As is so often the case, it's at least an improvement over Luther. Just as Luther was more Calvinist than Calvin by advancing the "absolute necessity" fallacy, Luther called Islam the "Scourge of God" but went on to say he would prefer to be ruled by Turks than by a Catholic King, that he agreed with Islam on divorce and polygamy, and that if a simple statement was sufficient to have the Turks accept you as a Muslim then a simple statement should suffice for Christians to accept someone as having become Christian. So, another instance of when Luther based his doctrines on something other than Scripture while at the same time pretending that it was Scripture alone that dictated his doctrines. One of these days a lot of people are going to find out that the Koran and Virgil aren't in the Bible and they're going to be really upset with Martin about a few things.
Regards
That has to do with the politics of the day that saw clearly Catholic princes and kings backing Protestant clerics against the Catholic Church. Those clerics had to check some of their attacks on the RC institution lest they offend their very sponsors about their personal theology.
By the end of the 1600s all that sort of issue had been disposed of (through the vehicle of The Thirty Years War and its settlements we call The Peace of Westphalia). If you'd had Luther still around in the 1700s he'd been singing a different tune on many topics, as do all of us anyway.