Selected quad for the lemma: work_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A26149
|
An answer to some considerations on the spirit of Martin Luther and the original of the Reformation lately printed at Oxford.
|
Atterbury, Francis, 1662-1732.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing A4146; ESTC R4960
|
53,756
|
88
|
by Paragraph as they ly in order And perhaps by that time this is done 't will appear that he mean't neither first nor last appearance but just nothing at all The thing promis'd was to set out some of Ls. Works or Fruits that by them we might pass sentence upon his Doctrines let us see how he performs He entertains us first with a Preamble about the holyness of Martin Ls. life while a Monk in such obliging terms that for a page or two you 'd think him on our side but 't is only a piece of his address a small civility before he open's his busyness in return to 't therefore I am his humble Servant and so if he pleases we 'll come to the Point We find him then § 3. and 6. crying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he has discover'd the main root of the Reformation the first wheel it seems which set all the rest a work was a new Doctrine that Martin while a Monk embrac'd of Iustification by Faith alone Now 't will be found I believe when this is look'd into that he has discover'd just nothing but the depth of his own understanding For 1st I would ask him whether this new Doctrine of Justification be one of those Works which L s. Faith is to be try'd by if not why are we amus'd with it here for a dozen pages together was he serious when he propos'd a method which he quits now the first step he advances But admit the pertinence of the remark I am sure we have a great deal of reason to question the Truth of it For tho we are not at all concern'd where L. first took up this opinion yet 2dly How is it prov'd that he embrac'd it while in the Monastery why by express assertions of this Doctrine in Treatises of his written ten years after he came out on 't A fine discovery indeed and every ways befitting a man of my Author's Sagacity Now should I turn this way of reasoning upon him and prove from what he now writes he must needs have been a Papist 20. years ago he would not I believe admit the argument because there is a scurvy inference hanging at the tail of it Nay 3dly He is so far from fixing the time when this new Doctrine was first hatch'd that he has not prov'd the Doctrine it self to be new tho he attempts it § 6. by citing a decision of the Council of Trent's together with Bellarmin and Cassander's authorities But I would have him remember that the Epocha of that Doctrine he calls new does by his own accompt run at least 30 years higher then the oldest of these so that L. is brought in guilty of Novellism as Strafford was of Treason by a Law made after the fact was done Now to urge the suppos'd perpetuity of their Faith for the validity of this instance is to urge a thing which Protestants deny and therefore any argument grounded upon that maxim can be nothing but a childish petitio Principii a fault which his own Logic whips him for Should I insist upon every failure of this nature I must write Volumes for there is never a step made without a stumble 'T will be more material to observe that 4thly He has not dealt fairly with L s. Doctrine in vid. §. 7. this point insinuating all along that it falls in with the Solifidian and Fiduciary Errors but he wrongs him infinitely for an hundred instances might be brought from his writings where the necessity of good works in order to Salvation is display'd But instead of that I shall leave him to be confuted by Bellarmin's confession a Lutherus docet aliquo modo necessaria esse bona opera cum affirmet veram fidem non esse quae non parit bona opâ—… de Justif. L. 4. C. 1. or if he won't take his word by his own p. 16. where he allows Ls. faith to be such as when true has allways good works joyn'd with it L. teaches indeed that fides sola justificat but not solitaria that faith alone justifies but not the Faith that is alone Good Works are inseparable attendants upon this justifying Faith but they contribute nothing to the act of Justification they make not just but are allwaies with them that are made so This is L s. was the C. of Rome's a Viqe Tho Aqu. Lect. 4. in Gal. 3. and is now the C. of England's Doctrine if he 'll be pleas'd to attacque it as such it shall not want a Defender As to his Quotations on this occasion they are as at other times very trifling To pursue every particular of 'em would be nauseous and unnecessary one general Remarque that I shall leave with the Reader will lead him into the sense of 'em all L. wrote against a sort of men that held good works to be meritorious and rely'd on 'em as of themselves satisfactory without a particular application of faith this was the Doctrine or at least the practice of the cloyster and this L. through all his Writings encounters so that where ever he put 's a slight upon good works 't is as they stand distinct from Faith under the notion that superstitious zeal had then cloath'd 'em with b Thus when he had said Contritio quae paratur per discussionem collectionem detestationem peccati c. facit hypocritam Assert Art 6 he expound's himself afterwards by telling you that the contrition he 's talking of is naturalis impia extra fidem When he tell 's you Assert Art 11. Crede fortiter tâ—… absolutum absolutus vere eris quicquid sit de câ—…tritione what is meant by these last words is not whether you are contrite or no as his sly interpreter has it but without respect to your contrition i. e the contrition you so much rely upon as the article it self when propounded intire and the paraphrase upon it sufficiently evidence And so of the rest I will not say that in the prosecution of this he never went awry he did so in reviving that doubt which was sometime in the primitive Church of St. Iames's Epistle being Canonical because he thought it ran counter to St. Paul but he withdrew this plea of his when better inform'd if quoting from it afterwards as from Scripture be owning it's Authority 'T is plain his followers think so the most rigid of whom and who in every puncttlio would be thought like Luther do yet retain this Epistle in the Canon Indeed in the 1st Edition of his German Bible he call's it straminea not absolutely but in comparison with those of St. Paul But in all the Editions after 1526 't is left out and the arida the Pamphlet talk's of is in none of 'em at all The objection drawn from his calling St. Paul Evangelist in preference to Matthew Mark and Luke is ridiculous for he there tells you what he mean's by Evangelists viz such as preach the glad tidings of that comfortable Doctrine
he yielded to in the dispute was the conviction of those arguments which he himself had before reform'd upon The objections the Tempter rais'd from hence to discourage his Faith and shake his constancy those he withstood and baffled What is there then in this Encounter that can be lay'd hold of to Ls. disadvantage Is it that he convers'd with the Devil He did not we see the dispute was manag'd in animo atque in corde by suggestions within not without by any personal appearance But had he really enter'd into Dialogue yet the President our Savior has given would have been his warrant And would one ransack the Life 's of their Popes Sylvester the 2d Gregory 7 Benedict 8 Hildebrand c. 't were easy to retaliate and shew how much greater intimacies have been maintain'd between Satan and some of them Is it that his Doctrine of the Mass was struck out in this Conflict or that it gave him any occasion of Reforming in this point We have evidently made out the contrary by an elder date of some works of his which establish these very opinions Yet should it have been so the actions of their own Saints would justify Ls. management For their admir'd Dominic reform'd the Religious of his Covent upon just such another rancounter with the Devil a Vid Antonin Chron. 3. Part. Tit. 23. Cap. 4. 6. and made use of his accusation tho' contrary to the intention of the accuser Is it that Lr. comply'd with the Tempter's arguments no such matter The supposition he allow'd because 't was his own but deny'd the Sequel which his disputant would have fasten'd upon him Yet should what he yielded to have been Satan's own proposition it do's not follow that he was therefore in the wrong for Lying is not the indelible Character even of the Father of Lyes sometimes a Truth serves his turn better He quoted Texts right upon our Savior tho' he expounded em wrong and surely he told no ly when he confess'd Christ-Jesus to be the Son of the living God Do's this story carry such scandalous impressions along with it that even Chillingworth himself own 's it as one of his motives for deserting our Communion But pray take in the other part of the account too and consider how he laugh'd at it when he return'd So that after a search into particulars all we find true in this affair is that the Devil once made a solemn onset upon L r. as before he had done on his Redeemer A Calumny which we are so far from disowning that we are proud on 't The Devil had great reason to employ all his Engines against a Man who had made such ravage in his Kingdome and he took a good time to make his attacq's when Lr. was in his solitudes at the Castle of Wartsburg for there it was I think that the scene of the Temptation lay Upon the whole then our Author's modesty seem's to be unexampled who upon so slight grounds nay upon no grounds at all could be bold enough to say that the whole Platform of p. 71. the Reformation proceeded originally from the Devil and agen that the Devil is the Original Founder and Abetter of the p. 72. Reformation These are such sawcy expressions upon a Religion establish'd by Law as deserve rather to be burnt then confuted The manage and address of my author has been spent to no purpose in tricking up this story for after all we see it has no hideous appearance He 's resolv'd now in contradiction still to the method laid down of considering works only and not disputing to baffle the arguments the Opponent urges in the dispute and shew how slight the propositions were which Lr. let go for good So that p. 72. the Tables are turn'd and whereas the Scene before lay betwixt Lr. and Satan 't is now betwixt the Devil and the Considerer And for my part to give every one his due I think the Devil has much the best on 't I shall pass by the little skirmishings on either side and touch onely on what 's material The Devil argues against private Masses §. 40. n. 3. from the nature of Christ's institution when he distributed it about to his disciples and said Do this c. From St. Paul's Comment on these words 1 Cor. 11. from the usage of the Primitive Church a See Annot. in Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Cap. 6. Where this usage is confess'd and from the term Communion which she allways express'd it by Here the Answerer has nothing to say but that the Priest in these Masses is ready to communicate the Sacrament to all that offer themselves But this is not enough for the Devil's quaestion is whether it be not against the notion of a Sacrament that the Consecrater alone should partake of it He urges farther that neither have they any intention of communicating it because the words of Consecration are pronounc'd according to the Canon of the Mass with a Whisper and so not defign'd for the peoples Ears And to all this there 's not a word reply'd The Devil goes on to object that as Lr. had withheld all the Sacrament in private Masses so neither did he give it entire in public ones To §. 40. n. 4. this the answerer returns nothing but that the practise of the primitive Church is sufficient warrant that the words of institution are not so to be expounded as if both kinds were necessary But this bold assertion has been so fully vanquish'd in a late Reply to the Bishop of Meaux's treatise on this subject that I shall not stop here to expose it The Reader will there find that not a single instance of Communion in one kind is to be found in all the Records of antiquity At least if our word will not be taken that of the Council's will which decreed it with a non-obstante to the custome of the Primitive Church Satan argues §. 40. n. 5. against their form of ordination which seem's rather to give the power of offering a Sacrifice then distributing a Sacrament For the words he says of the Suffragan when he deliver's the Chalice into the Priest's hands are Take thou Power of consecrating and Sacrificing for the Quick and the Dead What say's the Replyer Why that Sacrificare in the Churches sense takes in the distributing part too But we know this is not the Church-sense and referr our selves to the Trent-Catechism to expound it There a Cap. de Euch. §. 75. 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 So that whatever belong's to it as it is the food of our Souls belong's to it as a Sacrament and certainly the ministring of it to the people belong's to it as it is the food of our Souls and therefore as a Sacrament not a Sacrifice Besides the notion