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.

I. LUTHER's Religion not Catholick, in Eight Instances.

Inst. 1. BEgin we first with his impious Doctrine con∣cerning 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 ex∣punges 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 Ari∣ani, ne vocem illam prophanam & novam regulis fidei statui∣liceret. My very Soul hates the word Homousion, [or Consub∣stantial,] 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 Neces∣ssity. And again, fate or articulum &c. I do confess Wick∣liff'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 ar∣bitrio 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 hu∣mana Natura pro me passa est, Christus vilis, nec magni prae∣tii salvator est, &c. If I believe, that only the Human Na∣ture 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 re∣prehends 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 Conse∣crate 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 speak∣ing 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 Apo∣stolical 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 in∣secunda labia, irata, &c. And again, Moyses habuit labia dif∣fusa 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 re∣pugnare 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 Cae∣sar 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 Au∣thor be disallow'd before. [Luth. upon Gal. English'd, in c. 2. Luth. tom. 1. prop. 3. Luth. Serm. Engl. 204. &c.]