ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Hereunto they add a similitude not very ag how the Scriptures be like to a nose of wax, o man's hose; how they may be fashioned and 1 manner of ways, and serve all men's turns.h

1

Woteth not the Bishop of Rome, that these th spoken by his own minions? or understandeth he hath such champions to fight for him? hearken, then, how holily, and how godly, one I writeth of this matter; a bishop in Pòland, as fieth of himself; a man doubtless well spoken, a unlearned, and a very sharp and a stout mainta that side. Thou wilt marvel, I suppose, how an man could either conceive so wickedly, or w despitefully, of those words which he knew pro from God's mouth; and specially in such sort would not have it seem his own private opinion but the common opinion of all that band. He d bleth, I grant you indeed, and hideth what he setteth forth the matter so, as though it were n and his side, but the Zwenckfeldian heretics, that speak. We," saith he, "will bid away with the

66

ALBERTUS PIGHIUS in Controversia de Ecclesia.

The passage is too extraordinary to be omitted.-"Sunt Ser ut non minus verè quam festivè [what a subject for a joke!] dis dam, velut nasus cereus qui se horsum, illorsum, et in quam volueris partem, trahi, retrahi, fingique facilè permittit." Hier Lib. III. c. iii. fol. 103. Quoted by JEWELL, in the Defence, p

i Hosius, one of the most eminent champions of the Romish C was living when JEWELL wrote. His reputation among his cont raries of the same faith was very great, and his numerous works, have been translated into various languages, are even yet regard Papists as highly valuable. He was born at Cracow, in Poland, in After having studied at Padua and Bologna, he served the king of P for some time in a civil capacity, and obtained from him successive siastical promotions, until he became Bishop of Warmie. Being ployed by Pope Pius IV. in an embassy to the emperor Ferdinan obtain the continuation of the Council of Trent, his cloquence g the unqualified admiration of that prince, and the Pope was so satisfied with his services, as to reward him with a Cardinal's hat charge him, in conjunction with two other Cardinal-Legates, with re-opening of the Council. This was in 1561. Some time after, Gregory XIII. called Hosius to Rome, appointing him Grand F

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.”—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. Non oportet Legis et Scripturæ peritum esse, sed a DEO doctum. Vanus est labor qui Scripturis impenditur. Scriptura enim creatura est, et egenum quoddam elementum." Hosrus in Lib. de Expresso Verbo Dei.

6

1 [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 Christian communion.

JEWELL quotes hls authority for the assertion in the text, in the Defence, p. 424. It is from TERTULLIAN, de Præscriptionibus Hæreti corum, 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."]

:

[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 CHRIST. The contrariety of the main body of Christían 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

or the Apostles ever knew.

What then shall I say here, O ye principal religion! O ye arch-governors of CHRIST'S Is this that your reverence which ye give word? The holy Scriptures, "which," St. P "were given by inspiration of GOD ""—which commend by so many miracles-wherein are perfect prints of CHRIST's own steps — -whic holy fathers, apostles, and angels, which CHR: self, the Son of God, as often as was needful, di for testimony and proof: will ye, as though th unworthy for you to hear, bid them avaunt? will ye enjoin GoD to keep silence, who speaket most clearly by His own mouth in the Scriptur that word, whereby alone, as Paul saith, we are ciled unto God, and which the prophet David 'holy and pure, and shall endure for ever;'r will that but a bare and dead letter? Or will ye say, our labour is lost, which is bestowed in that thing CHRIST hath commanded us diligently to search, have ever before our eyes? And will ye say that and the Apostles meant with subtlety to decei people, when they exhorted them to read the holy tures, that thereby they might flow [abound] in dom and knowledge? No marvel at all though men despise us, and all our doings, seeing they little by GoD himself and his infallible sayings!

S

according to Luke, by interpolations and additions, a fictitious which he imposed upon his followers as the authentic history of C MARCION was a native of Pontus, but spread his erroneous op in Rome, between A. D. 140 and 160. He appears to have b fickle, rash disputant, unsettled in his own opinions, and unscrup in the support of such as at the time obtained his preference. H more than once excluded the communion of the Church, and time of his death was desirous of re-admission. See Bp. KAY'S siastical History illustrated from Tertullian, p. 479 ss.

In the Defence, (p. 124,) JEWELL quotes the sentiment here buted to Marcion, as uttered by Carpocrates, (another heretic second century,) and refers to EPIPHANIUS, Lib. I. Hares. 27.] n 2 Tim. iii. 16. 。 Heb. ii. 4. P 1 Pet. ii. 21.

q 2 Cor. v. 19.

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. 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.]*

And

[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 the Defence, and is animadverted upon by HARDING. It may therefore

be considered as authentic.

The truth is, JEWELL quoted Hosius rashly in the first instatice. 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 inistaken, 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 MaximinTM did;

quotes the passage with approbation,) FLACIUS ILLYRICUS, and JACOBUS ANDRAEUS, who had already made the same mistake.

not.

2. Although this passage be misrepresented, Hosius' opinions are "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? Scribemus 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 the 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.]

[ocr errors]

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.]

Y

[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 iii. sub anno 168.]

[There were two emperors by the name of Maximin; the first, called the Thracian, succeeded Alexander Severus in 235; the other

« 前へ次へ »