(who made a career out ofattacking John Dryden for his

n the late seventeenth century, Abraham

(1608-1678)
conversion) wrot tbat Ire Spirit al Mattin L thet w^s
woodhead
Iost his lellowship at
wha! had tumed the great English poet against the RefUniversity College, Oxford, because ofhis
ormation. Dryden evidently read it and several ,nore of
conversion. He $,ent into hiding in Hoxlon lo
Woodhead\ works becausc. as I showed in a 2003 essay
wri.e a serie. nl book. delending lhe Catho i(
on this topic, the poel borrolvs quite a lot from Woodhead
Church. Hc nevcr signed any ofhis works and so rein The Hin.l and the Panl,er. a 2500-line masterpiece in
mained, as his first biographer Simon Berington wrote
rhyme and arguably rhe grealesl poen ever
in 1736, a "great, but almost unknown
written in defense ofthe Catholic Church.
nlan." Yel William Carr, in his hislory of
The core
Woodhead, who $as tcmpcmtc and
Univemity College, rightly called him "the
The Spirit
most learned exponenr ofCatholic doctrine
humble, always took lhc high road in
Maftin Luther
at that time"; and Francis Nicolson. who
controveNy. He bent o\er backwards to be
had known Woodhead. said that even in
f'air to his opponent. In The Spirit af Manin
is Woodheadb
Zrtler, he cites only Lulher hinselfand
his absence, he remained "the glory" of
analysis
his fiiends. not Luther's adversaries. Yet
University College and "our example" for
even fiom these lilniled sources. he shows
his virtues and writings. ln a leiter ciled by
Luther s colloquy
how the first "Reformer" \\as "miserably
Berington, the Oxford antiquarian Thomas
with
Satan
Hearne also praised him heartily: "l always
deceived" by the De\ i1. In the lbllowing
in 1522. h is
pages I will summarize the cenlml argulooked upon Mr. Abraham Woodhead to be
ment ofthis brilliant \\ ork.
one ofthc grcatcst mcn that cver this nation
unforgettable.
produccd."
Although Lulher claimed that Satan
When Janres ll, a Catholic convet,
was his swom enemy and tha! his new
doctrines came "fiom above," he admitted to having had
became king. he issued a special license earLy in 1686
fbr the publication in Oxford ofthify-six ofwoodhead's frequent contacts with the Fiend. One time h met him in
his garden in lhe shape ofa black boar. Anolhcr lime, as
works, witbout penalty from the anti-Catholic laws. A
copy ofthis license is found in John Gutch's Cr1lecldnsd he .ecounted in his Col/oqrter (Ch. 35), he was lying in
Crr",ord(I78I).Asarcsrlt,TheSpiritoJMaflinL thet, the Castle ofWatburg when the Devil dislurbed bin by
cracking nuts in a box near his bed and roll irg "empty barin I 68'7 .
atld the Origina I of t he R4ornat ion
^ppearcd
(
lr Late Can|erts heo\ed PdrJ // 1690), Thomas Brown rcls down the steps." He lamented: "ln my age I am vexed

of
of

of

\t .i

A Colloqu)' $ jrh Satan,

o\

The

Spirit

oJ

llat

titt Luthel.

Dcril s enemies, as they imagined, but

"the Devil's children ulro "did the works oflhis their
Father and spoke his uords" (Jn. 8:41,44). lndeed, one
moumed thal the Devil was closer to hiln than his wile.
ofthc most dangerous lies that Satan 'insinuated into thc
In the episde to his father which opens his book ./e ,/o/rs
Pharisees" was "that ou( Lord acted all by the power ol
.Vord,'l/.ir. he wondered "whether l am the only mofial
lhe Devil." He made thc Pharisees hate Jesus "chiefiy on
that he [Satan] rhus assaults-"
lhalaccount," that He was "dealing with the Devil." Ir
Wherever he heard ofsudden dearhs. Luihel would
reality they were the ones who listened to Satan's lies and
fall into "teffors." His usual way ofcallning himselfwas
"fiightened the people from Him on this account." For
to rcad Scripture, especially the Epistle to the GaLatians,
none are "commonly more strongly possessed with him
in which he "chieffy" fbund support lbr his "Justification
lsatan] than those that most rail at and abuse (if I may so
by our faith alone, without works. ' Or else, he would ask
say) and defy him." Hence Luthcr's "frcqrrcnl vililying
those around hjm to sing psalms, especially the De P,'oand triumphing over the Devil as a vanquished fbe was
no proofthat he was not deceived by him."
/,rJ,. ordi.r'a( hinrrells.th $ine and conver.arion
The Devil was ollen on bis nind. Doclrires contrary io
Two tbings Satan wants to accomplish in us: firs1,
his own. even lhose proposed by f'el1ow-Protestants, he
"to reduce us by any means into an cvil condition" and
lvould declarc to be "all doctrines ofthe Devil" and the
second "to breed in us a securily in such condition." He
authoN ofthem "no betier than
encouraged Luther in his false
pcrsons possessed,.sdlrar?Earl.!! ln
"security" by making him think
Luther was "deceived" in the
lacl, his polenlical writings are as
he was resisting temptatioDs to
same wqy qs the Pharisees
"full ofthis tenible name, Deril,
despair when he was acturlly beas St. Pault Epistles are noted for
ing tempted lo presumptioD. Now
were in the Gospel ofJohn.
thc fiequency ol-the saving name,
p/"srrrpll(r, is "thinking our lile is
righleous and holy, when it is not.'
The corc of The Sp)rit of Martin
and thinking that Christ's nrerits
Zrlrel is Woodhead's analysis of
arc "applied to us by thith \lidrort
y
Luther's colloq with Satan in
such holiness." when "they are
1522. It is unforgettable. Luther had
not." (Woodhead is referring here
engaged in many previous "negotiato the I'?v/,'?li, underlying
tions" and "lamiliar disputes and
Lulher's doctrine of Justifi cation
conlcrcnces" with the "Enemy of
by thitb alone. widrout works.)
mankind." but this one was crucial.
Conscience often placed
ln de Missa Privata & Sacedatutl
before Luther\ eyes "the many ill
U/?c/n /ie (1533), he wrote ofhis
consequences ofhis ncw doctrine,
"long experience" with Satan's "arts
the great licenliousness ol lilt lhat
and practices" and of"many a sad
lollowed it, the disobedience of
and bitter njgh1" spent in talks with
subjects both to their ecclesiastical
him, but the colloquy on the Mass
and civil supeiors. shaking oflall
that took place in 1522 had such an
laws and discipline. the many new
cffcct on him thal he never offered
sects that sprang up cvcry day,
another Mass. On that occasion. Satan ir a "grave and
and those in his ownjudgment very impious." Seeing
strong voice" persuaded him thal he had committed
the fruit ofhis teaching. he bccame sorrowful, but the
"idolatly" lor fi1ieen years by adoring, and causing othDevil tricked him into thinking that itwas nor really his
ers to adorc. "nakcd bread and wine-"
conscience that made him grieve, bur "rhe Devil" who
woodhead thinl$ Luther was "deceived" in the
was trying to pLunge him into despair Thercfore, Luther
same way as the Pharisees were in the Cospel ol John.
resisted this supposed templalion and went fbrward
Swnyc(l by lhe Dcvil's weak alglnnents agaiDst the Mass,
along the same road as before, in imagined defiance of
Lulher came to bclicvc that "he did cod good service"
the Devil. This was the "remedy" which he also "preby altncking the Church as the "Whore oftsabylon" and
scribed" to his lellow-Proiesrants. to blame the griefand
"Spous ofAnLichrist." Similarly thc Pharisccs bclieved
compunction raised by their conscience "ol1 the Tempter
they seNed God by persecuting our Lo . Our Lord.
ofmankind, presunred for a great enemy olhis Refbrmahowever. declarcd that they were deceived: they were
and tornlented with nolhing, but only $ ilh Lhc lribulalions

ot rhe Devrl. $ Iln $ 1.kr \.rl, rne rn n\

bcd-chambel; he strongly scowls upon me He e\en

.lll rlnrpririons

not at ail the

A Coll.rqul

titlSr,r.

Woodhead shows how illogical Llthcr uas if hii re'

gotiations with thc I)cvjl,rhc l-athcr ollies. When he sr:
still inside the c ltholic (lhurch. Luther s.rid it $ as Ihe
Devil who "by his argumenls fxsuinst the Massl disLrriI.'d
him inio a Rcfomation ithcn. whcn he wrs oursidc Lhe
Church. "it must be the Devil again that. rvilh rcrril'\ ing
his conscicncc and lcllnrg hiln that Iis ncw docrrines had
undone the world. endeavo$ to drive him back again aDd
nrakc hirn undo hrs fonncr $,ork." Logic.rlly. if Lulher
ijoncluded that his Relormation was righl because Ih.
I)evil opposcd it, then why didn'1he conclude earlier
"rhat because the Devil opposed his saying lvlass. and
such other tbings. therelore he ghtly

Luthcr was too confident that he

could see through Satan's temptations.
There is no sale pl:tce where hc or any
other person can stand bulthis onei
"to bc surc not to bc gottcn out ofthe
circlc (\\'hich encloses all Catholics) oi
their obedience to their superiorsr and
to subject their own private holy spirit
(ifl or drcy may so call it) to the public
Holy Spiril lhat dwells in Cod's Church;
aDd to eDlertain no privat senses and
cxposiliors ol Cod's word conlrary lo
the geneml oDe ofthe Church, fion
wbomsoever !hese singular senses
colne; much less when they know
they conre fronr Salan." In fact, in the
nrost impodant colloquy Lulher had
\\'iih Salan againsl lhc Mass.lhc Devil
sho\\'ed grcat rcal 1{) pronrote thc pri
vatc inicrprclalion ol lhc Biblc. Inslcad
ol'being suspicious olSatan's zeal lbr
Cod's Word. Luther believed him to be
speaking the truth. only to tempt hiff to
dcspairl

Satan against the Mass

From l-uther's own 'Confession "
Woodhead obseNes, it appears "that
thc whoie plaiform ofthe Reforma-

tion" came "originally lrom the Devil."

Luther:rdnitted in 1533 lhat hc had
engaged in a long disputation wjth Sa-

.le \1i\sa

recommending it"?
Should he nol have

replied thci as a Cqtholic

he had "true knowledge
of Christ and trueJaith,"
or else Christ's Church
h)ould have had none.
ctnd then, "how hqd
not the Gates of Hell
prevailed against il? "

the Abominalion

lt took

lriwtd & Sd("rdat

m unctiane \Of pti\ate

\ Ias\ and Priests unctiort that he had received these aF
-qLrnrenrs l'roln the Devi1. This caused a "scandal" among
his llllorcls and led sone back to the Catholic Church.
\\oodhead rellects that it was surely by the "merciful
tro\idence olCod" that Luther showed the world by his
''o\\r Conlession" in 1533 who was "lhe original Founder lrnd Abeiter oftlre Refornation.''
ln the ibllowing pal?gmphs i will summarize and
qnote parls ol Satan's major arguments against the Mass.
Woodhead's rcplics arc in bmckcts hcrcjust as thcy a.c
in The Spirit al Moftiti Luthet.
Satan begins by accusing Luther of
)n

Should not Luther have

suspected his doctrine
was.false 'Jiam Satan s

about the Mass eleven yeals earlier

and had yicldcd to Salan's argumcDts. These argumenls
bccamc ihc basis ofa book he produccd thc follo\\,hg
ycar. in 1523. called ./e ,1 hantinatio|1e l\,lissae Fivota,
Mass. connnonly called the Canon).

d.cilde. however, belore Lulher would conl'ess publicly

having committcd "idolatry" for

1an

qmn Canancn ncdnt lof

t. tlt,.;1,;tit ul VoninIuthct

ofprivate

another

fif-

leen yeals. ever since he was ordained

in 1507: "what ifin those Masses you
have practiced dowrdght idolatry in
adoring there and exhibiting to others
to be adored. not the body and blood
ofChrist. but the naked bread and
wine?" Luthcr wcakly protcsts tllat lrc
was duly ordained by a bishop, obeyed
his superiors in oli'ering those Masses,
and pronounced the \lords of Consecrarion with "the greatest devotion
1 was able." Satan replies that Jeroboam's falsc pricsts also actcd undcr
orders and with zeal, "lhough contrary
lo the true Priests at Jerusalem. Whar
your Ordination and Consccration ali
should be false...'l lwoodhcad notcs
that Satan insinuales here. bul does not

if

prove.l
Satan then algucs tlrat Lulher's
Ordination was indeed 'false" because

"you had theo no kno\|ledge ofChrist,

nor true faith." Iwoodhead reffarks
that Satan is referring here to Luther's

new.tolfrltd, doctrine, or.lustifi calion

by laith alonc, !!ithout works, which
the Devil coniilms !o Lulher" as true.
Should not Luiher hale suspected

his doctfine was false "fronr Satan's

rccomlnending it '? Should he not have
rcplied that as a Calholic he had "true
knowledsc ofChrist and true faith,"
or else Christ s Churcl would have had no.e. and theD.
''how had not the cates olHell prevailed rgainsl il?"1
Satan continues ihe colloquy by charging Luther with
l'rr rng ha,l at hr. Ordirrtron .ro rnore
Lharr"rr

(ruIrn(d.prir. do. qho belie!e

-tl

rLe hr5rur)

.un.rIlng

A Colltrclrry \\ iLli Satalr. or,

hri!t."

fre

irit ol f,lc tin Lfihet

Masses; bul thal i] sermon is not required ar //ir.,c.,p/o."1

Salan nor reaches the poiDt ofattacking the Mass as
hishops who ordaincd I-xther and otheri .1 ha\ ing lhc
a Sacrifice, and Woodhead notes thai Iere "we see tiom
whal Aulhor (zealous forsooth oflhc righl underslandirg
same beliefthe devils have "concernin-! Christ. lwood
olChrist's lnstitulion and ofGod's Truth and vindicating
head commenls thA! Luther nisht h;L\ e replied here that
SAtdr "lied, i1 not concerning his o\n.
it fronr fomler e o$) the Reformed
that
the
concerning
the
Chulch's
failh.
Satan
argues
have
leanred their opposition to the
]et
l
Ncxt. Salan argues thcl lor lear ol
evangelical Sacrilice of the Altar."
Mass is primarily a
Chtist "us u cruel Judge you address
Satin thults ihe Sacramenl ofOrdirequires
Supper
lhal
to
St.
Marf
and
other
saints.
nation
because it mentions sd.rfire:
)ourselvcs
mnkirg lherr nediators belween you
"\,!hen according to the tradiiional
more communicqnts
ceremony he [rhe bishop] delners
nncl Christ. So wa\ Chrisl robbed ofhis
than the priest and that a
glory. This ncithcr )'ou, rlor any o$er
the chalice into the hands ofthe then
semon is also necessall).
Prpist can dcny. lwoodhead says fiat
ordained, he says. 'Take thou power
Lulher could hu!c replicd here thaL
olconsccratirg and sacrificing for the
Satan misrcprcsented the doctrine and
living and the dead.'What a sinisler
practice ollbe Church. for shc desires
and pe erse Unclion and Ordination
the intcrccssions ofthe Virgin Marf
is this? what Chrisl has instiluted and
,rnd the sairts ir heaven ir no orlrer
ordaincd to bc caten and drunk fbr the
\\ay than those ofliving sainls. These
wlole Church ard lvhat ought to be
given by thc picst 1{) othcr communiintercessions do not inllr Christ 1o be
a "cruel .ludge" nor the sai ts lo be our
canls, ol'lhis do you make a propitia''mediators." How "zealous" Satan is to
tory Sacrifice before God. IWoodhead
instruct Luther about the invocalion of
says that Lulher could bavc rcto{cd
saints being "prejudicial to our Lord's
that ihe Chrtrch calls drc Sacrificc of
''Mediatorship." and how Luiher aDd his
rhe Allat "prapiliatoriutri only in the
followers have ever since "endeavored
applicalion ol lbe sole satislaclory Sacto rectify the Chrisiian world hcrcin"ll
riiicc olour Lord of|red on the Cross.
Then Srtan rrgues thut the Mass is
As also there were sacrifices under thc
tulann LLlhet and Jan Hus 6teng Connnim
primarily .r Supper that requires more
Larv rruly and propcrly sqlcd propitidpriest
yet
communicanls lhan the
and that a sermon is also
1o,-r;
only so with relalioD to our Lord's nrade at His
r(c(.rJr). He bebinsb) accrsirS LuLl'erolh"\irg
death on the Cross."l
"dbused the Mass contrary to the lnstitutioD ofit, conSatan no$,argues for a private interprelation ofScriplrary to the mind and intenl olChrist the Instituter." He
ture against die aulhority ofthe Catholic Church. This
explains that a'1rue priesi is a minister ofthe Church
i. lhe p dce ul'ere Lut|fl serkl) ld). dn$r \is arms.
appointed to preach llre Word, and admiDister the Sacra
thinking ihe Catholic cause is completcly dcfcatcd. Hc
mcnls," but "you have constantly received this Sacrasays tha! as he was "contending with thc Dcvil, I thought
nlent by yourself, and not communicated it io others."
to have vanquished this great eDemy l,ith those weapons
T was $,ont to make usc ofwhile a Papist." He tells Satan
lWoodhead says that Luther could have replied here
that his receiving the Sacramenl alone was not his t'ault
that even ifhe did no! "rightly believe and intend" ir celbul lhe l-cult oflhosc aftcnding. and that a pricst is not
ebrating Mass. "yet the Church always rightly believes."
"obligcd by any prcccpi ofour Lord's to forbcar offcring
Satan retofts with lake indignaiion: "Show me. ifyou
to God thc Faficr this Commemorativc Sacrifice ofthc
can. jn Scripture where it is written, lhala wickcd, faithDcath olHis Son (fron which Christianity obtains so
lcss man may assist at Clrris!'s allar and coDsecrate and
many benefi!s) and consequenlly the parlaking it
make the Sacramcnts in virtue ofrhe Church's lairh...'1"
whcn othc$ do not also conrmunicate with him." As for
With preiended zeal for Cod's Word. the Devil asks.
preaching, which Salan hcrc makcs a "prcccpt." Luther
"where has Cod conmanded or enjoined any such thing?
might have answclcd "ihat an annunciation ofChdst's
Ifnow you have not the word ofCod for it, but lnen
havc taugbt this without God's word, tben this whole
dcath is madc ir llre very lbrm ofthe Mass. and this not
doctrinc is a lie. The intention ofthe Church cannot be
only ill the comnenoration aDd representation ofihe
conlnry lC) the plain words and intention olChrist."
Sacificc on thc Cross to God thc Fathcr. but also io the
persons that ejthcr are or may be prsent in such private
Satan conchdes that Luther "did nol consecrate. but
a

yer !lo ooL irucept him as

buL dread hiut as a severe Judge."

NicdirtL'r c'r Sar ior.

Sp

lle also rceu'cs the

himself,

A Colloquy wilh Sala]l. ot. I itc Spirit ol Martin LLtther

only oft'cr, as Heathens lnisht do. the naked bread 3r1d
winc." fwoodhead says rhal Luther could have rcFlied
hcrc rhrl thc opini(nr ofthe Church has always been th3t
it "is lawf'u l to communicate ol lhose
SacraDcrts which arc admnristered by
evil 1ncn. citiog Matlhcw 23:2. 3 'in the
chair ofMoscs havc sat thc Scribcs and

Phrrisees.'The Sacrane[ls and Wod

of Oc'd rre eiilcacious. although by cvil
nlen dispclNcd."l
Woodhead thcn makcs this brilliant comment on Satan s last point:
"hcrc again we see liom whorn rhe
first Refbrmer learned such languagc,

Ubircrlpl,.]J/?'Wherc

is it

Srlan

ir

the I522 colloquy was to make him despair like Judas fbr having "committed such grear faults,
an ngst which Salan (as the Reformed after him do still)
rcckoncd his Idolatry in Adoration
ol'1he Eucharisl." However. Satan's
pur'pose was allogelher diffe.enti he
saw thal Lutler was "bold and given
to noveltiet' and already "quanclJing
with his superiors," so he made hjm
"swaltow those thinss for truths" to
turn him into "a pretended Refbnner"
ofthe Church's doctrines and pracs desigD

tices.
Woodhead also links Luther 1()
Moham]tr,ed hThe Spitit oJ Martin
l-rrler: first. in his rejeclion of"thc
sense and exposition of Scripture
rcceived in lbrmer times"; second,

wlit-

tcn? Where hath God commanded,

or cnjoircd it?'And 10 plead Yerb t
Dei against thc Church, i.e.. their owr
seDse lhereolagainst the Church's (lbr
'$,hat the words of Scripture be, both
are agreed); and this wilh an addition
ol tlctd wtba SLt,turu, 'plain words

ofSoriplure on lhcir side,'when a

thousand lnen to one think the contrary;
when as no words ofScripture. how
clear soever. are interpletable so as
to contradict any othc. Scripture: and
the C larnn yerhun,'plain Tcxt.' must
comprehend Dot one sentence al{irming what we would have, bul the wholc

in his coning not wilh miracles or

"spirit ol lcmpcmnce, meekness,
aDd palience" bu1with a "spirit of
fury, de{iance, and niling": and third,
in his "indulging sensuality and the
natural appetites ofthe llesh." while
opposing the "formerly esteemed
a

Satunb purpose was

al to get her diferent : he

saw that Luther was "bold

qnd given to novelties "
and alreqb) " qu affe I ling

counsels ofperfection." Such was the

s/ririr ollhe palliarch olthe Refbrmation. E

Works cited

Simon Berington. "The Preface: Giv

Word olGod as nowhere gainsaying
with his superiors," so he
ing a succinct Account olMr. wood
ir. And then who so fit tojudge ol rhe
"sv)qllow
him
those
mqde
headt Writings and Lif'e," iD Ancient
whole" as the Church?"
Ch rch Cowmnent. Patt III (1736).
Lullcr admils that the Catholic
things for truths " to tum
bishops will say here, "who does not
him into "a pretended
William Carr. Uttlrercit) Collese
know that the Devil's a liar?" He gives
Reformer" ofthe Church s (1e02).
lhem this riposler "lt is true thal ihe
Dcvil's a liar. but then his lies are not of
do ctrines and p ractic es,
Anne Barbeau Gardiner. "Abraham
thc connnon make. but f'ar nore subtLe
woodhead. The lnvisible Man': His
and ablerto deceive." He insists there
Impacl on Drydcn's lre Hind atld the Ponthet," ir
is always "solid and undeniable truth on his side" by
Rs.&jarl Hrlory (Oclober. :003).
which Satan "spcciousiy colors over his lies, as alnost
to deceive even the most caulious. As when Judas's
Abraham Woodhead. Iwo Discottt ses: The First, Conheart smote him. that thought ofhis lvas true, 'l have
cetning the Spirit ol Manin Luthet, ond the Original
betrayed the.iust blood.'This Judas could nol deny, but
ofthe Re[ornatian. The Second. aanrctning the
that was a lie. 'l must therefore despair of the grace ol
Celibdct ofthe Clersf (t681).
thc
thal
whal
Satan
said
aboul
Cod."' Lulhcr concludcs
Mass was true, bui was only uscd 1() cover up the lie that
Dt Anne Barbeau Gadinet is Ptolbtsot
Luther should therefore despair. Hc ends up by challeng
Etnerita, Departuent ol Engli\h, Jahn Jat
ing the Calholic bishops to "defend their Church" against
College, CUNY and is a reg at canttibutat
Satant argunrents ifthey can.
Ir his I533 "Confession," Luther imagined thal

fig