher, but the Beginner of a new Church; and therefore his Life should have been like that of the Apostles. To prove that it was so, the Vindicator parallels him with St. Paul, p. 25. in wrestling against Principalities and Powers, etc. there enumerating the greatest part of that Apostles Virtues; adding, I could not forbear setting down this Panoply of St. Paul, wherewith Luther completely armed himself in his Spiritual Warfare; and I do not know whether this Description belongs so justly to any man as him since the days of the Apostles. And in the Conclusion of his Book he is more extravagant in the Praise of this monstrous Reformer. Such absurdities need no Reflections. The few Instances given in this Paper, more largely insisted on by the Judicious Considerer, are I think sufficient to satisfy any unprejudiced Reader, That Luther was not a St. Paul, or indeed any Saint, or good Christian; but on the contrary, a Sacrilegious, Insolent Opposer of the Catholic Religion, that under the show of Reformation divided the Church of Christ.  
If therefore what is said in the Considerations of the Spirit of Martin Luther be true, the Church of England, in her Vindicating and Abetting so notorious a Schismatic, in the very Act of Separating himself from the Whole, True, Visible, Hierarchical Church of Christ, must be Schismatical. And that what is said in the Considerations, etc. is true, evidently appears from the preceding Reflections; wherein is briefly and plainly shown, That the Oxford Vindicator has proved nothing to the contrary.  
FINIS.