« ПредишнаНапред »
titude of vain ceremonies, wherewith he even then saw men's minds and consciences overcharged.—These men, as though God regarded nothing else but their cereinonies, have so out of measure increased them, that there is now alınost none other thing left in their churches, and places of prayer.
Again, that old father AUGUSTIN w denieth it to be lawful for a monk to spend his time slothfully in idleness; and, under a pretensed and counterfeit holiness, to live all upon others. And whoso thus liveth, the old father APOLLONIUS* likeneth him unto a thief.—These men have I wot not whether to call them droves or herds of monks, who for all that they do nothing, nor yet once intend to bear any show of holiness, yet live they not only upon others, but also riot lavishly of other folks' labours."
w 'Isti non Deo serviunt, sed suo ventri :: These serve, not God, but their own belly.' (De Opere Monach. c. 12.)— Non apparet utrum ex proposito servitutis Dei venerint, an vitam inopem et laboriosam fugientes, vacui pasci et vestiri voluerint.' We cannot tell whether they became monks for purpose to serve God, or else being weary of their poor and painful life, were rather desirous to be fed and clothed doing nothing.' (Ibid. c. 22.) The alms obtained, he calls : 'Sumptus, lucrose egestatis, et simulatæ pretium sanctitatis :' "The charges of guinsul poverty, and price of feigned holiness.” (Ibid. c. 28.)
* Cited by Socrates, in Historia Tripartita, sa translated compl; lation of SocRATES, SOZOMEN, and THEODORET, made by EPIPHANIUS] Lib. VIII. c. i.
y [After quoting several passages from Augustin, Hilary, and JEROME, to show the spirit of monkery in their day, JEWELL goes on ; " And lest ye should think we speak only of old foreign faults; and that all such things since those days have been reformed; NICOLAS CUSANUS, a Cardinal of Rome, one of your new doctors, saith : Vix fallacia illorum,' &c. "The deceitfulness of them that show themselves under the apparel of Christ, because of their variety, can hardly be known. For one of them saith, He serveth Christ under one weed ; another, under another. Notwithstanding, they all for the most part seek their own, and not the things that pertain to Christ Jesus. For they are all given to covetousness, from the greatest to the least. And yet in all these diversities, by this mark or doctrine ye may descry their falsehood; By their works ye shall know them.'(Excitat. Lib. 7. Moneta.
6 Ye say, 'Monks now serve the altar and minister sacraments: and therefore are not bound to bodily labour.' This is a fair colour to shadow their idleness. For who ever bad monks to serve the altar,' or gave them authority to minister sacraments? What doctor? What father? What ancient council ? In old times it was not lawful for a monk to be a priest. S. GREGORY [the Great, or I.] saith: 'Nemo potest ecclesiasticis officiis deservire, et in monastica regula ordinate persistere,' 'No man can serve the ecclesiastical office, and orderly
The old Council of Rome decreed, that no man should come to the service said by a priest well known to keep a concubine.”—These men let concubines to farm to their priests, and yet constrain men by force, against their will, to hear their cursed paltry service.
The old Canons of the Apostlescommand that bishop to be removed from his office, which will supply the place both of a civil magistrate and also of an ecclesiastical person.“_These men, for all that, both do and
keep the monastic rule. (in xvi. Quæst. 1. Nemo.)"_After quoting several passages from JEROME, (in the Canon Law) AUGUSTIN, and BERNARD, to the same effect, JEWELL goes on : “The first suppressors of monasteries within this realm, in our memory, were two of your dearest friends, Cardinal Wolsey, and Doctor Fisher, the bishop of Rochester: either of them well warranted thereto by the authority of the Pope. Long before that time, the godly learned bishop Letoius overthrew and burned the Thessalians' monasteries, and said they were (orýdara inspikà) dens of thieves: and, as THEODORET reporteth, 'chased the wolves away from the fold;' (rous dúkous ék tñs Tróluvns étýlace. Eccl. Hist. Lib. IV. c. xi.)–Of late years, sundry of the cardinals of Rome, among whom also was Cardinal Pole, being specially appointed in commission by Pope Paul III. to view the disorders and deformities of the Church, returned their answer in this sort : 'Alius abusus,' &c.
Another abuse there is to be reformed in the orders of monks and friars. For many of them are so vile, that they are a shame unto the seculars : and with their example do much ill. As for conventual orders, we think it good they be all abolished.' (Concil. Tom. III. Con. Delector. Cardinal. p. 8-22.)”-Defence, p. 450.]
o Concil. Rom. c. 3.– [" The Council of Rome, holden there under Pope Nicolas the Second [A. D. 1059]. Which, although it be not so old as may be compared with the ancient fathers' councils, yet it is elder than some parts and branches of your new religion.” Defence, p. 451.]
ap Whereas the words of the decree are these: 'Nullus audiat missam presbyteri quem scit concubinam indubitanter habere;' the Gloss upon the same saith thus: “Hic Canon quandoque fuit latæ sententiæ : sed hodie non est.' "This decrec in old times stood as a ruled case. But now it is not so.'-'Ideò licet notoria sit fornicatio, tamen non est propter eam abstinendum ab officiis prcsbyterorum.'" Defence, p. 451.)
[The Canons of the Apostles, or Apostolic Canons, are spurious, as regards their title. But they are acknowledged to be of great antiquity—to contain the rules by which the Church was governed in the second and third centuries—and to comprise some regulations in all probability first made by the Apostles themselves.]
c (Can. IV. ETLOKOTOS, mpeoßúrepos, i diákovos, koopikàs opovridas un åvalaubaveodw. či dè unye, ka@upcióow. Let not a bishop, or a priest, or a deacon, undertake temporal offices. But if any should, let him be expelled.'-It would be difficult to reconcile with this ancient regulation the present practice of the established Church of England ; of which the bishops are barons, and a large proportion of the parochial clergy justices of the peace.) :
will needs serve both places. Nay rather, the one office, which they ought chiefly to execute, they once touch not: and yet no body commandeth them to be displaced.
The old Council of Gangra commandeth, that none should make such difference between an unmarried priest and a married priest, as to think the one more holy than the other for a single life's sake.- These men put such a difference between them, that they straightway think all their holy service to be desiled, if it be done by a good and honest man that hath a wife.d
The ancient emperor Justiniane commanded,' that in
d (The Council of Gangra was held about A, D. 360.-In the Defence, JEWELL adduces evidence of the antiquity and universality of the marriage of the clergy, at considerable length. He sums up this evidence as foilows: “Thus ye see by your Canonists (Dist. 31. Aliter. In Glossa.) that the priests of the East Church may marry, being in holy orders: Ly the ancient Council of Ancyra, (Conc. Ancyran. Canon 10.) that deacons, after protestation made, might lawfully marry: by CHRYSOSTOM, (Hom. 10 in Ep. I ad Tim.-Hom. 21 in Genes.) that priests and bishops may so take the state of marriage, that it shall be no hindrance to any perfection : by Cardinal CAJETAN, (in Quodlibetis,) that, speaking absolutely, a priest offendeth not in marrying a wife, his orders or priesthood notwithstanding : by ANSELM [Archbishop of Canterbury] (Dialog. Inquisitione prima) that eleven hundred years after Christ, that is to say, until within one hundred years since the Conquest, this inatter, notwithstanding it had been much beaten through the world, yet lay still undiscussed : by PANORMITANE (E.tra. de Electione, C. licet de vitand. abbat.) ERASMUS (Contra Bedam, p. 197.) and AGRIPPA (Contra Lovaniens. Art. 18.) that the priests of Greece marry this day, and that 'sine peccato '-without sin: by others. your own doctors, (Dist. 84. Cum in præterito. In Glossa.) that until the time of Pope Siricius, [A. D. 385.) it was lawful for priests to marry. You see that Moses, being a Christian priest, (Dist. 34. Cum in præterito.) and Eupsychius, being a Christian bishop and a martyr, (NICEPhori Hist. Eccles. Lib. X. c. x.) took either of them a lawful wife, and so lived in marriage without offence." — Defence, p. 458.]
e JUSTINIAN, more famous for his reformation and consolidation of the Roman civil law, than for the splendid viciories of his generals in Africa and Italy, reigned in Constantinople from A. D. 527 to 563. His jurisprudence derived excellence from the sources whence it was compiled; his military undertakings were crowned with success by the talents and fidelity of his generals; his civil endowments and public edifices, though numerous and noble, criginated in timid fear of invasion, or prodigal luxury: but the spirit of his own legislation was mercenary and fickle, and his use of the executive authority disgracefully subservient not only to his own avarice and passions, but to those of his wicked wife and vile parasites.—The authority of such a law. giver cannot be esteemed great in any matters: much less in the regul. lation of religious affairs.]
1 In Novell. Constit. 123. "We command all bishops and priests
the holy administration all things should be pronounced with a clear, loud, and treatable voice ; that the people might receive some fruit thereby.—These men, lest the people should understand them, mumble up their service, not only with a drowned and hollow voice, but also in a strange and barbarous tongue.
to minister the holy oblation, &c. not under silence, but with a loud voice.'-[The Novelle, or Novels, form a supplementary portion of the second great division of the Body of Civil Law. The first division, is the Code, consisting of a revised collection of the ordinances of preceding emperors, nearly answering to our Statute Law. The second division, called the Digest or Pandects, contains select decisions and opinions of Roman lawyers, and somewhat resembles, in the nature of its contents, our Common Law. The Novels are Justinian's own subsequent enactments and decisions, collected in the last year of his reign, and appended to the Digest. The Institutes, a compendious abstract, designed to be introductory to the Digest, forms the third great division of the Civil Law.–The Code was published in 528; the Institutes and Digest in 533; the Novels at intervals, as occasion called for them, and in a collected body in 566.]
6 p“ The words 'whispering' and 'mumbling' mislike you much. Yet your own friends entreating hereof have often used the same words. In your late Councilof Cologne it is written thus: 'Ut presbyteri preces non tantum ore murmurent,' &c. "That the priests may not only mumble up their prayers, but also pronounce them from their hearts, let the Book of the Law, that is to say, the Bible, never be laid from their hands.' (Conc. Colon. Can. 5. An. 1536.)
“Ye say, "We wish the people would learn the mystical Latin tongue.' Ye say, 'the mystical Latin tongue.'—Who ever taught you these kinds of mysteries? What Scripture? What Council ? What doctor? What father? How know you that the Latin tongue, that every child may so commonly, and so easily understand, should be so mystical ? And wherefore are all other tongues--the Greek, the Hebrew, the Chaldee, the Arabic, the Italian, the French, the Spanish, the Irish, less mystical than the Latin ? What have these tongues offended? What hath that tongue deserved ? The tongue is nothing else but a tongue. It is the matter and meaning of the words that is mystical. S. AUGUSTIN saith: “Audimus hæc verba, Beata vita,' &c. "We hear these words, Blessed Life, or The Life to come. And the thing itself we all confess we desire to have. For we have no pleasure in the sound of the words. For when a Greek heareth these words spoken in Latin, he hath no pleasure in them, because he understandeth not what is spoken. Neit! th the Latin any pleasure, if he hear the same spoken in Greek. For the thing itself is neither Greek nor Latin.' (Confess. Lib. X. c. xx.)-Ye'wish the people would learn the Latin tongue.' No doubt, a worthy and learned wish! Ye might as good cheap, and as well, have wished that all the whole people of all countries would learn to speak Greek and Hebrew. But your meaning is, that until all the ploughmen, and artificers, and labourers of the world be able to understand and to speak your 'mystical Latin tongue,' they may not in any wise be allowed to understand any parcel of their prayers.
The old Council at Carthage commanded, that nothing should be read in Christ's congregation, but the Canonical Scriptures. -_These men read such things in their churches as themselves know to be stark lies and fond [foolish] fables.i
“But 'the Latin tongue,' ye say, 'is not barbarous': and therein, as your wont is, ye have noted a wonderful great lie in our Apology. Yet unto St. Paul that tongue seemeth barbarous, that is unknown unto the hearer, be it Latin, be it Greek. Thus he saith : 'If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian; and he that speaketh (in what tongue soever he speaketh)
shall be a barbarian unto me. (1 Cor. xiv. 12. S. AUGUSTINE saith: 'Mallet quisque,' &c. “A man would rather dwell with his dog, than with a man of an unknown tongue.' (Art. 3. Div. 3. LUD. Vives de tradend. Discipl. L. III. f. 97.)" Defence, p. 460 s.)
b (This citation is imperfect. The words of the decree of the Third Council of Carthage, Cap. 47, as cited by HARDING, are: “ Placuit, ut præter Scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum.” “It hath seemed good unto us, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the name of the dirine Scriptures ;" words which admit, and seem to require, an interpretation different from that put upon them by JEWELL, He admits the error, but pleads : "they are found in the Council of Hippo, which is the abridgment of the Third Council of Carthage, as it appeareth by the title of the same : 'Concilii Hipponensis Abbreviationes facta in Concilio Carthaginiensi Tertio.'”—There is some difficulty here. Councils were held at Hippo in the years 393, 422, and 426. (LUMPER, Hist. Eccles. p. 308, 311.) The Third Council of Carthage was held in 397. Now if JEWELL's statement were correct, the Canons of this last might have been abridged in either of the two later Councils of Hippo. But the very evidence which he brings in proof of his assertion, is entirely against him : the Latin title which he quotes runs thus, translated : “ The abbreviations of the Council of Hippo, made in the Third Council of Carthage :'-a statement just the reverse of JEWELL’s, but agreeable to the truth. The canons of the first Council of Hippo were abridged in the sixth, commonly called the Third of Carthage, four years subsequent. (Cave's Hist. Lit. Pars II. p. 130.) The Council of Carthage, therefore, must be given up.— As for the Council of Hippo : “ Its words be these, 'Scripture Canonicæ in Ecclesia legendæ quæ sunt: et præter quas alia non legantur.' "The Scriptures Canonical, which are to be read in the Church, and beside which, nothing may be read.' (Conc. Hippon. Cap. 38. Here may we add the like decree of the Council holden at Laodicea (A. D. 360. Non oportet, &c. 'We may not read any books that be without the Canon, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament.' (Conc. Laodicen, Cap. 59.)” Defence, p. 462.)
i [The Roman Breviary is full of the most absurd legends.JEWELL justifies his assertion by the following citations ; “ERASMUS thereof saith thus: 'Hodiè quorumlibet,' &c. "Now-a-days every fool's dreams, yea, every woman's doting fancies, are read with the holy Scriptures.' '(Annot. in Hieronym. de Eccles, Script.) Likewise