« 前へ次へ »
tain, unprofitable, dumb, killing, and dead:"whick seemeth to us all one as if they should say, “the Scriptures are to no purpose, or as good as 'none at all.' Hereunto they add a similitude not very agreeable : how the Scriptures be like to a nose of wax, or a shipman's hose; how they may be fashioned and plied all manner of ways, and serve all men's turns.h
Woteth not the Bishop of Rome, that these things are spoken by his own minions ? or understandeth he not, he hath such champions to fight for him ? Let him hearken, then, how holily, and how godly, one Hosius : writeth of this matter; a bishop in Poland, as he testifieth of himself; a man doubtless well spoken, and not unlearned, and a very sharp and a stout maintainer of that side. Thou wilt marvel, I suppose, how any good man could either conceive so wickedly, or write so despitefully, of those words which he knew proceeded from God's mouth; and specially in such sort as he would not have it seem his own private opinion alone, but the common opinion of all that band. Ile dissembleth, I grant you indeed, and hideth what he is, and setteth forth the matter so, as though it were not he, and his side, but the Zwenckfeldian heretics, that so did speak. “ We,” saith he, “ will bid away with the same
6 ALBERTUS Pighius in Controversia de Ecclesia.
- The passage is too extraordinary to be omitted.--"Sunt Scripturē, ut non minus verè quam festivè (what a subject for a joke!] dixit quidam, velut nasus cereus qui se horsum, illorsum, ct in quamcunque volueris partem, trahi, retrahi, fingique facilè permittit.” Hierarchia, Lib. III. c. iii. fol. 103. Quoted by JEWELL, in the Defence, p. 423.]
i Hosius, one of the most eminent champions of the Romish Church, was living when Jewell wrote. His reputation among his contemporaries of the same faith was very great, and his numerous works, which have been translated into various languages, are even yet regarded by Papists as highly valuable. He was born at Cracow, in Poland, in 1503. After having studied at Padua and Bologna, he served the king of Poland for some time in a civil capacity, and obtained from him successive ecclesiastical promotions, until he became Bishop of Warmie. Being einployed by Pope Pius IV. in an embassy to the emperor Ferdinand, to obtain the continuation of the Council of Trent, his cloquence gained the unqualified admiration of that prince, and the Pope was so well satisfied with his services, as to reward him with a Cardinal's hat, and charge him, in conjunction with two other Cardinal-Legates, with the re-opening of the Council
. This was in 1561. Some time after, Pope Gregory XIII. called Hosius to Rome, appointing him Grand Penientiary. He died at Capravolo, near Rome, in 1579.]
Scriptures, whereof we see brought, not only divers, but also contrary, interpretations : and we will hear God speak, rather than we will resort to the naked elements or bare words of the Scriptures, and appoint our salvation to rest in them. It behoveth not a man to be expert in the Law and Scripture, but to be taught of God. It is but lost labour, that a man bestoweth in the Scriptures. For the Scripture is a creature, and a certain bare letter."k_This is Hosius' saying, uttered altogether with the same spirit and the same mind wherewith in times past the heretics Montanus'and MARCION” were moved,
"Nos ipsas Scripturas, quarum tot jam non diversas modo, sed etiam contrarias interpretationes afferri videmus, facessere jubebimus, et Deum loquentem potius audiemus, quam, ut ad egena ista elementa nos convertamus, et in illis salutem nostram constituamus. Von oportet Legis et Scripturæ peritum esse, sed a Deo doctum. Vanus est labor qui Scripturis impenditur. Scriptura enim creatura est, et egenum quoddam elementum.” Hosius in Lib. de Expresso Verbo Dei.
[MONTANUS can hardly be said to have rejected the Holy Scriptures,' since it is certain that his followers admitted the authority of the several books of the Old and New Testaments, and held all their essential doctrines. Yet he did profess to know more and better things than the Apostles ;' since he pretended to be inspired by the Holy Spirit to complete the revelation which Christ and the Apostles had left imperfect. His supplementary matter related exclusively to ascetic observances and external discipline.
The personal history of MONTANUS is obscure, and his sect derives its principal celebrity from the fact that Tertullian was misled to embrace its errors. It arose in Phrygia, probably about the year 150. The leader himself, and two females among his first followers, made pretensions to inspiration, and a commission to perfect the Christian revelation. They enjoined on their disciples long and frequent fasts and vigils, forbad second marriages, and utterly excluded persons once guilty of open crime from re-admission to C!ıristian communion.
JEWELL quotes his authority for the assertion in the text, in the Defence, p. 424. It is from TERTULLIAN, de Præscriptionibus Hæreticorum, c. lii. “Dicant Paracletum plura in Montano dixisse, quam CHRISTUM in evangelium protulisse : nec tantum plura, sed etiam meliora atque majora.”—“They (the Montanists) say that the Paraclete uttered more things in Montanus, than ever Christ promulged in the gospel : and not only more, but also better and greater."]
m [MARCION was one of the many heretics of the second century, whom an attempt to reconcile the origin of evil with the attributes of God led astray from the truth of the gospel. He was induced to deny the identity of JEHOVAH revealed in the Old Testament with the FATHER of our Lord Jesus Crist. The contrariety of the main body of Christian revelation to this opinion led him also to reject the greater part of the Gospels and Epistles, and to maintain that the doctrine of the apostles Paul and Peter differed, the latter having corrupted Christianity by an admixture of Judaism. He frained from the Gospel who, as it is written of them, used to say, when with contempt they rejected the Holy Scriptures--that themselves knew many more and better things than either Christ or the Apostles ever knew.
What then shall I say here, O ye principal posts of religion ! O ye arch-governors of Christ's Church! Is this that your reverence which ye give to God's word? The holy Scriptures, “which,” St. Paul saith,
were given by inspiration of God”—which God did commend by so many miracles —wherein are the most perfect prints of Christ's own steps p—which all the holy fathers, apostles, and angels, which Christ himself, the Son of God, as often as was needful, did allege for testimony and proof: will ye, as though they were unworthy for you to hear, bid them avaunt? That is, will ye enjoin God to keep silence, who speaketh to you most clearly, by His own mouth in the Scriptures ? Or that word, whereby alone, as Paul saith, we are reconciled unto God, and which the prophet David saith is • holy and
and shall endure for ever;'r will call that but a bare and dead letter? Or will ye say, that all our labour is lost, which is bestowed in that thing which Christ hath commanded us diligently to search, and to have ever before our eyes ? And will ye say that CHRIST and the Apostles meant with subtlety to deceive the people, when they exhorted them to read the holy Scriptures, that thereby they might flow [abound] in all wisdom and knowledge? No marvel at all though these men despise us, and all our doings, seeing they set so little by God himself and his infallible sayings! Yet
-according to Luke, by interpolations and additions, a fictitious Gospel, which he imposed upon his followers as the authentic history of Christ.
MARCION was a native of Pontus, but spread his erroneous opinions in Rome, between A. D. 140 and 160. He appears to have been a fickle, rash disputant, unsettled in his own opinions, and unscrupulous in the support of such as at the time obtained his preference. He was more than once excluded the communion of the Church, and at the time of his death was desirous of re-admission. See Bp. Kay's Ecclesiastical History illustrated from Tertullian, p. 479 ss.
In the Defence, (p. 124,) JEWELL quotes the sentiment here attributed to Marcion, as uttered by Carpocrates, (another heretic of the second century,) and refers to Epiphanius, Lib. I. Hærcs. 27.] n 2 Tim. iij. 16.
o Heb. ii. 4. p 1 Pet. ü. 21.
9 2 Cor. v. 19. < Ps. xix. 8, 9.-1 Pet. i. 25.
• John v. 39.
was it but want of wit in them, to the intent they might hurt us to do so extreme injury to the word of God.
[But Hosius will here make exclamation, and say that we do him wrong, and that these be not his own words, but the words of the heretic ZWENCKFELDIUS. But how then, if ZWENCKFELDIus make exclamation on the other side, and say, that the very same words be not his, but Hosius' own words? For tell me, where hath ZWENCKFELDIUS ever written them? Or, if he have written them, and Hosius have judged the same to be wicked, why hath not Hosius spoken so much as one word to confute them? Howsoever the matter go, although Hosius peradventure will not allow of those words, yet he doth not disallow the meaning of the words. For well near in all controversies, and namely touching the use of the Holy Communion under both kinds, although the words of Christ be plain and evident, yet doth Hosius disdainfully reject them, as no better than cold, and dead elements : and commandeth us to give faith to certain new lessons, appointed by his Church, and to I wot not what revelations of the Holy Ghost. And Pighius saith : “Men ought not to believe, no, not the most clear and manifest words of the Scriptures, unless the same be allowed for good by the interpretation and authority of the Church;" whereby he meaneth the Church of Rome.]'
· [The whole of this passage in brackets is neither in the original Latin of the Apology, nor in the translation published in the Fathers of the English Church : but it is inserted by JEWELL himself in the text of the English translation of his Apology which accompanies tho Defence, and is animadverted upon by HARDING. It may therefore be considered as authentic.
The truth is, JEWELL quoted Hosius rashly in the first instarice. He mistook the design of that writer in the passage which he selected. The additional paragraph is an attempt (and it must be confessed, a rather awkward attempt) to set the matter right. HARDING indulges in much tragical declamation on the themes of ignorance,' 'rashness,' stubbornness,' 'malicious perfidy,' &c.
Jewell's Defence of this passage is long. The sun is as follows: Three questions arise as to this misquotation : 1. Did JEWELL mistake his author's sense ? 2. If the sense of this passage was mistaken, are the opinions of Hosius misrepresented ? 3. Is the imputation which the whole paragraph casts upon the Church of Rome well-founded ?
1. The mistake is acknowledged. It is excused by the obscurity of the passage, and the example of NicolAUS GALLUS, (a Papist, who
Sect. 11. And yet, as though this were too little, they also burn the holy Scriptures, as in times past wicked king Aza,“ or as Antiochus,' or Maximinw did ; quotes the passage with approbation) Flacius Illyricus, and JacoBUS ANDRAEUS, who had already made the same mistake.
2. Although this passage be misrepresented, Hosius' opinions are not. “For proof whereof; when objection was made, that King David, being not a bishop, but only a temporal prince, had written the Psalms, that is to say, the very key of the Scriptures, Hosius made answer, 'Quid ni scriberet? Seribemus indocti doctique.poemata passim.' And why should he not write them? (HORACE saith) We write poems everybody, learned and unlearned.' (Lib. II. contra Brentium.) So unreverently, and like a heathen, he scorneth and scoffeth at the Scriptures of God, and likeneth the heavenly ditties of the Holy Ghost to a vile, heathenish, wanton ballad !" And again : "Hosius by his episcopal authority pronounceth sentence definitive in this wise : Quod Ecclesia docet, expressum Dei verbum est : quod contra sensum et consensum Ecclesiæ docetur, expressum diaboli verbum est.' "Whatsoever the Church teacheth ; (by the Church he mean: eth the Pope and his Cardinals, and the Church of Rome;) that is the express word of God: whatsoever is taught against the meaning and consent of the Church, that is the express word of the devil. (De Expresso verbo Dei, p. 97.)". Defence, p. 424.
3. Nor is the imputation cast on the Church of Rome less just. Her ablest doctors have maintained the opinion expressed in tbe passage misquoted from Hosius. The following are cited at length in the Defence, p. 423.-LUDOVICUS, a canon of the Lateran Church at Rome, said in the Council of Trent: 'Scriptura est quasi mortuum atramentum'-'the Scripture is as it were dead ink. The Bishop of Poitiers, in the same Council, called it 'res inanimis, et muta'-—'an inanimate and dumb thing.' ALBERT PIGHIUS: 'Si dixeris,' &c. 'If thou say, these things should be referred to the judgment of Scripture, thou showest thyself void of common sense; for the Scriptures are dumb judges.' Eckius, Luther's famous opponent, calls the Scriptures Evangelium nigrum--theologiam atramentarium'—'a black gospel— an inken theology JEWELL gives others to the same purport : but these sufficiently show with what contempt the Church of Rome has been wont to treat the revelation of God's will.]
u [This is another instance of incorrect reference. JEWELL doubtless had in view the burning of the roll of Jeremiah, narrated in Jer. xxxvi. The king who committed that impious act was not Asa (a pious prince,) but Jehoiakim. Yet both the Latin text, and Jewell's own edition of the translation (and I may add, without much surprise, CAMPBELL’s translation) give the name Aza. The translation in the Fathers of the English Church has Jehoiakim.]
[The attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, to subvert the Jewish religion and policy, of which the destruction of the Law (for his 'burning of the Scriptures' extended no farther) formed part, was made in the year 168 before Christ. PRIDEAUX' Connexions, Part II. Book iü. sub anno 168.]
w [There were two emperors by the name of Maximin; the first, called the Thracian, succeeded Alexander Severus in 235; the other