the Gauls The conduct of Victor pleased not all the other Bishops who exhorted him in their turn to have sentiments conformable to a Peace Unity and Love to our Neighbours There are still of their Letters adds Eusebius wherein they reprehend Victor with eagerness enough Amongst these Bishops was Irenaeus who in the Letter which he Writ upon this Subject in the Name of the Brothers over whom he presided among the Gauls maintains also that one Sunday must be Celebrated the Resurrection of our Lord yet he advertiseth Victor with much gravity that he ought not to cut off from the Communion whole Churches of God who observe a Tradition and Ancient Custom It will be some difficulty to believe that Bom found in this Affair a Proof of the Authority of the Pope Notwithstanding it is the conclusion he draws from it and grounds 1. Upon that the Bishops who were displeased at this Excommunication would undoubtedly have acted with more haughtiness against Victor if he had not been their Superior whereas they speak unto him with a mildness which marks well that they contested not the Right of Excommunicating the Churches as not being of his Jurisdiction but that they only found fault with the use he made thereof the cause of the Excommunication not being of consequence enough according to them 2. That notwithstanding they were deceived in that and that Victor did well to use this rigour because Blastus one of the principal Patrons of the Opinion of the Asiaticks would have introduced Iudaism under this pretence 3. That the Church approved of the Conduct of Victor in condemning the Bishops of Asia to whom was given the name of Quartodecimal Hereticks 4. That Irenaeus himself hath not doubted of the Superiority of the Bishop of Rome seeing he saith elsewhere That all the Churches must to wit all the Faithful of what place soever they are come to this Church in which the Apostolical Tradition hath been preserved by those who came to it from every Part because of its more powerful Principality Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem Principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio To this Episcopius Replies That the Answer of the Bishops of Asia and the Letter of Irenaeus would not be very respectful if Victor had been the Chief of the Church that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies properly to give a contrary order and those of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acerbius perstringere are not invented to express the submission of a Subject to his Prince and that if these Bishops could take it ill that their Judge a pretended Soveraign and Infallible should banish from the Church and exclude from Heaven so great a number of Churches for so slight a cause they have therefore thought that he might be mistaken in his Decisions upon matters of Faith and that they had a right to examine them 2. That the Heresie of Blastus justifies not the proceedings of Victor seeing the Asiaticks looked not upon the Celebration of the Passover as a necessary Observance and which should precisely be applyed to such a day that they were contented that Victor and other Bishops should Celebrate it on Sunday if they had their Reasons for it but that they having not the same proofs thereof believed themselves not obliged to abandon the Apostolical Tradition It hath not been remarked that our Professor answereth the passage of Irenaeus because we need only to read it throughly to shew that there is no mention there of the Right of the Bishop of Rome in the Decision of Controversies but only of the Characters which they in the time of Irenaeus did acknowledge Apostolical Thereupon he saith That it must be sought for in the places where the Apostles have established Bishops but because it would be too long to make an enumeration of all the Apostolick Churches he stops at one of the most ancient and greatest which is the Church of Rome As this City was the Capital of the Empire Principalitas Potentior and that for that Reason the Inhabitants of divers Provinces negotiated there and were obliged to come thither Irenaeus concludes that the Apostolical Tradition could not fail of having been faithfully kept there since that if the Christians of a Province or of a City had been minded to corrupt it the Christians of other places who were at Rome would have opposed it it being improbable to suppose that so many different Nations would agree to abandon in so little a time the Doctrine of the Apostles II. Bom often alledged passages out of St. Augustin for the Authority of Popes that gave occasion to Episcopius of citing him the 22d Canon of the Council of Millan where St. Augustin was Secretary and another Canon of the 6th Council of Carthage where this Bishop also assisted both which prohibited the drawing Ecclesiastical Causes of the Diocess of Africk on the other side the Sea whether they regard the Inferior Members of the Clergy or the very Bishops That the Deputies of the Pope having represented to the Assembly That this Canon destroyed the Priviledges which the Council had granted to the Patriarch of Rome in permitting Ecclesiasticks to appeal unto him in Judgments had against them by the Ordinaries the Bishops of Africk were extreamly surprized and said all Unanimously That they never heard of such Priviledges Thereupon these Deputies related three Canons which they said to be of the Council of Nice the Fathers of Carthage to Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch and the Authentick Copies of this Council where not finding these three Canons they Writ to the Pope That the Right of Appealing which he pretended to in quality of Supream Judge and belonged not to him by virtue of the Council of Nice seeing the Three Canons upon which he grounded his pretentions were not to be found in the Originals The Exceptions are reduced to this 1. That the Council of Millan prohibits but the Inferior Clerks to Appeal beyond the Sea and that this is evident because Pope Innocent to whom the Synod of Millan submitted all their Decrees as to the Head of the Church approved the Canon in question 2. That there is no reason to believe that the Copy of the Council of Nice which was kept at Rome was supposed but that there is much more likelyhood that those of Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria were defective seeing the Manuscript upon which Ruffinus Writ his History was so and that there are several Canons of this Council cited in that of Calcedonia and in St. Ambros St. Augustin and Ierome which are not found in this Historian 3. That the Decrees which are accused of Supposition have been cited by other Popes before Zozime as Iulius speaks who living but Twenty years after the Council of Nice could easily have been convinced
The Bishop of Worcester maintains that the Pope could not convocate Councils but within the extent of the suburbicary Provinces tho' he denyes not but on certain singular occasions other Bishops have not been invited to these Councils as when Aurelian permitted the Bishops of Italy to assemble at Rome for the Affair of Paul of Samosatus But the Bishops of the Diocess of Italy who acknowledged the Bishop of Milan as chief thought themselves not obliged to be at the Patriarchal Councils of Rome And that which is remarkable is that one of these Councils was of Sentiments very different from him who then was upon the Patriarchal See of this City concerning the Ordination of Maximus to be Bishop of Constantinople Damasus writ twice to Constantinople with much fervour for the deposing of Maximus But St. Ambrose and the Bishops of his Diocess in a Synodical Letter to Theodosius justified the Ordination of Maximus and disapproved the Election of Gregory and Nectairus The Defenders of the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome are asked If this Council acknowledged the Patriarchal Power of this Bishop Mr. Schelstrate saith after Father Lupus That the Power of the Pope gave him the Right of deciding all things consulting only the Bishops who could do nothing without him If that is true it must be granted That the Italick Diocess was without the limits of the Patriarchate of Rome seeing the Bishops of this Diocess sent their Advices to the Emperor without having any respect to the Sentiments of Damasus Dr. Stillingfleet sheweth the independancy of the same Bishops in respect to Rome by the Example of the Council of Capua where St. Ambrose presided without asking so much as the Advice of the Bishop of Rome To prove that the Pope had the Right of calling the Bishops of all the West to all his Patriarchal Councils Mr. Schelstrate relates some Examples of Bishops amongst the Gauls and Great Britain who were at some Roman Councils But he is answered That it is no wonder that some should be found in extraordinary Rencounters and that it doth not follow from thence that the Pope was Patriarch of all the West no more than that Councils of Western Bishops being held at Milan Arles Rimini Sardis and elsewhere prov'd That the Bishops of these Cities were their Patriarchs It ought to be shewn That the Pope convocated the Bishops of the West by vertue of his Patriarchal Authority There was also a great Difference amongst the Councils assembled for the Vnity of Faith and the Discipline of divers Diocesses and the Provincial or Patriarchal Synods câ—nvocated at a certain time to appear before the Metropolitan or the Patriarch This is seen in the Diurnus Romanus where the Bishops of Rome oblige themselves to be present at the Councils of this City assembled at certain times as Garnier sheweth He saith it was thrice a year but no more for the Suburbicary Churches which had no other Primate but the Bishop of Rome The last of the Patriarchal Rights was to receive Appeals of the Provinces of the Patriarchship By these Appeals we must not understand the free Choice that parties can make for one to be an Arbitrator of their Differences but Juridical Appeals from an inferiour Tribunal to a higher one It hath oft fallen out that Bishops have been chosen Arbitrators of a common approbation to make others agree or that Bishops intermedled in the Differences of others without pretending to end them with Authority Our Author brings an Example of a Council of the Italick Diocess who medled with a dissention at Constantinople whereof we have already made mention But to this is opposed That the Bishops of Rome have several times sent Legates throughout all the West to examine the causes of the Bishops and to make Report of â—em For the Letters of the Popes to the Bishops of Thessalonica which are in the Roman Collection are cited to prove this But we have already taken notice what Dr. Stillingfleet's Answer is to that He adds here that the Origine of these pretensions was from this That the Council of Sardis being exasperated against the Eastern Bishops gave the Bishop of Rome the liberty to re-examine some Causes in divers Provinces He took the occasion from thence of sending Legates and that was one of the first steps by which he ascended to so great a Power in the West A Doctor of Sorbone who writ some years ago de antiquis majoribus Episcoporum causis alloweth That in the space of CCCXLVII Years viz. about the time of the Council of Sardis no Example of a Cause can be produced which was referred to Rome by the Bishops who were the Judges thereof It is besides Objected That the Council of Arles attributes to the Pope majores Dioeceses but it hath been seen by the Government of this Council which has been spoken of that it was far from acknowledging the Bishop of Rome for Superiour Besides there are reasons to believe that the place where these words are has been corrupted and tho' it was not so this may signifie another thing except this Bishop had a Diocess more large than his Brethren Dr. Stillingfleet refutes some more Reasons of Mr. Schelstrate of small consequence and relates some places of the Letters of Pope Leo where he presses hard the Canons of Nice against the usurpations of the Patriarch of Constantinople and maintains it was not lawful for any to violate or to reveal the Decrees of this Council from whence it 's concluded that the Churches of England are in no wise obliged according to the Discipline of the first Ages to submit to the Pope After having ended this Controversie our Prelate sheweth there is a great likelyhood that some Bishops of England were at the Council of Sardis But thence an occasion is taken to say that the British Churches having received the Council of Sardis they are obliged to acknowledge the Pope for the Patriarch of the West seeing this Council hath established the Appeals to the Bishop of Rome To see if this Objection be of any force Dr. Stillingfleet examines the Design and the Proceedings of this Council as follows Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria had been deposed by two Synods of Eastern Bishops for some Crimes of which he was accused He could not hope to have this Judgment reverst in the East because the Arian Party was very strong there he made his Address to the Bishops of the West and particularly to Iulius Bishop of Rome as to the Chief He desired that his Process might be reverst and shewed by Letters of divers Bishops of Aegypt that he had not been heard according to the Forms neither at Tyre nor Antioch because of the violence of the Faction of Eusebius Thereupon Iulius having communicated his Design to his Brethren the Bishops of the West writ in their name and his own to the Eastern Bishops That it was just to examine this Cause by
Judges that were not suspected of Partiality and desired them to go to the places where these Judges should be with the Informations they had taken against Athanasius The Bishops of the East would not hearken to it whereupon those of the West received Athanasius Marcellus and other Bishops of their Party into their Communion Those of the East were extreamly affronted at it there were many Complaints on each side and at last the two Emperours Constantius and Constantine agreed to call a General Council at Sardis to decide this Difference There went Bishops to it from all parts but the Western Bishops were willing that the deposed Bishops should be admitted to the Communion and take place in the Council the Eastern would not suffer it and withdrew to Philippopolis where they protested against the Proceedings of Sardis as contrary to the Canons of Nice The Bishops of the West notwithstanding continued their Session and made new Canons to justifie their Conduct The Eastern Bishops complained that the Discipline established at Nice was manifestly violated and the Western Bishops said That there was Injustice done to the deposed Bishops that Athanasius had not been heard in Aegypt and that it was just that all the Bishops of the Empire should re-examine this Affair The Bishops of Sardis had no respect to the reasons of their Brethren they renounced not the Communion of Athanasius and made divers Canons the chief of which are the III. the IV. the V. which concern the Revisal of the Causes of Bishops In the third they declared that the causes should first come before the Bishops of the Province and if one of the Parties was grieved by the Sentence he should be granted a Revision Our Author makes divers Remarks upon two Canons of the Council of Antioch to which its commonly believed that that of the Council of Sardis has some affinity which we have spoken of our Author discovers the Irregularities of the Councils of Antioch and Tyre He also remarks that to obtain the Revision of an Ecclesiastial cause an Address was made to the Emperor who convocated a greater number of Bishops to make this new Examination The Council of Sardis made an Innovation in this for it seems that it took away as much as it could the Right of reviewing these sorts of Causes from the Emperor to give it to Iulius Bishop of Rome in honour to St. Peter He might by the Authority of this Council if he thought fit Convocate the Bishops of the Province to revise the Process and to add Assistant Judges to them as the Emperor used to do Besides this the Fourth Canon enjoyn'd that no Bishop should enter into a vacant Bishoprick by the deposition of him who was in it nor should undertake to Examin a-new a Process until the Bishop of Rome had pronounced his Sentence thereupon The Fifth Canon signifies That if he judges the Cause worthy of Revising it belongs to him to send Letters to the Neighbouring Bishops to re-examine but if he thinks it not fit the Judgment pronounced shall stand This is the Power which the Council of Sardis grants to the Pope upon which our Author makes these Remarks 1. That there was somewhat new in this Authority without which these Canons would have been useless Thus de Marca and he who published the Works of Pope Leo have established this Power of the Pope upon the Canons of the Council of Sardis But an Authority given by a particular Council in certain Circumstances as appears by the name of Iulius which is inserted in the Canon cannot extend it self to the following Ages upon the whole this Authority has changed nature so much that now it passeth for an Absolute and Supream Power founded upon a Divine Right and not upon the Acts of one Council 2. These Canons do not give this Bishop the Right of receiving Appeals in quality of Head of the Church but transport only unto him the Right of a Revision which the Emperor enjoyed before It is a great question if the Council of Sardis had the Power of so doing but there is a great likelihood that the Protection which Constantius granted the Arian Party engaged it thereunto 3. These Canons cannot justifie the conduct of those who should carry Causes to Rome by way of Appeal because they return the second Examination to the Bishops of the Province 4. The Council of Sardis it self took knowledge of a Cause which had been decided by the Bishop of Rome 5. This Council could not be justified by the antient Canons in that it received Marcellus to the Communion he who before had been Condemned for Heresie as also afterwards even by Athanasius himself 6. The Decrees of this Assembly were not universally received as it appeared by the Contestations of the Bishops of Africk against that of Rome seeing the first knew nothing of it some years after as our Author sheweth IV. Arianism being spread every where and afterwards Pelagius and Celestius being gone out of England the Clergy of this Isle were accus'd of having been Arians and Pelagians in those Ages Our Author undertakes to justifie them from these suspicions and afterwards describes the Publick Service of the British Churches But as the Ecclesiastical Antiquities of England afford no great matter he hath supplyed them by digressions He immediately refutes I know not what Modern Author who hath been mistaken in some facts concerning the History of Arianism since the Council of Nice at which we shall not make a stay After that there is an Abridgment of this History until the Council of Rimini The Arians being condemned at Nice and vainly opposing the term of Consubstantial thought they could not better save themselves than by yielding to the times They also suffered themselves to be condemned by the Council and to be Banished by the Emperor Arius with Theones and Secondus his Friends Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice Chief Heads of the Arian Faction Signed as the rest yet without changing their Opinion Afterwards they in like manner endeavoured to hide themselves under Equivocations The Circumstances of this History may be seen as Dr. Stillingfleet relates them in the Tenth Tome of the Vniversal Bibliotheque p. 447. and the following ones Yet there are these differences that our Bishop is larger in Reflections drawn from St. Athanasius concerning the Address of the Arians who expressed themselves almost as the Orthodox of that time to deceive the simple Moreover the Relation which we have cited was not made on design to justifie the Orthodox and to get those of the Arians Condemned but to give an Idea of these confusions without taking any Party whereas the design of our Author is to inform the Publick against the Arians without reprehending any thing whatever in the conduct of their Adversaries And our Author hath not applyed himself so much to the order of years which he doth not mark as hath been done in the Life of Eusebius of Caesarea
made a Priest by Innocent the first being retired to Marseilles began to compose Books by which sweetening a little the Sentiments of Pelagius wâ—om he also condemned as a Heretick he gave birth to the opinions to which were since given the Name of Semi-pelagianism His Sentiments may be seen in his Collations or Conferences that St. Prosper hath refuted and maintain'd against the pure Pelagianism Here in a few words is what they were reduced unto I. The Semi-pelagians allowed that men are born corrupted and that they cannot withdraw from this Corruption but by the assistance of Grace which is nevertheless prevented by some motion of the Will as by some good desire whence they said nâ—cum est velle credere Dei autem gratiae est adjuvare to Will to Believe dependeth of me but it 's the Grace of God that helpeth me God according to them expecteth from us these first motions after which he giveth us his Grace II. That God inviteth all the World by his Grace but that it dependeth of the Liberty of men to receive or to reject it III. That God had caused the Gospel to be preached to Nations that he foresaw would embrace it and that he caused it not to be preached to Nations that he foresaw would reject it IV. That notwithstanding he was willing all should be saved he had chosen to Salvation none but those that he saw wou'd persevere in Faith and good Works V. That there was no particular Grace absolutely necessary to Salvation which God gave only to a certain number of men and that men might lose all the Graces they had received VI. That of little Children which died in their Infancy God permitted that those only should be baptized who according to the foreknowledge of God would have been pious if they had lived but on the contrary those that were wicked if they came to a more advanced Age were excluded from Baptism by Providence VII The Semi-pelagians were yet accused to make Grace entirely outward so that according to them it chiefly consisted in the preaching of the Gospel but some of them maintained that there was also an interiour Grace that Pelagius himself did not totally reject Others allowed that there was preventing Grace So it seemeth that the difference that was betwixt them and Pelagius consisted only in this that they allowed Men were born in some measure corrupt and also they pressed more the necessity of Grace at least in words Tho' the difference was not extreamly great he notwithstanding anathematized Pelagius But this they did it 's like in the supposition that Pelagius maintained all the opinions condemned by the Councils of Africk St. Augustine accuseth them to have made the Grace of God wholly to consist in Instruction which only regardeth the understanding when as he believ'd it to consist in a particular and interiour action of the Holy Ghost determining us invincibly to Will good this determination not being the effect of our understanding The other Sentiments of this Father are known opposite either to the Doctrine of Pelagius or that of the Semi-pelagians We may be instructed herein particularly in his Books of Predestination and Perseverance that he writ at the entreaty of St. Proâ—per against the Semi-pelagians and in the works of the latter To come back to the History 't is said that in the year Ccccxxix one Agricola Son of Severiaenus a Pelagian Bishop carried Pelagianism into England but St. Germain Bishop of Auxerre was sent hither by Pope Celestin or by the Bishops of the Gauls and extirpated it suddenly Several miracles are attributed to him in this Voyage and in the stay he made in England as Vsher observes But if what Hector Boetius saith a Historian of Scotland who lived in the beginning of the past Age be true he used a means that is not less efficacious for the extirpation of Heresie which was that the Pelagians that would not retract were burned by the care of the Magistrates But whilst St. Germain purified England the Seeds of Pelagianism that Cassian had spread amongst the Monks of Marseille and in the Narbonick Gaul caused it likewise to grow in France St. Prosper and Hilary had writ of it to St. Augustine and had specified it to him that several Ecclesiasticks of the Gauls looked upon his opinions as dangerous novelties St. Augustine answered to their objections in the books which we lately have named but the support that Hilary Bishop of Arles and Maxim Bishop of Riez granted to the Semi-pelagians hindered any body from molesting them tho' they shewed much aversion for the Doctrine of St. Augustine Iulian and the other Bishops banished as I have already observ'd from Italy were gone to Constantinople where they importuned the Emperour to be re-established but as they were accused of Heresie he would grant them nothing without knowing the reasons why they were banished Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople writ about it to Celestine who answered him after a very sour manner and as if it had not been permitted to be informed of the reason of their condemnation reproaching him at the same time with his particular Sentiments His Letter is dated the 12. of August in the year Ccccxxx. It was at that time that St. Augustine died whose Elogium may be found in our Author who approveth of the praises that Fulgentius giveth him in his 2. Book of the Truth of Predestination where he speaks of him as Inspired A little after his death the Letters of Theodosius that had called him to the Council of Ephesus arrived in Africk whence some Bishops were sent thither In the year Ccccxxxi the 22. of Iune this Council composed of CCX Bishops was assembled for the Condemnation of Nestorius Cyril of Alexandria presided there and whilst it was holding Iohn Bishop of Antioch was assembled with 30. other Bishops who made Canons contrary to those of this Council The particulars were that the party of Cyril and that of Iohn reciprocally accused each other of Pelagianism but the greater part approved of the Deposition of Iulian and other Bishops of Italy that Nestorius had used with more mildness He is accused to have been of their opinion and to have maintained that Jesus Christ was become the Son of God by the good use he made of his Free-will in reward whereof God had united him to the Everlasting Word This was the cause that in this Council Pelagianism and Nestorianism were both condemned together But notwithstanding all this and the cares of three Popes Celestinus Xystus and Leo the first Semi-pelagianism was upheld amongst the Gauls It may be that the manner wherewith Celestine writ to the Bishops of France contributed to it because that tho' he condemned Pelagius with heat and praised St. Augustine he said at the end of his Letter that as to the deep and difficult Questions which were found mingled in this Controversie and which were treated at length by those that opposed the Hereticks that as
by a very plain way Why was not Iesus pleased to render the way more easy and did not tell us where we should find such a Judge We are therefore obliged to look for him saith Episcopious and this Disquisition must necessarily aim at either of these two things Either that each particular Society of Christians and even each Member of this Society attribute to it self the Power of Soveraign judging of Controversies or that the Universal Church to wit the Body of all those who profess the Gospel hath at all times right to chuse such a Judge The first cannot be granted because every one looking upon himself as Infallible no body would submit himself to the Decisions of his Neighbour The second is naturally unpracticable for before the Universal Church can choose a Supream Judge of Controversies it must needs have cast it's Eyes upon divers Subjects capable of fulfilling this Charge and examined carefully their capacity And how shall it make this Examination All the Christian Societies must concur in this Election But how should they agree thereupon and whom could they choose who should not be suspitious or uncapable of this Employment Seeing all Christians have already taken Parties and those who are not Christians understand not our Disputes Add to this that tho Men would be decided by the ordinary Judges of the Roman Church there would still a Party of Male-Contents remain If the Pope was chosen France would appeal to the General Council if a Council was assembled Italy would not accept on 't until it had been confirmed by the Pope and this Bishop would only do it upon condition that this Ecumenick Council would acknowledge it self beneath him which is contrary to the pretensions of France The impossibility of this Design is an evident proof according to our Author that God will not have his Church to be governed after the manner of the Kingdoms of the Earth where one is obliged to submit without knowing for what because there is but the Body and some transitory Goods in question But the Kingdom of God extending it self over the Soul and Conscience Men must be instructed convinced and persuaded Men must read pray meditate and live Christianly to obtain the Grace of distinguishing Truth from Falshood In vain would Scripture teach us these Truths and exhort us to these practices if there were an infallible Judge All this would be useless neither is it of great me amongst those who believe they have one All the World knoweth the ridiculous explications the Roman Doctors gave to Scripture before Protestants had put it into the hands of the People and no body is ignorant of the many Truths which have been discovered since it hath been believed that every one should instruct himself in the Will of God by his Word It is true that there have arisen Disputes which are the unavoidable consequences of Examination But if Christians applyed themselves only to Scripture and that instead of deciding of their Differences when Scripture is not clear thereupon they supported each other with a mutual Charity we should soon see them become both more wholsome in their Opinions and more reformed in their Manners It is a consequence very clear and very easie to comprehend but such as apparently will never be justified by Experience V. The last writing of Bom is a small Treatise to prove that St. Peter hath been established Head of the Catholick Church where this Priest relates the common Passage of Controvertists Thou art Peter c. Feed my Sheep c. The Answer of Episcopius is not complete but that which there is on 't appears more than sufficient to refute all the Objections of the Missionaries The first Reason would be even enough which is that although his Adversary had clearly proved his Thesis he would do nothing for all that if he did not shew that the promises made to St. Peter regard also his Successors whereas most of the Fathers have taken them for personal Priviledges as Tertullian in his Book of Chastity c. 21. who speaks thus to Pope Zephirin If because the Lord hath said to Peter Vpon this Rock I will build my Church I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and all that thou shalt bind or unbind upon Earth shall be bound or unbound in Heaven If I say for that cause you imagine that the power of unbinding or binding is passed unto you to wit to all the Churches founded by Peter Who are you that overturn and change the clear intention of the Lord who hath conferred this personally on Peter Vpon thee saith he I will build my Church and I will give thee the Keys and not to the Church and all that thou shalt unbind and not that they shall unbind 2. After having shewed that these Priviledges are not personal it should be proved that they regard only the Bishops of Rome excluding those of Antioch 3. That they regard them all without exception and without condition to wit That all and every one of the Popes are infallible as well in Fact as Right against the Experience and the Sentiment of most of the Doctors of the Roman Communion 4. It should be defined what the Catholick Church is and shewed by formal passages that these Terms denominate the Body of Pastours which is called the Representative Church which is impossible Whereas it is very easy to shew that the Church signifieth in Scripture only the People in opposition to Pastours And in this sense there is nothing more absurd than all that is said of the Power of the Church and it's Priviledges seeing it is but the Body of the Pope's Subjects and Roman Clergy and that Subjects who are far from making Decisions must submit and obey their Lot 5. After all this it should be still proved that the Priviledges given to St. Peter and the Bishops of Rome his Successors import not simply a Primacy of Order and some Authority in things which regard the Discipline and Government of the Church which Protestants could grant without doing a prejudice to their Cause but they do moreover mark a Primacy of Jurisdiction of Sovereignty and Infallibility in matters of Faith which is impossible to be proved by Scripture and all the Monuments we have of Antiquity and which is even contradictory seeing the belief of a Fact or Truth is persuaded and forceth not it self Have not Roman Catholicks much Grace to accuse Protestants of Obstinacy because they refuse to embrace a Hypothesis which supposeth so many dubious Principles whereof most are contested even amongst the Divines of Rome and to ask them to obey the Church without distinctly telling them what this Church is or in what consists the Submission which is required of them or how far it ought to be extended An Abridgment of Universal History The First Part containing the Ecclesiastical History in Two Books by Henry le Bret Provost of the Cathedral Church of Montauban in 125. 3 Volumes At
Knowledg is still wanting what becomes of these Vapours when they are rais'd in the Air and from whence comes that Current which always appears at the entrance of the Straits of Gibralter but Mr. Halley sends us back once more to examine it only advertises the Reader that to make the Experiment which he hath spoken of he must make use of Water which hath been Salted to the same Degree that the common Sea Water is dissolving therein one fortieth part of Salt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SEU De Punctorum Origine Antiquitate Authoritate OR A DISCOURSE Concerning the ANTIQUITY DIVINE ORIGINAL AND AUTHORITY OF THE Points Uowels and Accents That are placed to the HEBREW BIBLE In TWO PARTS By a Member of the ATHENIAN SOCIETY Quod superest de Vocalium Accentuum Antiquitate eorum sententiae subscribo qui Linguam Hebraeam tamquam c. i. e. As for the Antiquity of the Vowels and Accents I am of their Opinion who maintain the Hebrew Language as the exact Pattern of all others to have been plainly written with them from the Beginning seeing that they who are otherwise minded do not only make Doubtful the Authority of the Scriptures but in my Iudgment wholly pluck it up by the Roots for without the Vowels and Notes of Distinction it hath nothing firm and certain Anton. Rodulph Cevallerius Rudimenta Hebraicae Linguae cap. 4. pag. 16. LONDON Printed for Iohn Dunton at the Raven in the Poultrey MDCXCII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OR A Discourse concerning the Antiquity and Original of the Points Vowels and Accents that are placed to the Hebrew Bible In Two Parts The FIRST PART WHEREIN The Opinions of Elias Levita Ludivicus Capellus Dr. Walton and Others for the Novelty of the Points are considered their Evidences for the same examined and the Improbability of their Conceit that the Masorites of Tiberias Pointed the Text is at large discovered from the Silence of the Iews about it their Testimonies against it the Unfitness of the Time Place and Persons of late assigned for the Invention of the Points from the Nature of the Masora and of the Masoretick Notes on the Verses Words Letters Points Vowels and Accents of the Old Testament Their Observations on all the Kinds of the Keri U Ketib the Words written Full or Defective the Ittur Sopherim the Tikkun Sopherim and the rest of the Parts of the Masora and from other Considerations The SECOND PART Containing the Principal Testimonies and Arguments of Iews and Christians for the Proof of the Antiquity Divine Original and Authority of the Points Vowels and Accents Wherein the chiefest Objections of Elias Capellus and Others are either Obviated or briefly Answered The Cause Occasion and Method of the ensuing Discourse is declared in the Prooemium or Introduction AMongst our Abstracts of Books that have a more particular Relation to Ecclesiasticks such as the various Editions of the Bible Iurieu's System of the Church c. we have thought fit to insert this our own following Collection which perhaps may more particularly treat of the Parts of the Masora than any Piece yet extant It will be of great Use to all Scholars that are design'd for the Study of the Original Tongues and will help to make good our Title-page The Young Students Library We have herein endeavoured to remove some Prejudices and reconcile the Differences of the Learned on this great and weighty Subject which is of no less Consequence than the receiving or rejecting the Bible it self We must not enlarge in Prefacing to any Work where the Works themselves are to be Absteacts but referr you to the Subject it self Advice to the Young Students of Divinity Recommending the Study of the Scriptures in their Original Languages together with the Writings and Commentaries of the Rabbins thereupon with Directions for the Knowledge thereof Men and Brethren YOur Work is the greatest as St. Paul saith Who is sufficient for these things Consider what Knowledge the Work you must account for at the last Tribunal doth most require and attend it Hoc age You are to have the Care of Souls and to your Trust are committed the Oracles of God Your great Concern therefore is to know the Mind of God as it is revealed in his Word that you may teach it others and defend it against all Opposers This is all you are entrusted with and shall be judged by to wit the Bible This Word or Mind of God is contained perfectly in the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament only Translations are no further God's Word than they do express the sense thereof which in all places they cannot perfectly do without more words than are allowed to to be in a Translation These Sacred Originals are the Standard and Rule of our Life Worship and Doctrine and the Fate of all Translations depends on their Preservation If therefore the Teachers need not know nor be able to defend the Original none else need Then were the Translation of it needless and so the Scripture it self and thereby all Religion and Ministery to boot if any of these things are needful they are all so for they stand or fall together Now that we may know the Mind of God in his Word we must first know what the words themselves do signifie and properly and literally mean This we cannot do in many places without the help of the Rabbins or of those who have been taught by them which is much the same and that on several Accounts which renders their Work needful as Leusden in Philologus Hebraeo-mixtus pag. 115 c. and others do manifest As 1 st Because many words as to the Grammar and sense of them could not be known without the help of those Masters of the Hebrew Tongue as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioel 2.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioel 2.8 c. 2. There are many words but once used in Scripture especially in such a sence and are called the Apax legomena or ein lo chober bemikr◠which we cannot know the meaning of without their help and herein they are singular though they lament the loss they have been put to about them vid. Kimchi in his Preface on Miklol Also Kimchi in his Preface on Sepher Sherashim tells a Story how they knew not the meaning of that word a Besom in the Prophet's sweeping with the Beesom of Destruction till in Arabia a Rabbin heard a Woman say to her Daughter Take the Besom and sweep the House So Ioel 2.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sword To conclude There are very many such words but once used which as they cannot be known by the Bible alone so neither can the sence of the place be known wherein they are till they are first known and this is in many places 3. Many Phrases and divers ways of Speech are very dubious in the Old and New Testament which are well illustrated and explained by the Rabbins as Ioel 1.20 Ionah 1.5 Iudg. 12.7 Gen. 2.2 c. And
them all but do no more than barely note them Hence we conclude the Punctation and all the Parts of it were long before the Masorites and before these Masoretick Notes else they would have made no Anomalies or given a Reason why they did make any If now the whole Punctation were not finished until A. D. 1030. as Capellus supposeth then there is no time left for the Masorites to live in for the Grammarians succeeded Ben Asher A.D. 1030. and take no notice of them which they would not have omitted had any such Criticks in their Learning been in their time But if the Punctation were finished A. D. 500. as Elias supposeth then these Masorites who made the Points could not make these Notes on the Anomalies thereof also as he imagineth they did but were long after them Vtrum horum mavis accipe Capellus saith If the Masorites did not Point the Text it follows not the Points were before A.D. 500. Resp. None else besides the Masorites are pretended to be the Authors of the Points since Ezra's time If therefore the Masorites did not Point the Text it must have been Pointed in Ezra's time Capellus supposeth the Anomalies may be either from Use against Grammar or by Errour or Design In supposing it was by following Use and Custom against Grammar-Rule it must then be allowed 1 st That all the Points Vowels and Accents are usefully distinct from each other which elsewhere he denyes for they must distinguish all these Anomalies in their Sound by the Ear till the Punctation was placed His other Conjectures That it may be it was done by Errour shews how little he regards the Providential Care of God over his Word to be a perfect Rule to the Worlds end so he can get but an it may be it was Errour and then it may be it was Design and yet a Posse ad esse non valet consequentia as before was observed We cannot conclude that every thing is actually whatever it may possibly be It may be saith Capellus the first Authors of the Points made these Anomalies by mistake but the succeeding Masorites finding of them supposed they were designedly made at first and so left and noted them Resp. 1 st Then the Points Vowels and Accents were made long before these Notes on the Anomalies of all the Parts of the Punctation 2. Then the Punctation was not 500 years in composing for all on 't was finished before these Notes were made which yet were many Ages in making 3. Then the first Masorites were the greatest blundering Blockheads that ever were to make such innumerable palpable Mistakes in what they had invented themselves And yet their Successors must be supposed to esteem them so infallibly exact as to follow them universally against their own Sence and Reason not daring to rectifie one Mistake 4. If Ben Asher A. D. 1040. finished the Punctation why did he not rectifie these Mistakes or Anomalies in all the Parts of it And then let him produce some Evidence that this Masora or the Notes on these Anomalies were made by Masorites that lived since Ben Asher's time whereas the Grammarians succeeded Ben Asher and take no notice of any such Secondly Capelius says if this won't do that 't was done by Mistake then It may be it was done at first designedly by the first Masorites the Causes whereof we may not know which the following Masorites to prevent any Alterarion of them through inadvertency have made those Notes on them And this is not strange seeing we must suppose Ezra did it designedly nor yet absurd seeing we suppose Ezra did the same Resp. 1 st Still the Punctation was all finished by the first Masorites contrary to his Opinion elsewhere 2. Ezra was a publick Person and divinely inspired but the Masorites were private Persons and had neither ordinary nor extraordinary Call or Authority to place innumerable Points contrary to all Grammar-Rule without rendring an Account of the Reason why they did so And therefore 2 ly 'T is absurd in them though it was not so in Ezra for as Capellus saith the cause of these Anomalies might be that such was the Use and Custom of the Tongue so to express some words different from Grammar-Rule This might be known and done by Ezra but could not be done by the Masorites because the knowledge of such Niceties as the Anomalous Sounds were lost long before their time In short this we say from hence 1. The Masorites are the Authors of the Masora we know no other of their Works than this 2. These have made the Notes that are made on the Anomalous Punctation And 3. They who made these Notes we have proved were not the Authors of the Punctation because all the Punctation must have been made long before these Notes could be made thereon and therefore we conclude that the Masorites were not the Authors of the Punctation CHAP. XIV The Absurdity of the Opinion That the Masorites Pointed the Text A. D. 500. discovered from the Evidence there is that the Masora which the Masorites made was long before A. D. 500. THe Masorites or Authors of the Masora must by all means be accounted for the Authors of the Punctation and yet it will not be allowed that the Points were invented before A. D. 500. after the Talmuds We shall therefore prove that the Masora it self or the principal Parts of it were before the Talmuds being owned as such in the Talmuds themselves Now as to the Parts of the Masora the Antiquity whereof we are to examine we agree with the Account that Elias himself giveth us thereof in Masoret Hammasoret pag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who tells us That by the Masorites the Scriptures are preserved so well that no change can befall them in time to come in the least And hence they are called a Hedge to the Law which otherwise had been lost These Masorites he saith numbred all the Verses Words and Letters of every Book of the Bible and hence were called Sopherim or Numberers and hereby they found that Vau in the word Gihon was the middle of the Law as to the Letters Darash in Darash Moshe was the middlemost word And he put on him the Breast-plate Lev. 8.8 was the middlemost Verse in the Law And the like was done of every Book of the Bible or twenty four Books As also they numbred the Verses Words and Letters in every Parasha or Section of the Law as well as the whole Law which had 60045 Letters Also they reckoned how oft every Letter in the Alphabet was found in the Scriptures As for Instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aleph was found saith he 42377 times in the Bible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beth 38218 times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 29537 times and so of the rest Thus far Elias Now we shall prove that the Parts of the Masora here mentioned were long before the Talmuds and yet the Authors of these Parts of the Masora are here called the
not Hebrew And as to the Opinion of many Modern Divines both Papist and Protestant about the Novelty of the Points there is no cause to wonder at it For 1. For the Papists 't is their great Interest to have the Bible rendred unmeet to be a perfect Rule of Faith that some necessity thereby might be supposed for the Infallibility of their Pope and 't is no marvel if they embrace this Advantage And as to Protestants 't is known the Authority of Elias the Great if not Only Master of the Hebrew Tongue of their time was very greatly esteemed among them And how easie is it for so great a Master to instill his own Notions into the Minds of those that depend upon his Instruction He lived with Paulus Eligius for some time and when some few Eminent Men among the Christians are at first infected with such an Opinion not at first it may be well considering the Consequences that do attend it jow readily do Others who esteem them for Leaders in that kind of Learning follow them without duly examining the Merits of the Cause as is the practice of most Scholars that do not penetrate very far into a particular part of Learning to embrace the common Notions about it without examining of the them But moreover whilst these very Divines themselves together with all Christian States Nations and Churches do follow the Hebrew Bible as it is at present Pointed and publickly embrace those Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongue of each Nation as are taken either from the Original Hebrew Bible as it is Pointed or from those Translations that are so translated or pretended so to be which is the present state of Affairs throughout Christendom We have an ample full and sufficient Testimony of all Christian States Churches and People Learned and Unlearned for the Antiquity and Divine Authority of the Points For though some Protestant Divines deny the Antiquity of the Shapes they all own the Divine Authority of the Sounds of the Points and thereby follow the Punctation But the generality of Protestants own the Antiquity of the Shapes as well as the Sounds of the Points And that this is the publick professed Opinion of all or most of the Protestant Universities Colledges Doctors of Divinity and Professors of the Hebrew Tongue in most of the Protestant States and Churches beyond Sea is proved by a large Collection of their several Suffrages and Judgments about the Antiquity of the Points lately delivered and Printed by Matthias Wasmuth in the end of his Treatise entituled Vindiciae Hebraeae Scripterae c. adversus Impia Imperita multorum prejudicia imprimis contra Capelli Vossii F. Waltoni Autoris Operis Anglicani Polyglotton Assertiones falsissimas pariter as pernitiosas So that we have herein the full and ample Testimony of the Christian States and Churches of all Ages and Places as well as of all the Jews for the Antiquity of the Points § 3. Now the strength of this Argument lyes in this That the Hebrew Bible as it is Pointed is become the peaceable Possession Treasure and Inheritance of the Church and People of God by Prescription It hath always in all Ages been enjoyed and under the Conduct and Guidance of it they have safely arrived at Glory when all others wandered in darkness who have been totally without it or some Translations taken from it or from those that were so taken as is the LXX the Syriack Vulgar Latine and all others only some more and some less truly and exactly Hereupon we have sufficient ground to acquiesce in it and all that can be desired of us is That when any accuse it of being a Novelty we fairly examine what Evidence they can produce to prove their Charge This we have done at large in the FIRST PART and shewed the Accusations and Charges brought in against the Antiquity of the Points are all False altogether Improbable in every respect and on several accounts Impossible That all the Evidence is totally silent in what it is brought to testifie and witnesseth to the quite contrary of what 't is brought to prove declaring the Antiquity instead of the Novelty of the Points So that hereby the Antiquity of the Points appears with the greater lustre having passed the Fire of Tryal and Examination Nay Dr. Walton himself confesseth Considerator Considered pag. 208. the Text was generally so read by the Christian Church as it is now as appears both by the Hebrew Copies among them and by the Comments and Expositions and Translations of the ancient Writers of the Church And indeed our Debate is not with any Protestants about the Divine Authority of the Punctation directly for they universally own it even those who suppose that the Shapes of the Points were first invented by the Masorites of Tiberias A. D. 500. The Hebrew Bible as it is Pointed is enjoyed and owned by all Jews universally even Elias Levita himself and by all Christians too a few Papists only excepted to be the only Standard whereby all Translations and Doctrins are to be tried unless what Capellus and Vossius hold to the contrary And we have already proved in the Prooemium and in Chap. 8. of the First Part and elsewhere That the Opinion of those who suppose the Shapes of the Points to be first invented A. D. 500. by the Masorites is utterly inconsistent with their own Opinion of the Antiquity and Divine Authority of the Sound and Force of the Points it being impossible to preserve the true Sound until that time without the Shapes of them So that we must either reject the Punctation and then we have neither Standard nor Bible left us or else we must own the Antiquity of the Shapes as well as the Sounds of the Points Vowels and Accents as all the Jews and the generality of Christians acknowledge And so much for the Testimony of Jews and Christians for the Antiquity of the Points together with Answers to the several Objections that are made thereunto The Second Part of the Second Part of this Discourse WHEREIN The Reasons of Jews and Christians for the Antiquity of the Points are Stated and the Objections against them Answered CHAP. IV. §. 1. The First Reason for the Antiquity of the Points stated and maintained That the Vowels are oft expressed in the Bible by the Punctation only and yet are so essential to Speech that all Languages are constrained to express them in one shape or other §. 2. The Objection That the Bible may be read without Points because the Rabbininical Commentaries the Mishna the Talmuds and the Oriental Tongues may be so read and the Greek without Accents Answered The Bible oft expresseth the Vowels only by the Points which the Rabbins and other Tongues express by the Vowel Letters §. 3. As is evinced by several Instances §. 4. And the Argument thereby proved § 1. WE proceed in the next place to Artificial Arguments or Reasons And these are of Two
the Twenty fifth of December some the Twenty sixth of December some the Twentieth of April some the Seventeenth of April and some the Sixteenth of May. There was yet another Feast amongst them called by us Epiphany mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus The Author observes they kept no other Saints days nor did they call 〈◊〉 Apostles Saints but plain Matthew 〈◊〉 c. only they celebrated the Anniversaâ—â— of their own Martyrs praising their Actions and exhorting one another to Imitation the Place of their Meeting was at their Graves and Tombs Lastly our Author observes that their Festivals were not times of Revelling Drunkenness Gluttony c. but in Acts of Piety Charity and Religious Employments X. In the Tenth and last Chapter our Author comes to consider the Ceremonies of the Primitive Church for instance when they Baptized in some Churches the new Member had Milk and Hony given to him and in some Places before they prayed they washed their Hands they had Exorcism before Baptism and Unction after and innumerable more such Ceremonies which crept in partly by a Misunderstanding some Texts and partly by being amongst the Superstitious Heathens Yet the Churches retain'd their own Liberty and Customs without imposing or being impos'd upon by one another I shall give only one of those many Instances that our Author has brought for his Purpose 't is out of a Fragment of an Epistle written by Irenaeus and other Bishops of France wherein they affirm that Victor was in the right with respect to the time of Easter that it ought to be celebrated as he said on the Lords Day but that yet he had done very ill to cut off from the Unity of the Church those that observed it otherwise that it had never been known that any Churches were Excommunicated for a disagreement in Rites an Instance of which there was not only in the time of Easter its self but in the Fast that preceded it Some fasted one day others more some forty hours which variety of Observations began not first in our Age but long before us in the times of our Ancestors who yet preserved Peace and Unity amongst themselves as we now do for the Diversity of Fasts commended the Unity of Faith And as for this Controversie concerning the time of Easter the Bishops which governed the Church of Rome before Soter viz. Anicetus Pius Higynus Telesphorus and Xystus they never celebrated it the same time with the Asiaticks neither would they permit any of their People so to do but yet they were kind and peaceable to those who came to them from those Parishes where they did otherwise observe it and never any for this Cause were thrown out of the Church even their Predecessors though they did not keep it yet they sent the Eucharist to those that did keep it and when in the times of Anicetus blessed Polycarp came to Rome and there were some Controversies between them they did not separate from one another but still maintained Peace and Love And though Anicetus could never perswade Polycarp nor Polycarp Anicetus to be of each others mind yet they Communicated one with another and Anicetus in Honour to Polycarpus permitted him to Consecrate the Sacrament in his Church and so they departed in mutual Love and Kindness and all the Churches whether observing or not observing 〈◊〉 same Day retained Peace and Unity amongst themselves Apud Euseb. Lib. 5. Cap. 24. Pag. 192 193. After all our Author concludes with a most passionate Exhortation to Love and Peace amongst our selves protesting that in this Treatise he has not been byass'd by any Party or Faction whatever but has endeavour'd a plain full and impartial discovery of Truth leaving every one to their Liberty as to the Judgment they shall make of it He says he has left out many Ancient things and handled mostly those Points that are now in dispute amongst us He has taken a great deal of pains in citing his Authorities all along In short he has out-done all that ever have Wrote in this kind before him and yet with a Spirit of so much Modesty and Humility that every Party may see their Errors without having any cause to be angry withe their Exposer He has given a Table of the Fathers Names which he has made use of as also their Ages and Countries that we may thereby be able to ghess at the Original of some Customs amongst them and the Places where they were chiefly practised St. Clementis Epistolae duae ad Corinthâ—os Interpretibus Patricio Iunio Gottifredo Vendelino Iohan. Bapt. Cotelerio Recensuit Notarum Spicilegium adjecit Paulus Colemesius Bibliothecae Lambethanae Curator Accedit Thomae Brunonis Canonici Windesoriensis Dissertatio de Therapeutis Philonis His subnexae sunt Epistolae aliquot singulares vel nunc primum Editae vel non ita facile obviae London Impensis Jacobi Adamson 1687. in 120. Pag. 377. 1. THese Epistles of St. Clement which were known only by some Citations of the Ancients were published the first time more than forty Years ago by Patricius Iunius who found them joined to the end of the New Testament in the famous MS. of Alexandria This Learned Man added to them a Latin Version and Notes William Burton Translated them into English in 1677 and added likewise Remarks of his own much larger than those of Iunius The Edition of the latter being soon become scarce it was imitated at Helmstadt in 1654 and Iochim Iohn Maderus added to it a new Preface since that time the Edition hath appear'd in Twelves by Dr Fell Bishop of Oxford and that of Mr. Cotelier in Folio Here is a fifth which we owe to the Care of Mr. Colomies who hath compared the precedent Editions with the MS. whence they have taken them and hath shew'd that the Learned Iunius was some times mistaken and had in the Reading this MS. put a wrong Sense upon many things we shall give an Example hereof after we have made some little mention of a small Dissertation which Mr. Colomies placed before St. Clement Entituled De Clementis ejus Epistolarum tempore Vandelini Divinatio This Vandelin was Tutor to the famous Gassendus and died Chanon of Ghent He believes that St. Clement was near the Age of St. Iohn the Evangelist and lived as long as he dying the third Year of the Reign of Trajan at Chersone in Pontus whither he was banished The Ancients all agree that St. Clement was Bishop of Rome but they do not agree upon the time he was so nor upon the Order which ought to be given him in the List of the first Bishops of this City Baronius himself confessed that he was not well assured of the order of the Succession of these Bishops until the Year CLXXIX Vandelin undertakes in this Dissertation to resolve the Difficulties by the means of the old Breviaries and Martyrologies after which he speaks of the time in which the Epistles of St. Clement were written As his
reason to the Author against the Opinion of Polygamists For it would be a Civil-war as dangerous in the small Domestick State as in a Common-wealth wherein every one would be Master Those which unhappily find that Repenting Marriage claims the Rights Of Palling Ioys and Tedious Nights Will not perhaps think these Arguments convincing As Marriages are commonly the Works of Love or Fortune how can we still apply our selves to the same person when the Heart hath not chosen her or to make our tenderness live longer than the Charms which gave it birth Second Marriages would remedy all and would be a kind of Infidelity and Inconstancy without a crime Besides the Jealousie of several Women animated with a design to please and to be preferred is not without Charms Is it not said That the Patriarch Iacob was rejoyced by the Emulation of Lea which had given Mandrakes to obtain what was due to the Beauty of Rachel Whilst a Woman which hath no Rival keeps the heart of her Husband without any fear of losing it But this is to be understood something more seriously and it is maintain'd that the reasons which favour Poligamy are suggested by the Intemperance and corruption of the Heart And indeed Honesty which is an inviolable Law in good Manners doth not suffer these Extravagant Conjunctions and Immoderate Transports Love who only looks on the heart of the person beloved cannot consent to those new Engagements which divide his Cares and Wishes But Debauchery may be extended to a thousand because it hath but unsetled Sentiments After that the Author enters into a Calculation of numbers to perswade Men what a rashness it is to have several Women at once Iuvenal saith who reckon'd it amongst the Troubles of Marriage that if a poor Husband hath slept quietly all Night nothing is in order the next day and the Wife expresseth nothing but Discontent after a most Terrible manner Si nocte maritus Aversus jacuit tota periit domus All the Infirmities which spring from Debauchery are here marked out as so many Reasons to overthrow Poligamy and we must not forget to take notice of the Pains of the Gout which make Old Men remember the sins of their Youth In fine because Errour seems to have its spring as much from the Temperament as from the Heart Mr. Mayerus prescribes ways how to overcome it He compareth the Flesh to a mad Horse which ought to be tamed by Temperance and Work In the 4th Chapter he answers the great Argument of the Polygamists which is drawn from almost all people who have ever made use of it To end the Dispute of this History the Author observes that the Author of Poligamy was Lamech and his example though a great Libertine was almost generally followed So that the Rabbins maintain that before the Flood they were wiser than we in following Ages because they took two Wives one for Pleasure and Delight and the other only to get Children The Emperors Theodosius Arcadias and Honorius in 393. forbid Poligamy by an express Law It is certain that until then it was very common throughout the whole Empire and with the Nations of the East The Romans which were a little more severe in their Manners did not put it in practice Mark Anthony being seduced by the Charms of Cleopatra was the first who took the liberty of marrying two Wives although some pretend that Caesar had introduced the liberty by a Law which was since renewed by the Emperour Valentinian the I. Whence Polygamists may conclude that it is a natural Law because Grotius confounds the Law of Nations with that of Nature And Mr. Mayerus is of Opinion that the Corruption and Errors of Nations constitute not the Laws of Nations since we have seen some so barbarous as to feed on human Flesh So we must consult the Laws of Nations the most polite and see if they have been enlighten'd by the Gospel and conducted by Reason in the Establishment of their Laws As for Caesar it is not true that he published such a Law but as he was the most voluptuous of all Men it was said of him that he was the Husband of all VVomen and the VVife of all Husbands Suetonius saith that he intended thereby to authorize his Baseness under the vail of a Lawful Polygamy They say the same thing of Valentinian who renewed not the Edict of Caesar as Socrates hath reported it or who did it through the same motive to wit that he abused the Supreme Authority to colour his double Marriage contrary to the Purity of Christianity The Examples of Abraham and the Patriarchs seem to be more pressing and better to fortifie the cause of Polygamists but Mr. Mayerus sheweth that the Patriarchs having no Revelation followed the custom which was in that time Yet their ignorance can be no proof for it and we must not imitate them seeing we have Revelation for a Guide As to Moses it is not agreed on that besides Zipperah he married the Daughter of the King of Ethiopia as Ioseph testifies After that the Author taking all the Passages of Scripture which command Man to be satisfied with one Wife only he clears this matter with a great deal of Learning and attacks the Chimerical Opinion of the Polygamists by most positive Authorities drawn from the New Testament amongst others by the 12 th Chapter of St. Matthew which wholly blots out the strong impression that Examples could make which God had tolerated under the Old The second Dissertation is imployed to speak of unlawful Degrees of Kindred and in which it is not permitted to contract Marriage If we considered nothing but the Law of Nations every one would have a full liberty in his choice The Persons that are the nearest related would not be excluded thence that they might joyn to that of Blood a more tender Union and tye the Knot still closer Gentes tamen esse feruntur In quibus nato genitrix nata parenti Iungitur ut piet as geminato crescat amore Ovid. But God having prohibited us to marry in certain degrees of Proximity no body ought to oppose it To that end Mr. Meyerus gives us a Theological Explication of all the Precepts of Leviticus upon this matter He speaks accidentally of several Questions which spring from those Laws where all the Cases are not expressed The Decision of it might be expected from Lawyers but so many curious things would not be found in them and chiefly concerning the Iews and Karaites whose Opinions are here expounded and which may be read with a great deal of profit Yet we shall stop but at one general difficulty which is to know if the Levitical-Law is a moral and natural Law or simply a Ceremonial one which the Church may pass by Those who extol the power of the Pope stick not at flattering him with this Power excepting in a direct line Some Protestants have embraced the same Party and maintained that these Politick
Innovation upon this matter for they cannot Testifie this great â—oldness without having some Matter of fact which favours them From thence we must Judg that Tradition is intricate and uncertain and condemn no body rashly See what Father Lupus says at the beginning of his Book of Appellations Adversus prophanas vocum novitates adversus quosdam temporum Novatores Do's he seem to level this against the Protestants And who wou'd believe that he refutes Mr. De Marca and Gerbais and Father Quesnel and Garnier On the other side the Epithet Innovator is little less Prodigious Mr. Du Pin in the Second Part of this Treatise refuâ—es F. Lupus He First exmains the Question of Right and then comes to that of Fact I mean that after having disputed to the utmost of his Power upon the sense of some Canons that seem to give to the Pope the Right of the last Appeal he explains the method they observed in the Ecclesiastick Judgments before and since the Ancient Councils 'T is a very Copious Subject and from whence a great number of fine things may be collected The misfortune is that Objections often prevail as much as Solutions to them who have already taken the Popes party The Third Part of this Work treats of Excommunication He pretends here that 't is a dependence upon the Keys that Iesus Christ has given to his Church and that altho' all the Faithful was the Primitive Subject of the Power of the Keys 't is only the Clergy that ought to deduce it to Act. He confesses however that in the First Ages Excomunications were made with the advice of the People and that there are some Tracts of this Practice left in the Writings of St. Cyprian But by degrees the Laicks were excluded from this Jurisdiction but not the Second Order of Ecclesiasticks for it was very rare formerly that the Bishops made a Judgment in such Affairs without their Clergy When a Man was Excommunicated by one Bishop others must not receive him into their Communion but they might call a Provincial Synod upon it and if the case was an Article of Faith it was necessary to follow the resolution of this Synod Excommunication in that time more employed the Church than it does now for lest they shou'd be mistaken they received no strangers into their Communion except they carryed a Letter of Recommendation which declared their Pastors were well satisfyed with them The Author clears all these things with good proofs and observes that to shun all Surprize without much trouble we must suppose that all the Western Churches were in Communion with those of the East when the Patriarch of Antioch was united with the Pope so also to shun the odious name of Schismatick or Heretick and to have a good opinion of all Christians it was very necessary to agree with the Church of Rome and the Church of Antioch and that it was without doubt the reason why the first of these two Churches says our Author obtained the Elogy of the Center of Unity Mr. Du Pin confesses very freely that there may be some occasion in which a Person may separate from the Communion of the Pope and not lose the quality of a good Catholick and when he examins upon whom and for what cause Excommunication is allowable he says Kings come into the Number but not after that manner that many Popes have extended their power viz. not any way that does any injury to a temporal Right or dispenses with their Subjects Breach of Fidelity contrary to their Oath to the Prince He maintains it more advantagious to Christianity to abstain from these proceedings against Crown'd heads than to make use of 'em and that the Bishops of France are always against the Excomunication of their King However he himself shews the contrary in respect to Philip the 1 st and Philip the 2 d. He extreamly blames the flinging about Prohibitions upon Towns or Kingdoms but thinks there 's no harm in Anathematizing the Dead In respect to the effects of Excommunication he wou'd not have it extend to the despoiling of a Man of his Natural Right and the Right which others can confer upon him Thus an Excommunicated Person should not be deprived of his Wife his Children his Friends and those Offices which these Relations engage him in but other men must not so much as eat with him without necessity or keep him company We should never speak of it if we read not the Order which is given us of shutting our Door against an Heretick and not to do so much as wish him a good day Mr. Du Pin Reasons Judiciously upon this and thinks it no difficulty to believe that Excommunication hath any effect upon the Soul and that a man who is otherwise disengag'd from the bonds of Sin wou'd remain perfectly just under the Anathemas of the Church The Journalists of Lipswick have mentioned a Work which treats of Excommunications It was Printed at Dijon in the Year 1683 in Twelves at the charge of Mrs. P.H.B. T.C. who composed it These Gentlemen give a very advantageous Idea of it in their Month of Ianuary 1684. The Fourth Fifth and Sixth Dissertations of Mr. Du Pin are destined to prove that the Pope is the Primate of the Church that his Judgment may be corrected and that the Council is above him We shall speak but little upon his great Controversie it shall suffice to say that he proves here the Primacy of Saint Peter only by the passages of Scripture that speak of him the first in the list of the Apostles As for these Famous Words Thou art Peter and upon this Stone Feed my Sheep I will give thee the Keys he shews that the Ancients have taken them in divers ways which cannot be adjusted to the Notions of the Court of Rome He maintains that the power of the Apostles was equal which nevertheless injured not the Primacy of St. Peter since this Apostle was only in quality of the first Do we not every day says he see Brethren which have all precisely as much right to the Possession of their Father but who are all necessarily excluded except one in the quality of the Eldest But this Argument wont be conclusive till our Author shews how the rest of the Apostles were excluded from either a Heavenly or an Earthly Patrimony when St. Peter was not for so the Parallel of the Argument intimates He examins also what some have said of the Primacy's being founded joyntly upon St. Peter and St. Paul he shews wherein consists the Prerogatives of the Pope according to his Flatterers and what the French Divines say of it He brings the the Examples of those Popes that have committed Errors He answers in particular to Mr. Schelstrate concerning the Council of Constance but says nothing to the difficulties that were published against Mr. Maimbourg's Book He says the Manuscripts upon which Mr. Schelstrate founds his Argument are not of certain Antiquity and that they come from