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
Gregory of Nyssa in his Discourses against those that defer Baptism distinguisheth three sorts of Persons with Relation to the other Life The first Order is that of the Saints and Righteous which will be happy the second those that shall be neither happy nor unhappy and the third those that shall be punished for their Sins He puts in the second Rank those that cause themselves to be Baptized at the point of Death There is a Letter of this Father concerning Voyages made to Ierusalem where he diverts the Faithful from undergoing slightly these sort of Pilgrimages by reason of the Abuses that proceed from thence Some Catholicks have been willing to make it pass as Supposititious but Mr. du Pin believes it to be true Here Priscillian and his Disciples are placed in the Rank of Ecclesiastical Authors after St. Ierom who speaks thus of them Priscillian Bishop of Avila was put to death in the City of Treves by the Command of the Tyrant Maximus having been oppressed by the Faction of Itharius He hath written several Works whereof some are come to us Some accuse him this day of the Heresie of the Gnosticks of Basilide and Marcion But others defend him and maintain that he was not Guilty of the Errors that are imputed to him It 's true pursues Mr. du Pin that the same St. Ierom in his Letter to Ctesiphon speaks of Priscillian as of a notable Heretick which hath made Mr. du Quesnel believe that this place of the Ecclesiastical Writers was corrupted This Conjecture which is grounded upon the Authority of a Manuscript would be of Consequence if we knew not that St. Ierom hath often spoke differently of the same Man besides it 's apparently the manner that St. Ierom speaks in his Catalogue which placed Priscillian and Matronian his Disciple in some Martyrologies amongst the Holy Martyrs The second Letter of Pope Syricius furnisheth us with a fine Example Saith Mr. du Pin of the Ancient manner of the Holy Patriarchs Iudging He writes in it to the Church of Milan that having Assembled all his Clergy he had condemned Jovinian and all his Sectators by the advice of the Priests Deacons and the whole Clergy Baronius Bellarmin and some others pretend that part of the second Letter of St. Epiphanius is Supposititious because he there relates a History which is not favourable to the Worship of their Church Being entred saith this Bishop into a Church of a Village in Palestine call'd Anablatha and having found a Vail that hung at the Door which was Painted where there was an Image of Iesus Christ or some Saint for I do not remember whose it was but since against the Authority of Holy Scripture there was in the Church of Iesus Christ the Image of a Man I rent it and gave order to those that had the Care of this Church to bury a dead Body with this Vail Mr. du Pin after having proved that all this Letter is St. Epiphanius's adds That though it be true that there were placed in some Churches Pictures that represented the Histories of the Scriptures and the Actions of the Saints and Martyrs it cannot be said that this use was general and that it must be granted that St. Epiphanius hath disapproved it although without reason according to him for I believe continueth he that it would be contrary to the Candor and Sincerity that Religion demands of us to give another Sense to these words After the Extracts of the Writings of the Fathers are found those of the Councils held in the Fourth Age. The Canons of that which is called the Council of Elvira are an old Code or an ancient Collection of the Councils of Spain and it cannot be doubted but these Canons are of great Antiquity and very Authentick The XXXIV Canon and the XXXVI have given much Exercise to the Roman Catholick Divines The one forbiding to light Wax-Candles in the Church-yard because the Spirits of Saints must not be troubled and the other Paintings in Churches lest the Object of our Adorations should be painted on the Walls They have endeavoured to give several Expositions on these Passages but it seems to me saith Mr. du Pin that it is better to understand them simply and to allow that the Fathers of this Council have not approved the use of Images no more than of Wax-Candles lighted in open day But continueth he these things are of Discipline and may or may not be in use and do no Prejudice to the Faith of the Church The XXXV Canon prohibits Women to pass in the Night in Church-yards because often under pretence of Praying they in secret committed great Crimes The LX deprives such of the quality of Martyrs as are killed in pulling down Idols publickly because the Gospel commands it not nor is it read that it was practised by the Christians in the time of the Apostles The same Spirit of Parties which wrested the Canons of the Council of Elvira hath caused Men to doubt of the History of Paphnusius related by Socrates lib. 1. c. 9. This Egyptian Bishop opposed the new Law that was going to be made in the Council of Nice to oblige Bishops Priests and Deacons to keep unmarried and abstain from Women that they had espoused before their Ordination Although he himself had never been married he maintained that this Yoke was not to be imposed upon the Clergy and that it was to bring the Chastity of Women in danger I believe saith Mr. du Pin upon this speaking of the Roman Catholick Doctors that this doubt proceeds rather from the fear they are in that this act should do some hurt to the present Disciplin than of any solid proof But these Persons should consider that this Regulation is purely a Disciplin which the Disciplin of the Church may change according to the times and that to maintain it it is not necessary to prove it hath always been uniform in all places The Author shews that it was Osius Bishop of Cordova who presided in the Council of Nice and not the Legats of the Pope He only acknowledges for Authentick Monuments of this Council the Form of Faith the Letter to the Egyptians the Decree touching Easter and the two first Canons He consequently rejects as Supposititious pieces the Latin Letter of this Council to St. Sylvester the Answer of this Bishop and the Canons of a pretended Synod held at Rome for the Confirmation of that of Nice The Christians of that time who were not perfectly instructed by the holy Scripture in what they ought to believe touching the Mystery of the blessed Trinity were in great uncertainty for neither the Tradition nor Authority of the Church were then infallible marks of the Truth of a Tenet since the Ecclesiastical Assemblies that the most reasonable Catholicks make the Depositaries of these Traditions and Authority some time declare for the Arians some time for the Orthodox and another for a third
Ordination and that it belongs to the Bishop only to confer it and she allows the Distinction of Orders And tho' there is none under a Deacon because the Scripture makes mention of none yet she acknowledges that they are very antient Sixthly As for the Real Presence tho' Dr. Wake treats of it at length we will omit speaking of it until we come to the XII Article where there are many Books seen that concern this Subject Seventhly We receive says the English Expositor with equal Veneration all that comes from the Apostles let it be by Scripture or Tradition provided we be assured that they are the true Authors of the Doctrine or Practice attributed to them so that when we are shewn that a Tradition was received in all Ages and by all Churches then we are ready to receive it as having the Character of an Apostolical Institution So our Church does not reject Tradition but only the Tenets and Superperstitions which Rome pretends to justify after this way Eighthly And as for the Authority of the Vniversal Church of all Ages the English acknowledges 1. That they have received Scripture from their Hands and it is chiefly for this Authority that they look upon Solomon's Song to be Canonical and reject other Books Apocryphal which perhaps they would have received with as much ease These Books have our respect even before we know by reading whether they be worthy of the Spirit of God but this Reading confirms us in the respect which the Authority of the Church gives unto them as to the Holy Writings II. If there had been an Vniversal Tradition not contested that had come from the Apostles to us concerning the meaning of the Holy Books as concerning their number the Church of England would receive it also but she does not believe that a particular Church such as that of Rome should usurp this Priviledge nor that it ought to force others to follow the Interpretations which she gives of the Passages of Scripture III. When any Disputes arise concerning Faith the best way to appease them is to assemble a Council but it does not follow that such an Assembly can say as the Assembly of the Apostles at Ierusalem It seem'd good to the Holy Ghost and to us nor that it is Infallible or that it's Canons are not subject to Correction IV. Dr. Wake goes on and says When we say I believe in the Holy Catholick Church we do not only understand that Iesus Christ has planted a Christian Church which is to last to the end of the World but also that the Son of God will conserve either among the Christians or in the Vniversal Church Truth enough to denominate it such a Church that is he will never suffer that Truths requisite for Salvation should be unknown in any place So that tho' the Vniversal Church can err it does not follow that it can sink altogether nor become wholly erroneous because then it would cease to be but such a particular Church as that of Rome can err and fall into utter Apostacy And tho' the Fundamental Points be clearly contained in Scripture and that it is very hard that one Man alone should gain-say the Opinion of all the Church nevertheless if this Man was certainly convinced that his Opinion was grounded upon the undoubted Authority of the Word of God we would be so far being afraid to bear with him that we all agree that the most glorious Action that St. Athanasius ever did was that he alone maintained Christ's Divinity against the Pope the Councils and all the Church V. And so tho we acknowledge that God has subjected Christians to the Government of the Church for Peaces sake and to preserve Vnity and Order and that she has power to prescribe to her Children what Doctrines are and are not to be publickly taught in her Communion yet we believe that the Holy Scripture is the only Support of our Faith and the last and infallible Rule by which the Church and we are to govern our selves Ninthly That there are some that think that the Church of England makes the Fathers of the three First Ages Idols and equals them in Authority to the Holy Scripture But Mr. Wake will undeceive them for says he Tho' we have appealed to the Churches of the first Ages for new Proofs of the truth of our Doctrine it is not that we think that the Doctors of those times had more right to judge of our Faith than those had that followed them but it is because that after a serious examination we have found that as for what concerns the common Belief that is among us they have believed and practised the same things without adding other Opinions or Superstitions that destroy them wherein they have acted conformably to their and our Rule the Word of God notwithstanding it cannot be denyed but that they effectually fell into some wrong Opinions as that of the Millenaries and Infant Communion which are rejected by both Parties Tenthly Whether one may be saved in the Roman Church the English think that as she yet conserves the Fundamental Doctrines those that live in her Bosom with a disposition to learn and leave off their pernicious Errors and profess all the truth that they will discover may be saved thro' the grace of God and Faith in Jesus Christ and by a general Repentance that puts their Errors in the number of the Sins they do not know of But that ill use may not be made of this charitable Grant the Expositor limits it as followeth I. That it is harder to be saved in the Communion of this Church since the Reformation than it was before because its Errors were not so well known nor so solidly refuted which rendred the ignorance excusable II. That they that live among Protestants and in a Country wherein they may learn and make publick and open profession of the Truth are more condemnable than the other III. That Priests are yet more than Laicks In a word the Protestants hope that the good Men of the Roman Church will be saved but they have no assurance that they are to be saved Whereas they are assured That they will be saved that live Christian-like in their own Communion They do not know whether God will condemn Roman Catholicks for the Errors they professed taking them for truth but they are assured that the Crime of those that being convinced of Popish Superstitions leave the Protestants thro' motives of Interest and Ambition and maintain Tyrannical and Superstitious Tenets against their Consciences deserve no pardon Eleventhly As for Idolatry the Homilies of the Church of England accuse that of Rome as well as the English Doctors who lived under Edward the VI. and Queen Elizabeth The Catholicks object that the Learned of this Kingdom changed Opinion in the Reign of King Iames the First and begun to maintain that the Church of Rome was not Idolatrous but these Gentlemen are so unlucky in Proofs that of six Authors
said also that Usher was a Bishop that he had made because that he had appointed him so without being sollicited to it by any person this Election was made in 1620. Returning into Ireland sometime after he was oblig'd to discourse some persons of Quality of the Roman Religion to administer to 'em the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy that they had refused to the Priest this discourse is inserted in his Life he remarks the form of this Oath is compos'd of two parts the one positive in which they acknowledge the King is Soveraign in all cases whatsoever and the other negative in which they declare they acknowledge no Jurisdiction or Authority of any strange Prince in the estates of the King he says afterwards in regard of the first part that the Scripture commands that we submit our selves to the Higher Powers and that we ought to acknowledge that the power the Kings have whatsoever it may be is Supream as they are Kings upon which he cites this verse of Martial Qui Rex est Regem maxime non habeat That one ought well to distinguish the power of the Keys from that of the Sword and the King of England does not exact an acknowledgment of the same power that is possess'd by the Bishops but nevertheless the Kings may interest themselves with Ecclesiastical Affairs in as much as it regards the body since according to the Church of Rome 't is the Magistrates duty to punish Hereticks For that which regards the second part of the Oath where it 's said that we shall not own any strange power as having any Iurisdiction Superiority Preheminence Ecclesiastical or Temporal in the Kingdom He says that if St. Peter were still alive he would willingly own that the King had this Authority in Ireland and that he us'd the same in regard of all the Apostles that the Apostleship was a personal dignity which the Apostles have not left hereditary to any but nevertheless suppose it was so he sees not why St. Peter should leave it to his successors rather than St. Iohn who outliv'd all the Apostles that there was no reason to believe that St. Peter shou'd leave the Apostolical Authority to the Bishops of Rome rather than to those of Antioch this last Church being founded before the first The King writ to Vsher to thank him for this Discourse which produced so good effect He afterwards went into England by the King's order to collect the Antiquities of the Churches of England Scotland and Ireland and publish'd two years after that his Book intituled De Primordiis Ecclesiarum Britannicarum 'T was in that time that the King made him Arch-Bishop of Armagh The Winter following he caused to be brought before him the Order for Toleration of the Roman Catholicks and the Lord Falkland then Deputy for the King in Ireland convocated and assembled the whole Nation to settle this Affair But the Bishops call'd by the Primate oppos'd it with much heat as may be seen by a Remonstrance sign'd by ten Bishops besides the Primate and which is in the 28th page They also spoke of raising some Forces by the Joynt consent both of Catholicks and Protestants to hinder any differences that might arise in the Kingdom the Protestants refus'd to consent thereto and wou'd not hearken to discourse the Primate thereupon in the Castle of Dublin altho' his reasonings were founded upon the principal Maxims of the Government of Ireland and maintain'd by Examples drawn from the Antient and Modern Histories of that Kingdom During the time our Primate stayed in Ireland after he had performed the Duties of his Charge which he acquitted with extraordinary care he employed the remaining part of his time to study the fruits whereof were to be seen in 1631. in the first Latin book which he ever published in Ireland 't is his History of Godescalch Monk of the Abby of Orbais who lived in the beginning of the 6th Age there was soon made a small abridgment of the History of Pelagianism which was then extreamly dispersed through Spain and England when he comes to the History of Godescalch he explains his Doctrine and shews by Flodoard and other Authors of that time that those sentiments whereof Hincmar Archbishop of Rhemes and Rabanus Archbishop of Maynce accused him and which were condemn'd by their Authority in two Councils were the same that St. Remigius Archbishop of Lyons and the Clergy of his Diocess defended openly many opinions and odious consequences according to Vsher were fathered upon Godescalch because that this Monk who maintained the opinions of St Augustine about Predestination and Grace did not at all understand ' em Ioannes Scotus Erygenus wrote a treatise against him in which are to be found the principal heads of Vsher but Florus Deacon of the Church of Lions answers it and censures him in the Name of all the Diocess Vsher gave an abridgment of this Censure as also of divers other treatises as that of St Remigius Pudentius Bishop of Troy Ratramus Monk of Corbi who writ against Scotus for his defence of Godescalch there had been two Councils which established the doctrine of this Monk and condemn'd that of Scotus 'T is true that Hincmar published a very large Book against these Councils which he dedicated to Charles le Chauve as Flodoard reports who shews briefly what it is that this Book treats of but that did not at all hinder St. Remigius and those of his Party to convocate another Council at Langres where they confirm'd the Doctrine established in the former Councils and condemn'd that new one of Scotus These Controversies were still agitated in the National Council of the Gauls where nothing was concluded altho' Barancus and others voted that Godescalch should be condemn'd there On the contrary Vsher maintains that in an Assembly which was in a small time after his Sentiments were approv'd of Nevertheless this wicked Godescalch was condemn'd by the Council of Maynce to perpetual Imprisonment where he was severely treated because he would never retract his Errours There are still two Confessions of his Faith by which one may see there are many things attributed to him which he never believ'd after having made a faithful report of the Sentiments of this Monk and those of his Adversaries Vsher concludes that it were better for men to be silent upon these matters than to scandalize the weak in proposing to 'em such Doctrines from which they may draw bad consequences There has been adds Mr. Parr and always will be different Opinions upon the great and abstruse Questions of Predestination and Free Will which nevertheless may be tolerated in the same Church provided those who maintain these divers Opinions have that Charity for one another which they ought to have That they condemn them not publickly That they abstain from mutual Calumnies and that they publish no Invectives against those who are not of the same Sentiments To return to the Life of our Prelate who altho' he
exactly ordered and helps to resolve a thousand great difficulties the submission Christians owe unto Councils and upon the infallibility that M. Meaux maintains that Protestants attribute to Councils M. Nicole goes farther for he affirms that they attribute the gift of infallibility to each faithful person to refute him he is given to understand by several examples that it is not necessary to think ones self infallible to be convinced of any Opinion and because the knot of the difficulty lies in this that they which are deceived are no less convinced than the Orthodox the Author acknowledges that the Characters cannot be precisely shewn which distinguish the false and true perswasions and at the same time says that these differences are real and make themselves apparent It is good faith that can convince the publick that Mr. Iurieu is none of those Controvertists whereof M. Simon gives us such ugly Ideas I would say of those that wou'd rather dye than acknowledge that they cannot clear precisely this or that difficulty He gives us at the same time many instructions upon the manner how hearing and reading the Word of God conducts infallibly into the Truth those in whom the Holy Ghost works by an efficacious Grace but lest people may confound the infallibility that is produced by this Grace with the privileged infallibility which was belonging to the Apostles he teaches us the marks whereby to distinguish them after which he fully answers two objections that were proposed to make the Protestant Church seem to become to the highest pitch of impertinence For it was objected that a private Person how ignorant soever he could be should be assured according to their principles that he can understand the true sense of Scripture better than all the Church besides and that he owes no submission to Church or Council unless he sees by his own proper light that their decision is good all these difficulties are solidly answered and made to disappear The reader sees that hitherto M. Iurieu has met with several difficulties in his way but they are but trifles to what he must encounter now for he is going to answer objections that relate to the way of examen and that are without any dispute the main strength of M. Nicole He answers them first indirectly and argues almost thus We must go to the knowledge of Scripture either by Authority or by way of examen but it is impossible that Authority should conduct us to it therefore we must make use of the way of examen He proves the minor in shewing that upon Earth there is no infallible and speaking Authority and tho' there were it would be impossible to have recourse to it because it cannot be known by any certain sign of necessary truth It is the bravest Field in the World wherein the Enemy is led without having any place to retreat to so that if there were able and disinterested Judges as the Platonists and Aristoteleans were to observe the strokes given there are no People in the World they would despise so much as the Christians whereof they would see the greatest part brag of a Doctrine that cannot keep the Field one Moment in sight of the Enemy and which nevertheless subdues every day some of the other party upon this may be well said the absurdity which Sandaicat published concerning the Battle of Cerisoles les Spagnales victoriosos serinder however it be let us mark in a few words what the Author does here He shews that if Faith did not enter the Soul but by the way of Authority M. Nicole would have it the Iewish Church should never have had any good assurance of the Will of God as well because there was not in a long time any Prophet or other infallible Tribunal that declared it as that the Authority of the Prophets themselves might have been suspected to be false that amidst the most famous Miracles because there was none that could infallibly assure them that these Miracles came from God or from the Devil These dreadful difficulties are pushed to the time of Jesus Christ himself and his Apostles and it 's shewn that according to the Roman Church the Iews would have had no reason to be converted to it The same thing is shewn in respect of following ages in a word it is maintained against M. Nicole that his principle is the great road to Pyrrhonisme and Atheism because for to trust well the way of Authority we must know it well but very few could be able to come to the requisite assurance by the way of examen upon this subject and to the end that the difficulty should come to be more inexplicable the Author has invincibly refuted all that M. Nicole brought to prove that the Authority of the Church makes it self easily known so that here is the way of Authority quite shut up by what way then will people enter into the Faith must it be by examen if that be the way M. Iurieu must take away the Obstacles that M. Nicole has put in it and he must answer directly for to answer by retortions as was observ'd by a Modern Author is to furnish Deists with the best Arms that they ever yet made use of and is to compleat what M. Nicole has begun for the dullest amongst them would say after he had seen Mr. Nicoles book and what we have mentioned of Mr. Iurieu that seeing God has not made Man capable of choosing without rashness the only Religion that is Good it is evident that he has Revealed us nothing of it but has left it to our Education and Natural light therefore of necessity to disarm these Libertines he must answer directly to what Mr. Nicole says and let us see how he will behave himself He accuses his adversaries argument against the way of examen of two great faults one that it supposeth no help from the Holy Ghost to them who meditate upon Scripture the other that he supposes a Cartesian principle that would entirely ruine all Religions if it were applyed to Moral knowledge this principle is that we must believe nothing but what we understand clearly distinctly and to be lawfully assured that we have attained this evidence we must first have examined a thing all manner of ways and must have known that it could not have been other ways Our Author says that this condition being impossible in regard of most People and yet all men being obliged to be firmly satisfied of their Religion it follows that Religion is not subject to these preliminary conditions which Des Cartes only requires for the objects of speculation The Remonstrants believe they can draw great Advantages from M. Nicoles objections because they believe that for to answer him the points of Faith must be reduced to a very little number of Articles clearly contained in the Word of God but the Author says that this answer would cure no evil because to be assured to that degree of certainty which is required by
Mr. Nicole that Jesus Christ came into this World we must examine according to the Cartesiaen method whether the Gospel be a feigned Book or no and hear all that is said by the Wicked upon this Subject and examine all the moral demonstrations whereon the certainty of things done is grounded Moreover we must be assured by Philosophical reasons and by good answers to Spinoza's Systeme that Man acts freely that he has an immortal Soul and that God prepares pains and recompences Where are Tradesmen or Peasants who are capable of so long a dispute pushed to a contradictory decree So that this cannot be the way to answer well for if we did but retain one or two Articles of our Creed we should have enough to do to render our selves certain of them according to des Cartes method And all this shews that Mr. Nicoles principle ought not to be applyed to matters of Religion And he is shewn several other very inconvenient consequences of this principle and it is concluded that Faith does not depend upon an examen of discussion but upon an examen of attention the effects whereof are Learnedly explained in shewing the manner how Divine Truths are imprinted in our understanding this is very fine and gives us a second example of Mr. Iurieu's sincerity for without troubling himself whether Mr. Nicole will brag of having obliged the Ministers to quit their ground he leaves him wholly to the examin of discussion and maintains that this was not what he ought to have disputed against and he answers an objection of Mr. de Meaux whether there be a time wherein a Christian may doubt of the Truths of Scripture and that according to the Principles of the reformed Church Let us say a word upon the last Book of this answer the Author has not so much indifference for Mr. Nicole but he has taken care to hinder his too great brags of the full victory that he has had in several cases upon the examen of discussion and says that this victory is but of little use to Papists but that it furnisheth Weapons to Libertines and Pagans to combate the Christian Religion Moreover he is not of Opinion that all the Arguments that were thundered against the examen of discussion are good and as to what concerns the way of feeling and this ray that he has so much laught at he is shewn that there is no reason to be so merry upon that word that there are really things in Scripture which are known by the way of feeling and that it is no sufficient Argument against it to say that it deceives Hereticks daily for the Author says if it deceives them it is because it is not assisted by an interiour Grace from the Holy Ghost as when we feel the light of Truth besides this he maintains that the most simple were able to know what was requisite to make them quit the Roman Communion In fine he shews the analysis of Faith according to St. Augustine and he answers Mr. Nicole in several things concerning the calling of the first Reformers and the Schism whereof some would fain have convinced them he answers him I say in all this and accuseth him of a thousand frivolous quibbles unworthy both of a Man of Honour and a witty Man I do not doubt but many of my readers may not understand what the analysis of Faith is Let us then say that we understand by these words the reducing of Faith to its first principles that it is a Metaphor borrow'd from Chymists who call Analysis the Operation that disunites the parts of a compound body setting apart the ingredients until they come to the most simple parts so to make the Analysis of Faith is nothing else but to mount by degrees to its beginning and to the first reasons whereon it is grounded and in this the Religions of the West are very different for tho' it is very true that the Protestants and Catholicks being questioned why they believe the Trinity agree in answering that it is because God has revealed it in Scripture but if you ask them this other question how they do know that God has revealed it in Scripture their answer will be very different the Catholick will answer that it is because he is told that the Roman Church finds the meaning of Trinity in certain passages of Scripture but the Protestant will say it is because he finds that these passages signify the Trinity whence it follows that the Faith of a R. C. is grounded on the Authority of the Church that of a Protestant upon the very Light which he finds in the Object proposed by Scripture There are but few who trouble themselves with this Analysis they content themselves well enough with believing what they have a feeling of Moreover it is a great question with Roman Catholicks whether in the Analysis of Faith they must stop at the Pope or go on to the Council Gregory of Valence in his Analysis Fidei Catholicae maintains firmly that they are to stop at the Pope But Mr. Holden an English Man by Nation and a famous Doctor of Sorbonne holâ—s for the Council in his Divinae fidei Analysis seu de fidei Christianae resolutione which has been re-printed lately at Paris with some additions A Lutheran Professor called Hannekenius refutes the Jesuite in the year 1683 by publishing paralysis fidei Papaeae I do not know whether he will publish such another Paralysis against the Doctor of Sorbonne Mr. Iurieu put at the end of his Book a short answer to what Mr. Ferrand published against the Parallel of Papism and Calvinism if this Article had not passed the bounds already we could give a short extract of this short answer it is admirable and discomforts this Author who to speak the truth has not answered the hopes that the Catholicks of this Country conceived of his Work they were a little surprized with the stroke they received from the parallel and they expected that Mr. Ferrand that was chosen to revenge their common Mother would acquit himself well of the Office but they experienced that he did not hold to what the Church promised it self of him Non illum nobis genetrix pulcherrima talem promisit The Accomplishment of Prophesies or the Deliverance of the Church near at hand c. Corrected and Augmented almost a third part with the Explication of all the Visions of the Apocalypse By the S P. J. PEPETH A. R. at Rotterdam by Abraham Achers 1686. 2. Vol. in 12. THis Work has made such a noise that there are two thousand Copies disposed of in four or five Months and yet there are but a very few gone into France which would have taken off a great many if it were suffered that it might be disposed of there this considerable part of Europe being almost nothing by report in respect of the Booksellers Trade one would think that the first Edition should have sufficed nevertheless there was soon occasion
which they quote the Arch-bishop Laud Iackson Feilding Hâ—ylin Hammond and M. Thorndike There is not one but has writ the contrary These are the Points whereon the Enemies of Protestants would make the Church of England pass for half Papists tho there is not one but was taught by other Reformed excepting Episcopacy And this Government is so ancient that even those who think Presbytery better ought not to condemn for some little difference in Discipline a Church that is otherwise very pure unless they are minded to anathematize St. Ignatius St. Clement St. Polycarp St. Irenaeus St. Cyprian and the whole Church of the second and third Age and a great part of the first Without question the Episcopal Clergy of England have the like Charity for Presbyterians I will not alledge the Testimonies of Modern Doctors nor of such as were accused of having favoured the pretended Puritans we see the Marks of its mildness and moderation towards all excepâ—ing some turbulent Spirits amongst 'em which indeed are too common in all Societies If there ever was a time wherein the Church of England differed from Presbytery and had reason so to do it was in the middle of the Reign of K. Iamss the First and notwithstanding you may see how the Bishop of Eli speaks writing for the King and by his Order against Cardinal Bellarmin One may see how much the Protestants of this Country agree by Harmony of their Confessions where each Church acknowledges wherein she agrees with the rest Then lay aside those odious Names seek our Professions of Faith in our Confessions The Reproach you make us concerning the Puritans is altogether absurd because their number is but small and the most moderate among them agree with us in the chief Articles of Religion The Scotch Puritans Confession has no Error in Fundamental Points so that the King might say with reason That the Establish'd Religion of Scotland was certainly true And as for the rest there 's no reason to suspect Dr. Wakes Testimony for the Bishop of London and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury have approved his Books None of the other Doctors contradicted him and some sided with him against Roman Catholicks And these last have not accused him of swerving from the common Doctrine of the Church of England only in the Article of the necessity of Baptism and he proves by several Authorities in his Defence of his Exposition what he therein advanced At the end of this Defence are several curious Pieces 1. A Comparison betwixt the Ancient and Modern Popery 2. An Extract of the Sentiments of Father Cresset and Cardinal Bona concerning the Devotion to the Blessed Virgin 3. The Letter of Mr. Imbert to Mr. de Meaux 4. The Epistle of St. Chrysostom to Caesarius with the Preface of Mr. Bigot which was suppressed at Paris in 1680. and a Dissertation of Dr. Wake upon Apollinarius's Sentiments and Disciples A DISCOURSE of the Holy EUCHARIST wherein the Real Presence and Adoration of the Host is treated on to serve for an Answer to two Discourses printed at Oxford upon this Subject With a Historical Preface upon the same Matter At London 1687. p. 127. in 4to DR Wake Minister of the Holy Gospel at London who is said to be the Author of this Book gives First In few words the History and Origine of Transubstantiation as it hath been ordinarily done amongst Protestants Secondly He names several Illustrious Persons of the Romish Church who have been accused of not believing the Real Presence or Transubstantiation to wit Peter Picherel Cardinal du Perron Barnes an English Benedictine and Mr. de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris who gave his absolute Sentiment hereon in one of his Posthume Dissertations tho' in the Edition of Paris the places wherein he said it have been changed or blotted out But it could not be hindered but that this Work having appeared before Persons took notice of these Sentiments some entire Copies thereof have fallen into the hands of Protestants who got it printed in Holland in 1669. without cutting off any thing To these Authors are joined F. Sirmond the Iesuite who believed the Impanation and who had made a Treatise upon it which hath never been printed and whereof some persons have yet Copies M. de Marolles who got a Declaration printed in form in 1681. by which he declared that he believed not the Real Presence and which was inserted here in English And in short the Author of the Book Entituled Sure and honest means of Converting Hereticks whom we dare not affirm to be the same who published a Treatise of Transubstantiation which the Fifth Tome of the French Bibliotheque speaks of p. 455. The Cartesians and several others are suspected of not believing the same no more than the Protestants So that if the Catholicks cite some Reformed for them Protestants also want not Catholick Authors who have been of their Opinion Thirdly The Author sheweth the dangerous Consequences which arise according to the Principles of the Romish Church from the incredulity of so many Men of Knowledge be it in respect to Mass or in respect of the Infallibility and Authority of the Church The Treatise it self is divided into two parts The first contains two Chapters and an Introduction wherein is expounded the Nature and Original of the Eucharist much after the Ideas of Lightfoot In the first Chapter Transubstantiation is at large refuted by Scripture by Reason and the Fathers We shall make no stay at it because this Matter is so well known The Second Chapter is imployed to refute what Mr. Walker said concerning the Opinions of several Doctors of the Church of England upon the Real Presence Dr. Wake at first complains That his Adversary in that only repeats Objections which his Friend T. G. had before proposed in his Dialogues and which a Learned Man had refuted in an Answer to these Dialogues printed at London in 1679. As to what concerns the Faith of the Church of England which he maintains to have been always the same since the Reign of Edward He reduces it to this according to the Author who refuted T. G. viz. That she believes only a Real Presence of the invisible Power and grace of Iesus Christ which is in and with the Elements so that in receiving them with Faith it produces Spiritual and real Effects upon the Souls of Men. As Bodies taken by Angels continueth he may be called their Bodies whilst they keep them and as the Church is the Body of Iesus Christ because his Spirit animates and liveneth the Souls of the Believing so the Bread and Wine after the Consecration are the Real Body of Iesus Christ but spiritually and mystically He gives not himself the trouble to prove the solidity of this comparison by Scripture and when he comes to the Examination of the Authors that Mr. Walker hath quoted he contents himself to produce other Passages where they do not speak so vigorously of the participation of the substance of Iesus
to speak better according to their conjectures 8. That there is no Text in the Bible which priviledges a Man who is not inspired to form an Assembly which should call it self the true and only Church of Iesus Christ and should appropriate to it self it's Priviledges by excluding all others 9. That nevertheless Christians divided themselves into innumerable Sects whereof the most part excommunicates and condemns the other 10. From all this it 's concluded That one cannot look upon any of these Churches nor the Ministers thereof nor the Tenets nor the Ceremonies of them with the same respect which one was obliged to have for the Church and Apostolical Pastors 11. Consequently that these Assemblies have no Right to impose their Doctrine or Worship as a necessary Yoak upon Consciences nor to condemn and excommunicate such as do not the same with them 12. That Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are Sacraments ordained by Iesus Christ whose use is very profitable that the Assemblies of Piety are so likewise provided their Government be not Tyrannical that they are looked upon as the work of some godly Persons who have endeavoured to imitate the model of the Church which they found in Scripture and they confess these Institutors were not infallible and that they left faults in their Works which they are willing to correct when they are better instructed This was the occasion of a Dispute that then made much noise One of Mr. Galenus's Brothers answered these Articles which Mr. Galenus had printed in the Year 1659. with a Reply to his Adversary In 1660. Mr. Pontanus Minister of the Remonstrants at Amsterdam undertook to examine this Opinion in a Treatise which he made of the visible Church of Iesus Christ of it's Office and Worship Without doubt this dispute was spoken of in 1664. seeing one of Mr. Alting's Friends ask'd him his Opinion upon it to which this Professor answered I do not see that the Opinion of Galenus such as you mention it in your Letter is so condemnable it would be in vain now to search the form of the Apostolical Church and the Gifts which the Apostles conferred by imposition of hands I remember I told you that we have a Faith which makes us uncapable of receiving Gifts As we believe that the Signs which according to the Promise of Iesus Christ Mark 16.17 18. should accompany the Faithful viz. the gift of Miracles the gift of Tongues and of Prophecy have ceased in the Church then it is not strange that they descend not to us In the Opinion of some Men this Faith and it's Efficacy lasted not as long as the first Age It wou'd distract us to find out the Signs of it in such distant times after this I do not admire that most Doctors have taken so different ways and that like Painters they have drawn more or less near after the model of the Apostles according as their Pencil was fine or gross Thence sprung so many different Churches to which were given the names of their Doctors as commonly the names of Painters are given to their most excellent pieces It 's true that there are some far better than others but there are none but please some people so much that they despise and condemn sometimes all other Churches how little soever they differ from theirs It 's an evil that could only be deplored hitherto and God only knoweth when it will be remedied When he is pleased to give us this Faith which we have lost he will give us it's Fruits and 't is then we shall be the Image of the Primitive Church In the mean time we must preserve and endeavour to preserve and increase the Faith we have which is that of Tenets and which may conduct us to Salvation notwithstanding the faults of the exteriour form and Government of the Church In answering to the same who asked him his Opinion upon the Visions of Drabicius he saith I know nothing certain upon that business now I cannot approve them and I dare not condemn them I suspend my Iudgment in the design to meditate upon this Subject and perhaps at another time I will write to you at large of it l. 17. In the Twenty first Letter are a great many helps for the History of David and upon the Persecutions which Saul makes against him In answering a Divine of Herborn who exhorted him to make a Translation of Scripture but without swerving from the received Versions and the common Tradition I cannot saith he make that two Councils agree for one ruineth the other to what purpose is it to spoil Paper to say the same things a hundred times over I take notice of another fault which has taken roo◠amongst the Reformed that is that we are very Orthodox upon the Theory or Speculation of Scripture but as to Practice we are altogether Papists Puri puti Pontificii You will acknowledge it if you reflect upon the Actions of both the one and the other You advise me to be silent upon the question of the Sabbath tho' you acknowledge it is of great importance and you will not have me to oppose my self to the received Hypothesis I know full well that it is an Axiom of the prudence of this Age not to touch an evil which is strongly rooted but the Reformers of the past Age had far more Christian Thoughts They had the courage to attack the Errors which were in the peaceable possession of Mens understandings tho' they foresaw the troubles which they would cause throughout all Europe It is in vain to expect to gain time till Men were silent or did agree all to maintain a false Hypothesis this silence and this consent would not render it true I do not take the Testimonies of Men saith Jesus Christ nor would he have St. John Baptist himself to be believed if his words were not conformable to the Writings of Moses 50.27 Upon the famous passage of the Romans 3.25 the Author hath an opinion altogether different not only from the common Interpretation but also from that of Bezae and of Cocceius the first Translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dissimulatio and the second Prateritio But Mr. Alting will have it Transmissio or Translatio a Transposition He founds it upon this That there is a Pleonasmus in the Version of these two learned Interpreters because the terms of Dissimulation Praeterition and Non-imputation give no other Idea but the Patience of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which mention is made in the following vers 2. He adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers here to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegnebbir which is spoken of Sins 2 Sam. 12.13 and Iob 7.21 and that so Paresis mark'd in this place that Action of God considered as a Debtor who transports the Debt or the Crimes of Sinners upon Iesus Christ who is made their Pledge or Surety So the sense of this Passage is according to our Author that God has transported upon Iesus
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
Post-Talmudical Rabbies It is therefore of the greatest moment to discover the improbability and absurdity of this Novel Opinion which so directly tends to the Overthrow of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures And though some of the Patrons of it do not themselves reject the Bible yet they well know others of them do on this Account So that we must defend the Divine Original of the Points as we desire to maintain the Divine Authority of the Bible And so much for the weight and moment of the Matter in controversie Secondly As to the seasonableness of debating this Controversie at this time there are Six Circumstances that in Conjunction attending it do render it seasonable The First is the Place of it that it is brougâ—t home to our own door We concern not our selves with the Controversies of Foreign Countreys but our own Nation is the Stage where this Opinion of the Novelty of the Points hath been more publickly espoused than would have been suffered in any other Protestant State And therefore Secondly It doth not creep in corners as in other places but hath received the publick Approbation of the Nation so far as to be solemnly espoused in the English Polyglott Bible Wherein Thirdly We have not faint Motions of it but powerful and mighty Efforts by the most Learned among them And this Fourthly is attended with answerable success the generality of the springing Youth embracing it And Fifthly Yet not content with this Victory Success and Credit in England the Patrons of it have of late put forth their greatest strength afresh for the promoting of their Cause in the Vindiciae of Ludovicus Capellus lately published in Answer to Buxtorf de Origine Punctorum And Sixthly Notwithstanding this Opposition to the Truth by the great Champion for the Novelty of the Points and its suitable Success yet there has been no Answer returned to this Treatise as yet that we hear of And it is fit it should be Answered lest this Vindiciae do as much mischief as the former Treatise entituled Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum whereof this last is a Defence that being justly accountable for the Success this Opinion hath had in England as by a brief Narrative of the Rise Progress and Issue of this Controversie amongst us will appear Which in short is this One Elius Lovita a learned Grammaâ—ian and Iew about the beginning of the Reformation fell upon this Conceit That certain Jews 〈◊〉 Tiberias A. D. 500. placed the Points as they had received them by Oral Tradition This he defendeth in his Masoret Hammasoret Preface 3 d. But herein he is contrary to all the Jews either in his time or before or after him And therefore he was answered by them as in particular by R. Sam. Areâ—â—olti in his Arugath Habbosem c. 26. And also by F. Azarias in his Meor Enaim in Imre Birtah cap. 59. And out of the Rabbins by Buxtorfius the Elder in his Thesaurus Grammaticus Print ed in 1609. And in his Tiberias 1620. Thus amongst the Jews the Errour ended where it began even in Elias himself none being left of his Opinion amongst them But it will not so end with Christians several Reformers whether moved by the Authority of Elias the famous Doctor and Master of the Hebrew Tongue of their time or else it may be at first not well examining of it embraced it This Advantage the Papists lay hold on with both Hands for they find their Accounts in it and improve it accordingâ—y Amongst Protestants Ludovicus Capellus becomes the main and greatest Champion for the Novelty of the Points and ex professo defends the same in his Treatise entituled Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum published by Erpenius the Author for some Reasons concealing his own Name at the first This Book was fully Answered and the Truth amply defended by Buxtorf the Younger in his Treatise entituled De Punctorum Origine Antiquitate published A. D. 1648. But at length in the Prolegomena to the Biblia Polyglotta we have this Opinion of Capellus which did but slily creep before publickly owned by Dr. Walton the Compiler of that Bible and defended with Capellus's Arguments whereby Capellus is deservedly answerable for the Success of this Opinion by its Station in the Polyglott Bible upon his Shoulders Hereupon Dr. I. O. writes some Considerations on the Prolegomena aforesaid and by the way Answers the Heads of Arguments brought for the Novelty of the Points But hereunto Dr. Walton returns a Reply entituled The Considerator Considered A. D. 1659. But in the Year 1661. Dr. I. O. in his Treatise De Natura Theologiae doth concisely defend his Opinion of the Divine Original of the Points The like doth Mr. William Cooper defend the Antiquity of the Points in his Domus Masaicae Clavis 1673 And so doth Wasmuth in his Vindiciae S. Hebraeae Scripturae 1664. And thus stood the Cause for some time until now at last Ludovicus Capellus his Vindiciae comes out in Answer to Buxtorf's Treatise De Origine Punctorum as also his former Treatise Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum is reprinted with it together with other Critical Discourses in a large Folio published A. D. 1689. and dedicated to the then Archbishop of Canterbury the rest of the Bishops and all the Clergy of the Church of England By which Dedication is made as bold a Challenge and earnest Invitation to the Defence of the Truth in Controversie as could well he made and together with the foregoing Considerations render it seasonable at this time as the weight and moment of the Subject do make the present Defence thereof necessary Thirdly As to the Method of the ensuing Discourse we have divided the same into Two Parts In the First Part we examine the Evidences for the Opinion that the Points were invented A. D. 500. Or since that time by the Masorites of Tiberias or Others and discover the Improbability thereof In the Second Part we Prove and Maintain the Antiquity and Divine Original of the Shapes of the Points Vowels and Accents against the Cavils and Objections of Capellus and Others But the First of the Two is what we begin withall for several Reasons First Because we are in Possession of the present Punctation as being of Divine Original and have peaceably enjoyed it in all Ages to this time all Translations amongst us being taken out of it 'T is our Inheritance and therefore unfit to call the Antiquity of the Points into question until we first see sufficient Evidence or at least great Probality that they were a Novel Invention Which if of so late date may be more easily proved than what was a Thousand Years before that time And the Rejecting or Answering of the Arguments for their Novel Invention is a Proof of their Antiquity and Divine Original for the Points were placed either since A. D. 500. or between the time of Ezra and A. D. 500. or else by the time of Ezra But we shall here prove in the First place
Pathack So Mercer on Prov. 24.14 on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dech he saith In a Manuscript it is writ with Tsere but in the Margin it is noted that in Hillel's Copy 't is written with Segol The same faith R. Moses Bar Nachman in his Commentary on the Book of Ietsir or Iezirah Capellus objects It may be Hillel's Copy was not so ancient as is pretended But gives no Reason why we should suspect its Antiquity which is generally owned by the Jews as Iuchasin Kimchi Vid. Buxt de Punct Orig. part 2. cap. 7. So that the Points were before A. D. 500. being found in Hillel's Copy A. D. 340. and mentioned in the Bahir Zohar Mishna and Talmuds And hence we conclude the FIRST PART of this Discourse That the Text was not Pointed by the Masorites A. D. 500. or since that time at Tiberias or elsewhere And thus have we collected what others have written and our selves observed about the Novelty of the Points the like we intend about their Antiquity in the SECOND PART but more briefly if possible The End of the FIRST PART 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OR A Discourse concerning the Antiquity and Original of the Points Vowels and Accents that are placed to the Hebrew Bible The SECOND PART WHEREIN The Antiquity Divine Original and Authority of the present Punctation is proved By the Testimony of Jews and Christians The Universal Consent of all Nations that receive the Scriptures Their quiet Possession of the Text as 't is now Pointed by Prescription from Age to Age. The Vowels an Essential part of Speech oft expressed by the Punctation only The Obscurity of the Scripture without Points which yet was commanded to be written very plainly The Old-Testament evidencing it self to be the Word of God in and by the Punctation only The Anomalies thereof manifesting its Antiquity The Promise of Christ Mat. 5.18 That nothing shall be lost out of the Law or the Prophets whereof the Points are so great a part The manifest Absurdity of the contrary Opinion And other Considerations TOGETHER WITH Answers to the several Objections of Elias Levita Ludovicus Capellus Dr. Walton and Others against their Antiquity Such as are The Testimonies of some Jews about the Points The Unpointed Copy of the Law so kept in the Synagogue The Silence of the ancient Caballistical Writings of the Mishna and Talmuds about them The LXX and Chaldee Paraphrase reading otherwise than our Punctation directeth The Samaritan Character supposed to be the ancient Hebrew never Pointed The Novelty of their Names The Superfluity of their Numbers The possibility of preserving the Sound without the Shapes and of reading the Bible without Points as well as the Rabbinical Commentaries the Talmuds and other Oriental Languages are read without them By the help of the Matres Lectionis or Letters Evi a h v i By the scope of the place c. The Silence of Ierom and the Fathers about them The Opinion of divers Modern Divines both Papists and Protestants against the Antiquity of the Shapes of the present Punctation The Keri u Ketib being about the Letters and never about the Points and the like In TWO PARTS The FIRST PART containing the Testimonies The SECOND the Arguments of Jews and Christians for their Antiquity and Divine Authority wherein the Objections against the same are Answered The FIRST PART of the SECOND PART Containing the Testimonies of Iews and Christians for the Antiquity of the Points with the Answer to the several Objections that are made thereunto CHAP. I. §. 1. The Question stated §. 2. The several Opinions of those who own the Antiquity of the Points enumerated Their Divine Original proved by the Testimony of all the Iews Elias only excepted The extent and weight of this Testimony in part considered §. 3. The Objections of express Testimonies against the Antiquity of the Points answered §. 4. The Objection of the Law being kept in the Synagogue without Points answered §. 5. The Silence◠of the ancient Caballistical Writings the Mishna and Talmuds about the Points answered § 1. IN the FIRST PART of this Discourse Chap. 1. we declared that there were two Periods of Time particularly fixed unto the one or the other of which all Parties do in some respect ascribe the Original of the Points The one is the time of Ezra the other is A. D. 500. The one makes them of Divine the other of Humane Original and Authority So that the Question is Whether the Shapes or Figures of the Points Vowels and Accents which are joyned to the Text of the Hebrew Bible were invented and placed to the Text as early as the time of Ezra or else not until the Talmuds were finished A. D. 500 And having at large discovered the Improbability and Absurdity of the Opinion That the Points were first invented after the Talmuds were finished A. D. 500. in the First Part we are now to prove That the Shapes or Figures of the Points Vowels and Accents which are joyned to the Text of the Hebrew Bible were invented and placed to the Text as early as the time of Ezra Not that we need to enlarge upon this position having proved it in proving the other For none doubt of the Points being placed by Ezra but those who suppose them first invented A. D. 500. Which Opinion being already refuted there is no other time assigned by any for their Original since the time of Ezra And having largely shewed that they were not first invented and placed A. D. 500. or since that time nor yet at any other time since Ezra it followeth they were placed by the time of Ezra So that what is further alledged for the Antiquity of the Points is ex abundanti and more than could be required not but that we intend to produce sufficient Proof for their Antiquity and Divine Authority § 2. We have moreover observed already Part 1. Chap. 1. That those who acknowledge the Antiquity and Divine Authority of the Points c. do yet differ among themselves about the precise time of their first Invention For 1. Some suppose they are coaevous with the Letters and as ancient as Adam This is the Opinion of R. Azarias in Meor Enaim cap. 59 of Antonius Rodulphus Cevallerius in Rudamentis Linguae Hebraicae cap. 4. Petrus Cevallerius ibid. in Annotationibus Matthias Flacius Illiricus Clavis Scripturae part 2. tract 6. pag. 644. Marcus Marinus in Pref. to Arca Noae Vid. Buxt de Punct Orig. part 2. cap. 1. R. Samuel Arcuvolti Arugath Habbosem cap. 26. 2. Others imagine that they were Orally delivered by Moses on Sinai but not placed to the Text till Ezra's time So the Author of Cosri thinks part 3. sect 31. The Talmudists the Author of Tsak Sephataim and Others say the same 3. Others believe the Points were placed together with the Letters as the Scripture was at first written by the Pen-men of it So saith Baal Samadar and Others Vid. Arugath Habbosem cap. 26.
and Masoret Hammasoret Pref. 3. 4. But the most of the Jews affirm that Ezra and the Men of the Great Synagogue first invented and placed the Shapes of the Points to the Text as Elias Levita himself in Masoret Hammasoret at the beginning of Pref. 3. observes and Ephodeus cap. 5. cap. 7. Now all these several Opinions agree in this That the Shapes of the Points were placed to the Text by the Time of Ezra and that they are of Divine Original and Authority therefore which is all we are concern'd to prove And herein we have the universal Consent of the Jews one only Elias excepted as hath been proved in the First Part for had another been of his Opinion either himself or his Followers would have produced him which they have not done to this day Now if we consider this Testimony in all its Circumstances it will appear very full and pertinent First As to its quantity 'T is the universal Consent of all the Jews in all Places Times and Ages Secondly As to its quality they are of all sorts 1. The ancient Caballistical Writers and Philosophers 2. The Talmudists 3. The Grammarians they are the most Learned both ancient and modern Thirdly As to the History and the Age of these Witnesses none are so fit for from them we have received the Hebrew Bible by them it is preserved and they are fittest to give the best Account of their own Affairs Fourthly As to the Form of this Testimony here is their plain loud full and open Voice for the Antiquity of the Points and their deep Silence as to the Novelty of the Points So that in all respects the Testimony is full plain and Authentick § 3. But hereunto it is objected That there are express and mute Testimonies of the Jews against the Antiquity of the Points 1. As to express Testimony 't is said and objected That Aben Ezra R. D. Kimchi Cosri and the Author of Tsak Sephataim together with Elias Levita are against the Antiquity of the Points Resp. We have at large proved in the First Part that all these Testimonies are wrested and that all these Rabbins are for the Antiquity of the Points Elias Levita only excepted which proves the universal Consent of the Jews for the Antiquity of the Points seeing Elias Levita and his Followers cannot pick up one single Iew that doth so much as question or doubt of it Object But the Iews are partial to the Praise of their own Nation and so unfit Witnesses only Elias speaking against their Glory is of more moment than six hundred on the other side Resp. 1. Elias speaks most in his own Cause and for the Glory of his own Nation in ascribing the Punctation to the Masorites A. D. 500. when we say the Jews were rejected and under the Curse of God that as such a time they should be owned of God so as to be able to produce so excellent a Work as the Punctation which is the Rule of all our Translations and Expositions of Scriptures This Opinion is most their interest to espouse and most to their Praise whereas the other Opinion belongs not to their Praise any more than ours for the Christian Church succeeded the Church of the Jews What Ezra did was whilst they were God's Church and People which not the Jews but the Christians now are And Ezra had as much Honour as that did amount to besides as being one of the Pen-men of the Scripture and did not so need it as the poor Masorites who had nothing else to boast of 2. But if the Jewish Nation were herein partial to their own Glory yet still they are fittest to give the best Account of their own Affairs All Nations are partial to their own Praise and yet the Records of every Nation are the best Evidences of their Affairs and their own Transactions § 4. Secondly 'T is objected by Capellus and Others That the Iews preserve the Law which they publickly read in the Synagogue without Points thereby to represent the Autographon of Moses being without Points which 't is said Buxtorf confesseth doth prove that the Autographon of Moses was without Points Vid. Considerat Consid. pag. 242. Resp. Buxtorf doth not confess any such thing but the contrary Vid. Buxâ— de Punct Orig. pag. 49 50. And tells the several Opinions of the Jews about the Law of Moses Some suppose it was Pointed at first Others suppose there were two Copies in Moses's his time one Pointed the other without Points That the Law is judged polluted if one Point be put to it is owned but that it was without Points to represent the Autographon of Moses doth not appear They who would know why the Jews read and keep it without Points may hear what themselves say to it who own the Antiquity of the Points and therefore if their Testimony be good in one thing 't is so in another But the Jews give Three Reasons why the Law is kept without Points in the Synagogue 1. Because of the difficulty of Transcribing Copies so exactly as is required for publick use the least defect rendring it profane which indeed with Points were almost impossible to be done 2. That they might have the liberty of drawing many and divers sences whereas the Points consine it to one only but they wouâ—d have many more mysterious 3. That all Learners might be kept in dependance upon their Teachers and 't is not unlikely but they preserve the Law Unpointed that none might be permitted to read it in the Synagogue until he were able to read it perfectly without Points Moreover if it were so this hinders not but that it might be Pointed by Ezra as Megilla or Esther read without Points which yet they own that Ezra Pointed and is of Divine Authority However the rest of the Scripture is read in their Synagogue with Points and the Law it self is read exactly according to the Punctation to a tittle which sufficiently sheweth their esteem of the Punctation as being of Divine Authority Object 'T is said If the Iews did believe that Moses or Ezra either had Pointed the Law they would not have used it without Points Resp. They all believe that Moses or else Ezra Pointed the Law yet none of them Point it in the Synagogue but give other Reasons why they omit the Points though they read by them And had Elias thought there had been any Argument in this Objection 't is like he would have used it which he doth not but acknowledgeth the Jews own their Antiquity § 5. Thirdly T is objected That the ancient Caballistical Writings make no mention of the Points or their Names nor yet do they draw any Mysteries from them as they do from the Letters which if they had been of Divine Authority no doubt but they would have done Also the Mishna and Gemara yea both the Talmuds are very silent about the Points even there where they had necessary occasion to have made mention of them if they
had been in their time Resp. We have produced Instances out of the Caballistical Writings as the Zohar and the Bahir and out of the Mishna and both the Talmuds viz. that of Ierusalem and that of Babylon wherein the Points are not only mentioned but their Necessity and Antiquity is owned in part 1. cap. 15. And so hath Buxtorf de Punct Orig. part 1. cap. 5 6. at large where he produceth full Testimonies out of several Caballistical Books that mention very many of the Names of the Points as doth his Father in his Tiberias 2. The Points might be then and yet they might not have occasion to mention them as well as many voluminous Rabbinical Commentaries since the Masorites Alsheeck Abarbinel c. who make no mention of the Points 3. In the Points they were not like to find such Mysteries as in the Letters seeing the Points hinder the design of raising many Mysterious sences because they confine the Text to one certain sence 4. They might look for greater Mysteries in the Letters which they believe were given by the Lord himself than by the Points if they thought that Ezra invented them 5. And as to the Mishna and Talmuds there is not a Text as Buxtorf observes de Punct Orig. par 1. pag. 77. in all the Mishna or Talmuds any otherwise read than according to our present Punctation Now if Capellus placeth so much stress in the Argument that the LXX read otherwise than the Points direct therefore the Points were not then we may well lay as much stress on this The Mishna and both the Talmuds read all places according to the present Punctation therefore the Punctation was in their time Elias objects The Talmuds oft say Read not so but So as not Beneecha but Boneecha And there is a Mother to the Mikra or Scripture and a Mother to the Masora and that Joab slew his Master about the reading of the word Zacar which as 't is Pointed may be either the Male or the Memorial Now saith he if the Points were Divine they durst not say Read not so but So. Resp. R. S. Arcâ—volti in Arugath Habbosem cap. 26. answers this and saith Their Rabbins had received many Doctrines and Laws by Tradition which that they might preserve to Posterity they set up Tsionim Marks as 't is said Sima be-pyhem Put it in their Mouths They say read not Sima but Simanah Signs So that they alter the Letters as well as the Points hereby and we may as well say the Letters were not in their time as that the Points were not on this account for they say read not so but so of the Letters as well as of the Points Moreover R. Azarias shews that the Story of Ioab and the Saying Read not so but so are Allusive and Allegorical Expressions Which he shews are never to be allowed to prove any Doctrine by for their Midrash and Hagoda prove no Doctrine and must be took for no other use than that for which 't is brought and must never be taken or used against Scripture or Sence and Reason as the Jews acknowledge Vid. R. Azarias Meor Enaim cap. 59. pag. 92. Maim More Nebochim book 3. cap. 43. Pugio Fidei pag. 92. or 111. ult Edit So Deut. 23.13 A Paddle on thine Arm read not so saith the Talmud but read Put thy Finger to thine Ear. This none can suppose they design to be the meaning of it but is Allegorical as Poets use to speak in Metaphors and Symbols Vid. Pugio Fidei ut supra So that these Notes were only to help the Memory by such Allusions as R. S. Arcuvoliâ— observes CHAP. II. §. 1. The Objection of the ancient Translations of the LXX and the Chaldee Paraphrase using an Vnpointed Copy Answered §. 2. The Objection That the Ancient Character was the Samaritan and had no Points Answered §. 3. The Validity of the Testimony of the Iews not impaired in the least by any of the Objections § 1. 4. 'T Is objected That the LXX read otherwise than our Punctation directs and therefore 't is supposed the Points were not in their time Resp. 1. They also read with other Letters Words and Sentences in many places than our present Hebrew Copy directs And we may as well suppose our Copy was not in their time or that they used another Copy as Capellus openly avoweth Vind. lib. 1. cap. 4. sect 6. pag. 822. And in his Critica and elsewhere goes to mend our Bible by Conjectures at what words were in the Copy by which the LXX translated but will not say ours is corrupted when yet 't is to be mended by his Conjectures in innumerable places which cannot be admitted without supposing it corrupted and grossly too And we may here see whither this Opinion of the Novelty of the Points and this Argument about the LXX doth tend at last not only to deprive us of the Points but also of the Letters Words and Sentences even the Copy it self which we enjoy Hence Vossius more honestly rejects our Hebrew Bible and prefers the LXX as Authentick And the Papists on this account reject our Bible and prefer the Vulgar Latin But both are more kind than Capellus For though they take away our Bible as well as he doth yet they give us another in its stead which he doth not only leaves us to conjecture by ancient Translations what our Bible was of old And of this Argument of the LXX Dr. Broughton saith in his Positions touching the Hebrew Tongue pag. 669. Our late Men saith he help Elias his most deadly Errour with an Argument hard for the Unlearned to Answer viz. this of the LXX of which he saith Good Men used this Reason to help the Pope to disannull the Authority of Scripture and to betray their own strong Hold This Answer is sure the LXX never meant to open the Law to Heathen where they would play the Hogs or Dogs Christ hath promised Mat. 5.18 That not one jot of the Law shall perish That the Copy we now enjoy is the true Authentick Original we are ready to prove when 't is necessary so to do But seeing those in England who embrace Capellus his Opinion about the Points do yet reject this Notion about our Copy we need not here enlarge upon this Subject 2. Some who use this Argument of the LXX would nevertheless state the Question so smoothly as if they did not deny the Antiquity of the Sound and Force of the Punctation but of the Shapes only which the Masorites say they placed right according to the Sound which had been kept by Use to that time Vid. Considerat Consid. cap. 10. sect 6. pag. 206 207 208 c. Whereas they yet use this Argument of the LXX the Chaldee Paraphrase and Ierom's going off from the Punctation Which they do as much in the Sound as Shape or rather solely in the Sounds and Force of the Points which by this Argument then were not at that time and
that do belong to the Keri which are properly and regularly belonging to the Keri and as R. S. Arcuvolti saith the Keri lyeth hid in the Points of the Ketib and indeed this Objection is so far from hurting that it helpeth the Antiquity of the Points for if Ezra placed the Keri and Ketib or if they were fixed in his time then so must the Punctation be likewise whereby alone the Keri is distinguished from the Ketib and so preserved as Kimchi observes So that here is no Anomaly in this Punctation but it is Regular according to the Keri And this Keri and Ketib is not only owned by Jews but Christians also most Translations following some times the one and some times the other as they think best Vid. Ainsworth at the end of Deuteronomy c. § 4 So also do some from the Objection about the Musical Accents bring an Argument for the Antiquity of the Points For these Accents direct to the Modulation of the Voice for the uniform singing the Psalms which were most peculiar to the Ezraitical state of the Church For since that time the Skill and Practice hath declined till it is at length lost and thereby the Knowledge of the Musical Use of the Accents Hence 't is most likely these Accents were then placed when the Tunes they teach were sung and understood and not since by Persons who knew not what they placed them for § 5. Elias objects The Points have Chaldeè Names therefore are not from Moses Resp. 1. Yet they may be from Ezra well enough for then they were understood 2. Elias answers himself saying The Names have changed since the Masorites and Grammarians as Chirek called Shibber Holem called Malo Pum c. Pathak Katon for Segol c. And as R. S. Arcuvolti and R. Azarias observe the Names changed with the Dialect and Speech of each Age and Place but the Shapes have been always the same and the Sound and it matters not what their Names are or have been And so much for the Three Arguments used by the Jews Viz. 1. Vowels are granted to be an Essential part of Speech These are frequently expressed by the Points only in the Bible therefore the Points are an Essential part of the Text and so of Divine Authority 2. The Scripture was written very plainly but without Points 'twere more obscure and unintelligible than ever was any Writing therefore 't was written with the Points 3. The Old Testament evidenceth it self to be God's Word only by that Divine Sence of it which is expressed by the Points The Points therefore have the same Evidence of their Divine Authority as the Scripture it self hath These are the principal Argments used by the Jews for the Antiquity of the Points and the Objections against the same Which we have either Obviated or briefly Answered are the chiefest Objections that are made and such that are of greatest moment To Answer every little Cavil would swell the Discourse into a large Volume and waste the Readers time and patience CPAP. VII §. 1. The Heads of Arguments used by Christians for the Antiquity of the Points briefly mentioned §. 2. The First Argument That we are in peaceable Possession of the Punctation §. 3. The Second Argument That the Anomalies in the Punctation were before the Art and Grammar of it §. 4. The Third Argument taken from Mat. 5.18 That not a Tittle of the Law shall fail §. 5. The Conclusion of this Discourse § 1. HAving related the principal Arguments that are used by the Jews for the Antiquity of the Points in the Three foregoing Chapters and plainly proved them and the Divine Authority of the Points thereby We are in the Second and Last place to mention the Heads of Arguments that are used by Christians for the Antiquity of the Points Now these are for the most part Rational Improvements of those that are collected by the Jews Though they have much encreased their number yet some do seem to derive their Original from the Christians more particularly which we can but briefly mention having already far exceeded the Limits of this Discourse § 2. First then Among other things they plead lawful peaceable possession by Prescription under these several Circumstances 1. The Bible as 't is now Pointed is a Possession of Inestimable Value the Rule of Life from whence all Ancient and Modern Translations are taken and that whereon our Faith and Religion is founded 2. It hath been but of late called into question And that 3. Upon the most frivolous Pretences that ever any thing of such Importance was questioned about 4. The Interest and Design of many herein being to pervert us to a False Religion thereby And therefore 't would be great folly to deliver our Defensive Weapons to our Enemies only because they come to destroy us So that 't is thought but reasonable to hold our Bible till some cause be assigned why we should reject it besides the bare desire of the Papists or any Others to deprive us of it for their own Ends. § 3. Secondly Another Argument more peculiarly used by Christians for the Antiquity of the Points is taken from the Anomalous Punctation thereof from whence some raise an Objection against their Antiquity and 't is briefly this The Points are either coaevous with the Letters and a part of the Language or else they are an Art invented by Men Which if they were the Authors might and would have made them all uniform and regular there was no occasion for one Anomaly The only Reason why there are any Anomalies in Grammar is because all Grammar is made after Languages and by their Use whereas had Grammar been first all Speech and Words had been regular and uniform If then the Art of the Punctation had been first invented there had been no Anomalies in it or any occasion for the same But because there are innumerable Anomalies in the Punctation equal to what are in any Language we therefore conclude the Punctation it self was before the Art of it and as Ancient as is the Language it self What is objected Considerat Consid. c. 11. p. 251 252 253. That the Anomalies were not Consilio but Casu not Designedly made by the Masorites but by Mistake is not only without any colour of Reason or Testimony but against it For neither the Providence which attends the Preservation of Scripture nor yet supposing of common ordinary and very indifferent attendance on the Work of Pointing the Scripture by the Authors thereof will admit of such a Conceit the Anomalies being so innumerable and obvious to Any much more to the Inventors of them that they could not but observe them And whereas 't is further objected Why are not the Points that are placed to the Syriack Chaldee Arabick c. coaevous with those Languages also Resp. Had he produced the like Anomalies in the Punctation of them and their Religious Observation thereof he had said something till then he saith nothing against us
contains the Canons of a Council held by an Arch-Bishop of Mentz nam'd Arribon the year 1023. concerning some abuses of that time as against Priests who imagined themselves to be able to extinguish a fire by casting into it a consecrated Host. 10. There are afterwards two Writings which contain the Examination of Iohn de Wesel Doctor of Divinity accused of Heresie he was brought before two Dominicans Gerard Elten and Iames Springer the first being an Inquisitor of Faith in 1479. Some Thomists had remark'd in his Sermons Propositions they judge Heretical There are some Opinions suppos'd to be faithfully reported which agree to those of the Protestants touching the Scripture the Authority of the Ecclesiasticks and fasting He says for example that the holy Scripture must be expounded by its self and that we are not obliged to comply with Expositions or other Writings of Doctors There are also some particular Propositions very remarkable as this Raro reperio vel duas unanimes literatos etiam in fide Nullus tenet mecum dempto Evangelio ubi omnes sumus concordes I rarely find two Learned Persons of the same Opinion even in matters of Faith but no Body is of my Opinion except in regard to the Evangelists in which we all agree He also says Quod Papa Episcopi Sacerdotes nihil sint ad salutem sed sola concordia sufficit pacificeè vi vere that the Pope Bishops and Priests are nothing to our Salvation but Unity alone suffices to live happily He believed also that one ought rather to give Faith to St. Iohn who says that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father than to that Article of Athanasius's Creed that these Doctors cite under the name of the Council of Nice which Article says the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son In the Assembly where the Inquisitor Elten was President he demands of the accused Doctor if those Propositions of which we spoke were his The Doctor would have explain'd himself more at length and said that he did not know that he had writ any thing against the decisions of the Church but if it was so he was there to retract it Magister noster Gerardus immediately interrupted him and told him after having heard that he was ready to retract the Errors that he had committed Petis nunc gratiam Do you beg pardon The Divine answered him that he could not for errors unknown to him And upon that the Inquisitor said that he shou'd be put in mind of 'em by examining ' em He came to this Examen which they read in the Original where they might mark the Spirit of the Inquisition or those who imitated it Magister noster Gerardus did all he cou'd to manage this poor Doctor so that he might not justifie himself or draw him from his pretended Errors without a noise by good reasons But to render him infamous and guilty in malignantly explaining all his words 't was this made him say with sufficient reason to this misfortune After the manner you have used me if Iesus Christ were here you might condemn him as a Heretick to whom it was answered laughing That if he were he wou'd overcome him by subtilty In fine Whether convinced or no of his errors Mr. Wesel was obliged to make a publick Retraction and so submit to what pennance they pleas'd to impose on him He that writ the relation of this Examination ends with considerable Remarks upon the understanding of the Divines of that time except says he the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost which imports very little it seems not to have deserv'd so deep a censure as the others If they had given him time and liberty to consult persons about 'em he might have clear'd himself if the most part of the Judges had not been Realists or if the Religious had not had a mind to insult over a secular Priest who had no esteem for St. Thomas he might have been proceeded against with more humanity I can take God to witness that their manner of dealing with him until he had retracted and burn'd his Books hath extreamly displeased Mr. Engelin de Brunswick and Mr. Iohn Keisersberg who were Men of Learning and Integrity Mr. Engelin in particular thought they acted with too much Precipitation against so great a Man as Iohn de VVesel he confesses freely that the most part of his Articles may be maintain'd He dissembled not the hatred that the Thomists had against the Moderns he observes some amongst the Divines of that age who did not believe St. Thomas to be infallible and the satisfaction the-Monks took in triumphing over Seculars This can be nothing but the Devil who sow'd this Division amongst the Divines which causeth so much Inveteracy amongst 'em and diversity of Opinions as those who follow Thomas Ascot and if any should deny the Universals to be Realists they judge him guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost which they think to be a most culpable sin against God the Christian Religion Justice and all Policy from whence comes this but from the Devil who deludes our Imaginations and draws us to the search of useless things and cold Speculations which make us neither devout nor charitable lest we should oblige our selves to what is more honest and learn how to regulate our Manners and to procure Salvation to our Souls This is the reason that none is edified and that the Zeal of Christians diminishes daily 11. The greatest part of the rest of the Writings which compose this Volume are Complaints that the Germans and French made some Ages past against many Abuses whereof they demanded a Reformation at the Court of Rome who troubl'd themselves not much with it Most of these Pieces are very well known therefore we shall mention 'em in a few words There are divers Grievances that the Dyets of the Empire made known to the Pope's Legat which was sent to 'em and the Answers of these Legats to evade the Complaints Nicholas de Clemengi's Writings upon a General Council and Abuses that ought to be reform'd The Harangues of Iohn Francis and of Anthony Cornelius Linnecau upon the Depravation of Manners and Discipline with the Book of Erasmus of the manner whereby their Controversies which divided the Western Churches are sufficient to put a Period to all these Animosities 12. In fine there is some Discourse upon the Original and Power of the Turks with the manner of its Abatement and Reasons that introduce Christian Princes not to despair of their overthrow Orthuinus Gratius who hath often placed unuseful Prefaces and Advertisements both at the beginning and ending of his Works of which I have treated ends his Collection with a Discourse where he protests the Innocency of his design in publishing so many Heresies and Complaints against the Roman Church he makes it appear by his Declamations against the Hereticks which were spread through the whole Work and Advertisements that he was