[Having printed the foregoing rules, for the author's private ufe, as long fince as before laft Eafter, and one Hawkins having reprinted and publifhed it in an injurious manner, we have liberty to infert it correct, for the ufe of the public.]

Contests between the French Clergy and Parliament.

tribute to the inftruction and entertainment of your lefs learned readers.

Cornelius Fanfen was a native of Leerdam in Holland, and bishop of Ypres in the beginning of the 17th century; he wrote a commentary on the works of St Augustine, in which he advanced fome doctrines concerning election, reprobation, and irrefiftible grace, which were deem'd heretical, and controverted by the fejuits who profeffed thefe doctrines, as explained by Molina; two parties were therefore foon diftinguished by the names of Fanfenifts and Molinifts, who oppofed each other with all the bitterness of religious zeal.

Between the years 1690 and 1700, Father Quesnel, an ecclefiaftic of France, tranflated the New Teftament into the French language, and wrote a comment upon every verfe, in which the doctrines of Fanten were maintained and enforced, and the right of the laity to read the feriptures was afferted; this book the Jejuits perceived came into many hands, and was eagerly read; they therefore procured it to be condemned by the papal authority; but the fale and use of this book not being yet effectually reftrained, in the year 1713, 101 propofitions were felected from it, and after a folemn examination were declared, by a bull of Pope Clement XI. beginning with the word Unigenitus, to be falfe, captious, ill-founding, offenfive to pi ous ears, fcandalous, pernicious, rafh, injurious to the church in its practice, feditious, blafphemous, and heretical.

But the Fanfenifts being still the more numerous fect, the Bull Unigenitus was never generally received, and Quejnel's book was ftill read; it was therefore once debated by the Jefuits, whether they should refufe the fanfenifls the use of the churches, and it was carried in the negative, because it was alledged that if the Fanfenifts were excluded, the churches would be empty.

A

B

D

F

203

Fanfenift, and he died without them. This affair made a great noise at that time, but ill confequences were prevented by the prudence of the government. Some time after M. Cauffin, counsel lor of the chatelet, and nephew to the deceased, being alfo dangeroufly ill, fent for the fame curate to adminifter the facraments to him, who, instead of complying, declared that he would do no thing for him unless he produced a con feffion of his faith, properly certified, and named his confeffor. Of this the friends of M. Cauffin complained to the parliament; the curate was fummoned, and being interrogated concerning the reafons of his refufal and demand, an fwered, that he did not think himself ac countable to the parliament for his con duct in fpirituals, and that none but the archbishop of Paris had a right to de mand the reafons upon which he had acted For this answer, which was deemed contemptuous, the parliament imprisoned him, and next day fent a de putation to the archbishop of Paris, to enquire if it was by his approbation that the curate had refufed the facraments to the dying man? the bishop answered, that according to an established cuftom the facraments could not be adminiɣtered without first producing a note of com feion, and that M. Cauffin was bound to conform to that rule before he could receive them.

The parliament well knew that this cuftom was merely a pretence, and perceived that the bishop approved of what the curate had done; but the question which originally was only Whether the curate had done his duty in refufing the facrament to a dying perfon, was, now become complicated with another, Whether, if he had not done his duty, he was accountable to the parliament or to the bishop? The parliament therefore refolved nem.con. that fuch members as were of the king's council, fhould inform him of the fcandal raifed by refufing the facraments to M. Cauffin, and of the infult offered to the royal authority, G by the curate's appeal to the bishop. The king, who found himself much embarraffed, returned an answer, in which, though he feems to condemn the curate for refusing the facrament, he yet wishes the parliament had proceeded with less feverity; he condemns the imprisonment of the curate, and declares that he will always preferve the public peace, the refpect due to religion, and a legal fubordination to the minilters of the church.

From this time the fchifm lay concealed till the Jefuits thinking their party had gained fufficient ftrength, declared openly against the Fanfeniffs on the following occafion: "The Abbe Cauffin, principal of the college of Beauvais in Paris, fucceffor of the celebrated M. Rollin, and a person of fuch approved orthodoxy, that his hymns for the new breviary had been daily fung in the churches of the diocele of Paris above 15 years, being dangeroufly fick, fent H for the curate of St Stephen du Mont, his paftor, to adminifter to him the last facraments; but this the curate absolutely refuted, upon pretence that he was a

14

204

Remarkable STORY related by Oliver Cromwell.)

This answer produced a pathetic re monftrance, in which the parliament obferves, that though the church has an anqueftioned and independent right to datermine all 'matters of faith and of practice in fpirituals, yet the power to enforce the laws of the church in his majefty's dominions belangs only to A his majefty, or to thofe to whom he has delegated his authority; that they, who are intrufted with this authority have been fo far from exercising it to infringe the rights of the church, that they have eftablished them, by bringing to her affiftance a power which enables her to g carry thofe laws which the has ordained into execution: And that there being no law of the church by which a certificate of confeffion and the naming the, confeffor are made neceffary conditions of an admiffion to the facraments, fuch of the clergy who refufe the facraments, but upon these conditions, act illegally, and ought to be compelled by the civil power to return to their duty.

To this remonstrance the king made no other reply than that he would order the affair to be examined by his council, In the mean time M. Caufin died, and D Teveral ecclefiaftics followed the curate of St Stephen's example. What has fince happened may be communicated for Yours, &c. your next, by!

ASTORY; related in the Lond. Advertifer, after mentioning the Anniver- E Jary of K. Charles II's Restoration.

ONE

G

NE time, when Ld Broghill, afterwards created Earl of Orrery by K. Charles II. was riding with Cromwell, on one fide of him and Ireton on the other, at the head of their army, they fell F into difcourfe about the death ofChar. I. Cromwell declared, that if the king had follow'd his own mind, and had had trufty fervants about him, he had fooled them all, and farther faid, that once they, had a mind to have clofed with him, but upou fomething that happen'd they fell off from that defign. La Breghill afk'd the reafon?"We found, reply'd be, that the Scots and the prefbyterians began to be more powerful than we, and if they made up matters with the king we fhould have been left in the lurch; therefore we thought it beft to prevent them, by offering firft to come in upon reafonable H conditions. But while we were bufied in thefe thoughts, there came a letter from one of our ipies, who was of the king's bedchamber, which acquainted us that on that day our final doom was

decreed that he could not poffibly tell what it was, but we might find it out if we would intercept a letter from the king to the queen; which letter, he said, was fewed up in the fkirt of a faddle, and the bearer of it would come with the faddle upon his head, about ten o' clock that night, to the Blue-boar Inn in Holbourn, for there he was to take horse and go to Dover with it. This messen. ger knew nothing of the letter in the Jaddle, but fome perfons in Dover did. We were at Windfor when we received this advice, and immediately Ireton and I refolved to take one trufty fellow with us, and in troopers habits to go to the inn in Helbourn, which we accordingly did, and fet our man at the gate of the inn, where the wicker only was open to let people in and out. Our man was to give us notice, when any perfon came there with a faddle, while we in the difguife of common troopers called for cans of beer, and continued drinking till a bout ten at night, when our centinel gave notice, that the man with the faddle was come in. Upon this we immediately role, and as the man was leading out his horfe faddled, came up to him with drawn fwords, and told him, we were to fearch all that went in and out there, but as he look'd like an honeft man we would only fearch his. faddle. Upon that we ungirt the faddle, and carried it into the hall where we had been drinking, leaving the horfe man with our centinel; then ripping up one of the fkirts of the faddle, we there found the letter, and having got it into our hands, we deliver'd the faddle again to the man, telling him he was an honeft man, and he might go about his bufinefs. The man not knowing what had been done went away to Dover. As foon as we had read the letter we found the king acquainted the queen, that he. was now courted by both the factions, the Scotch prefbyterians and the army, and which bid faire it for him fhould have him, but he thought to clote with the Scots fooner than the other, &c. Upon this added Cromwell, we took horfe and went to Windjer, and finding we were not likely to have any tolerable terms from the king, we from that time forward refolved his ruin."

[This conversation is said by the anonymous writer to have pasjed zben Brog-, hill afted Cromwell in the reduction of the Rebels in Ireland, which jeems to have been about 100 years after the king's

Mr

Of Mr Moody's Treatife on Elohim and Berith.

Mr URBAN,

C

Ince my laft, (p.168) the Rev. Mr Moody's treatile concerning Elohim and Berith has fallen into my hands, from which I find that those objections A I made against the regular derivation of EL HIM from ALaH were started by Dr Sharp, and are confidered by the Rev. Mr Moody, in his treatife, which is a modeft, regular, well-meaning compofition in general; altho', I conceive, not properly fatisfactory. I fhould have proceeded immediately to fome farther obfervations, had not this piece fallen in B my way, and fhall now be as brief as poffible in my exceptions to his reply. I have faid that thefe gentlemen depart from the constant ufage of the Hebrew, in their derivation of the words ELHIM and ELOaH. Mr Moody attempts to difprove this by bringing inftances of the like inflection of Hebrew roots. But what are thefe instances? He offers two, I apprehend, very little to the purpofe; fince my objection is formed upon the ufual inflection of Hebrew verbs, concerning the retaining or dropping the third radical H, whereas the inftances he produces are neither of D them verbs, but the one a noun fubftantive, and the other a noun adjective, and therefore ought not to be admitted as a parallel. And 'tis evident that a small variation from rule in declining a noun cannot occafion fo much confulion and uncertainty as the fame variation would in conjugating a verb, and therefore E ought not to be admitted in a language which, as they fay, is peculiarly determinate and perfect. Farther the objection is far from being answered, because their derivation of the words under confideration muft ftill be looked on as a departure from the usage of the language. And is it rational to fuppofe, that in words of fuch high importance there should be a conftant infringement upon its ufual conftruction? He attempts, indeed, to make this breach upon the form of the Hebrew the more readily received, by fuppofing EL and not ALaH to be the original root, which, he says, always has the idea of interpofition; by which means he confounds feveral Hebrew roots together, which are very distinct, both in their fignification and formation. And this attempt is, I apprehend, a very danger

205

gree.
For what certainty can there be
in that language, which will admit into
one idea, and under one root, the feve-
ral following conftructions: God, an
oath, ftrength, irradiation, a ram, a porch,
theje, not, a valley; all which may be
feen ingenioufly connected together un-
der the general idea of interpofition, and
allowed to be just tranflations under the
fame root, by Mr Moody, in his treatife,
P. 24, to 29. Now I afk how is it pof-
fible for the certainty and perfpicuity of
that ancient language to be maintained
upon fuch a method of interpretation ?
Could what I might fuggeft have any
influence upon thefe gentlemen, I would
advile them to be very cautious of ad-
mitting fuch an unbounded variety into
the language, left they fhould be found
deitroying with one hand, what they
attempt to build up with the other.

I have feveral more things to obferve,
but choose to pass on to one more remark
upon the word ELOHIM: 'Tis this:
the Hutchinfonians fay that this word
is plural, and must therefore always fig-
nify more perfons than one; and is to
be looked on as a folid proof of a plu-
rality of perfons in the divine effence.
The doctrine itself I have no doubt of,
and think there is fufficient evidence for
it, without an argument fetched from
the plural termination of this word;
and I much query whether it can stand.
'Tis indeed confest, that according to
the regular conftruction of the Hebrew,
the important word under confideration
is and muft be plural. But are there
not inftances where it intends only one
perfon, or only one of the perfons in the
divine eflence? If I mistake there
are none fo much for applying this plu-
ral word Elohim to the one perfon of
Chrift as theinfelves. But I would turn
to one paflage where it is applied to the
father, in diftinction from the fon, and
to the Jon in diftinction from the father,
Palm xlv. 6, 7. Thy throne, O ELO-
HIM, is for ever and ever; this is indu-
bitably meant of the fingle perfon of the
G fon, in diftinction from the father: again,
Therefore God, EL,HIM, even thy God,
bath anointed thee, &c. This is certain-
ly meant of the father in dittinction from
the Jon. And if ELOHIM fignifics (as
they lay) Covenanters, let thefe verses be
tranflated according to that interpreta-
tion, and the reader will find himfelf
confounded and perplexed. I fhould

not,

ous one, as it tends to make the roots fo H therefore look upon myself as very much few, and the radical ideas fo general, as neceffarily renders the language vague and uncertain to the higheit de. (CENT. MAG. May 1752.)

indebted to them, if they could clear away this perplexity; and, until that be done, I muft withold my aflent to their explication

Da

206 Etymology of Cherubim Hiftory of the Incas.

explication of this word: and fo ought every confiderate perfon.

I now enter upon the words CHeRuB and CHeRuBIM, where I intend to be very particular, both as to their etymology and interpretation; becaufe the A meaning of the Cherubim is, as it were, the center of their whole fyftem, as 'tis what connects their philofophy and theology together.

The firit queftion that arifes is, whether CHERB be a root or a derivative, B a fimple or a compound word? I incline to think, 'tis a fimple root: becaufe, if fo, then no perplexity arises; and all that we have to do is to learn what this root refers to, from the various places where 'tis found, and content ourselves with that. Whereas, if we fuppofe it to be a derivative or C compound, we fet a door open for all or any imagination, and can come at no certainty.

-

thefe figures or ftatues can be no more than the fimilitude of fome great one; and that two of thefe are not, as they fuppole, the fimilitude of the great ones, but only two diftinct, different, fimilitudes or emblems of a great one. And does not this obfervation fix the point, that whatever number of faces each of these statues had, yet one of them could not be intended to represent more than one great perfon, and therefore can have no relation to a plurality of perfons? And do not both thefe obfervations united pofitively direct us to conceive that CHe RuB is a fimple root, and CHeRuBIM the plural of it?

I

But fearing left I fhould exceed the
bounds you were pleafed to allot me,
will trefpafs no farther at prefent, but
referve what I have to add on this part
of the fubject till another opportunity.
1 am, &c. CANDIDUS.

History of the INCAS continued from p.179.
TUPAC-YUPANQUI the 11th Inca,

DTt the leveral provinces of the em-
HIS emperor's first care was to vi-
pire. He afterwards made preparati-
ons for further conquefts, being unwil-
ling to be accounted in that reípect in-
ferior to any of his predeceffors. The
name of Tupac, that is, the Resplendent,
was given him because he took a plea-
fure in difplaying his grandeur and mag-
nificence, and in giving fuch a luftre to
the imperial dignity as quite eclipfed
every thing that had appeared in former
reigns.

But I must attend to the fentiments of Mr Hutchinfon and his followers, and fee what account they give of it, and fake fome remarks upon them. They fuppofe that CHeRuBIM is a compound, of CHe, like as, and RuBIM, the great ones, and to conclude that its fignification is a fimilitude of the great ones; meaning the three perfons in the Trinity. I have two objections to this their explication of its etymology, gathered from the genius and usage of the Hebrew. E 1. It CHeRuBIM be compounded of CHe and RuBIM, as they fuppofe, then it cannot fignify the fimilitude of the great ones; but as, or according to the great ones; for CHe is no noun to intend a fimilitude, but a prepofition, and fignifies as. cording to this explication, the word CHeRuBIM fhould be rendered as great ones, which rendering would not make fenfe of thofe places where it is found. But not to infift upon this, I have another remark to make, which deferves a greater ftrefs to be laid upon it.

Ac

2. The word Cherubim, in moft places, plainly refers to thofe two figures, or ftatues of gold, which were upon the mercy-feat in the San&tum Sanctorum, in the tabernacle and in the temple. Now let the reader look over (as I have done) all the places where it is to be found, and he will eafily fee that one of thefe ftatues is always called a Cherub in the fingular number, and that the plural word Cherubim is never ufcd but where two or more of these ftatues are spoken of; which leads us neceffarily to this thought: That if the foregoing compo fiion of the word be juft, then one of

F

G

He made four expeditions in perfon, during his reign. In the first he took the field with an army of 40000 men, and fubdued the provinces of Huacrachucu, Chachapuya, Muyupampa, Cafcayunca, and Huancapampa; the two former whereof defended themselves to the very laft with great refolution, but the three latter, dilpirited with the il fuccefs of their neighbours, fubmitted without making any great refiftance. Not to, the three provinces of Cafa, Azuaca, and Callua, which the emperor next attacked, for they united together, and refolved to perifh rather than fubmit, and indeed the refiftance they made was obitinate, long, and bloody. They difputed every inch of ground, and retreated from one itrong hold to another, H till they were driven to the extremities of their country; they then furrendered, but fo few of the natives were left alive, that the Inca was obliged to re-people the provinces with other nations.

Not