done by words and our Author no otherwise assures you of it than by citing our Churches Articles But whereas you add that this you cannot but think implieth a Liberty not onely to Believe and Judge but to Doe also according to what a man believes and judgeth surely you will find your self able to think otherwise when you have considered what is the necessary and immediate consequence of such a thought viz. that all such things as Laws are utterly inconsistent with allowing to men the Judgment of Discretion according to this large notion And that therefore our Church doth faultily Symbolize with the Church of Rome in having any such things as Government and Discipline You next say that our Author speaketh very true as to the Popish Rites and Ceremonies and that those in our Church are comparatively few but you much doubt whether the use of those few was long before Popery appeared in the world unless he means Popery at its full growth for that Mystery of Iniquity as to Rituals began to work very early To this I answer that the Papists may con you great thanks for this passage it plainly enough intimating that the Primitive Father and Christians were for the most part Papists though not fully grown Papists And as to those words of St. Paul The Mystery of iniquity doth already work if you can do any thing like proving that the Apostle meant by the Mystery of iniquity which began to work in his days the use of such Rites as those you are offended with in our Church I will engage for our Author that he shall immediately set up for a Nonconformist You say in your Third Page that you cannot well understand how our Author saith that our Church doth not impose her Rites as necessary unless he means as necessary in order to Salvation c. But doth he not expresly tell you what he means by necessary you found he did if you read the whole Sentence which runs thus pag. 4. And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome does her's as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article c. And why Sir did you conceal this part of the Sentence and thus stop at a Comma You thus proceed Nor do I well understand how they are not made necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of them is made sinfull and meritorious of a being cast out of the Church c. And I assure you that I do as little understand if this be good arguing how whatsoever the King commands of his Subjects or a Master of his Servants is not made by them necessary to Salvation since the non-observance of the Lawfull Commands of each is acknowledged to be sinfull by all that believe these Precepts binding viz. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake c. And Servants obey in all things your Masters c. And as to the Penalty you mention of being cast out of the Church and cut off from the Body of Christ which is the same thing it amounts to thus much That those who will by no means be prevailed with to conform to the Laws of the Society of which they are Members shall be cast out of it which all Societies and Bodies Politique whatsoever have ever thought fit to have inflicted upon obstinate Transgressors of their Laws in order to the preservation of themselves and the upholding of Government amongst them And our Author I am certain will readily grant that none but Obstinate Transgressors of the Churches Laws and such as are incorrigible by all other means first tryed ought to be cast out of the Church and that the Sentence of Excommunication should never be pronounced against them but as the last Remedy As also that the design thereof ought always to be the Reformation of the Offender as well as for example to others never his Destruction But how does this Penalty's being made the Sanction of the Laws of our Church which ordain Rites and Ceremonies for Order's sake and the decent administration of Divine Worship in Publique speak these to be enjoyned as necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of any of them is no otherwise judged to be sinfull than as it is an Act of disobedience to Humane Authority and when this Penalty is never according to the Rules of our Church to be inflicted but in case of the Offender's adding contempt to his disobedience If any instances can be given of persons being Excommunicated upon the account of Nonconformity who are humble and modest and peaceable and that give good evidence of their willingness to comply with the Laws of their Governours as far as they are able with safe consciences this I am sure is wholly the fault of Persons not of our Constitution But this Objection is too inconsiderable to deserve our bestowing so many words upon it All that follows to the bottom of your Fifth Page wherein our Author is concerned hath been replied to And there you thus speak As in England we have a Silent and a Speaking Law so we have also a Silent and a Speaking Church c. We know the Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39 Articles but this is but Ecclesia Muta How many have we that will tell us We are Ecclesia Loquens the Living Church of England and we tell you c. Here follow no fewer than thirteen Doctrines taught by this Ecclesia Loquens contradictory to the 39 Articles But 1. You have given us we thank you the very first information of this Ecclesia Loquens But why do you expect unless we knew you better that we should take your bare word for it Nay we have hardly that for you do not in express terms affirm but ask this Question How many have we that will tell us we are Ecclesia Loquens And therefore it might suffice to give you onely this short answer Do you tell us how many or whether there are any if you know Surely this Church of yours is an Invisible Church or if not none but Dissenters Eyes are clear enough to get the least glympse of it But the truth of it is 't is a mere Figment and the very Dream of a Shadow But 2. Whereas a Positive Assertion of the being of such a Church of England is implied in this Question you cannot well be otherwise understood than as asserting that the Prevailing party of our Church of England Divines have obtruded upon the World this long Beadroll of Heresies as Articles of Faith and so have turned the Old Church of England out of doors And therefore you are brought to this miserable pass that you cannot hold Communion with this New Church except you will separate from and bid adieu to the Old And in good earnest if this be so Dissenters are the onely true Friends of the Church of England as by Law Established and this Church is hugely
obliged to them for their Separation But 3. I am well assured that you will never be able to make good this charge or any part of it against any number of the Divines of our Church For I who know I am confident as many of them as most men in England can truly declare as followeth That I cannot name any one Divine of our Church who teacheth your First contradictory Doctrine to the 39 Articles viz. That although we may not terminate our worship in an Image yet we may bow down and worship the true God before an Image Nor your Second viz. That departed Saints know our states here upon Earth and are praying to God for us and therefore we may pray to them Nor know I any one of our Church who teacheth your Third viz. That any Priest may absolve by commission from God more than declaratively I mean I know no one that maketh the Priest's Absolution to be other in Effect than declarative though it signifies more than if pronounced by a Layman Nor your Fourth That the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ is in the Elements of Bread and Wine really Our Church-Catechism saith that The Body and Bloud of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithfull in the Lord's Supper And I know no Divine of ours that explaineth this otherwise than thus That Believers feed on the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Lord's Supper as truly and really as they do on the Elements but not after a corporal and carnal manner but after a spiritual viz. by applying to themselves the Benefits of Christ's death by faith And I presume you will neither assert this to be Popish Doctrine nor deny that 't is true Doctrine Nor do I know any one of our Divines that holds your Fifth Proposition for it may not be called a Doctrine viz. That our Conformable Congregations are no better than Conventicles where the Minister reads not the Communion Service at the Altar Which you assert to be tantamount to the allowing of Prayers in an Vnknown Tongue because in multitudes of Congregations the People cannot hear a line from him I say I know of no Divine of our Church that ever asserted that such Congregations as the forementioned are no better than Conventicles There was indeed lately a foolish Book published to Prove them Conventicles but it is strongly conjectured that this Book was written by a certain Layman And what Church he is of I cannot say nor is it a pins matter to know But I may as much suspect him to be a Protestant Dissenter as a Popish upon the score of that his Position it being nothing of kin to the allowing of Prayers in an Vnknown tongue For as there is not One of your Multitudes of Congregations wherein the People cannot hear a line from him that reads at the Communion Table except you mean wherein every one of the People cannot for I doubt not the Major part can in all where the Minister hath a voice to be well heard from the Pulpit so all that is read is known before to those who are not Strangers to our Prayers or at least they may have Books to enable them to go along with the Minister whether they can or cannot hear distinctly one sentence from him Nor do I know any one of our Divines that hath ever taught your 6th Doctrine That whole Christ is under each Element which you intimate is the onely foundation on which the Sacrilegious Romish Practice stands But if I could believe that Doctrine to be true I should notwithstanding judge it an intolerable thing to refuse the Cup to the Laity against the express Institution of our Lord. Nor know I any Divine of our Church guilty of the 7th particular of your Charge viz. That there are those who interpret the Ten Commandments so as that he who will ever be saved must do a great many works of supererogation And if I did know any one that so interpreted the Commandments as to make any one such work necessary to Salvation I would not call him a Papist for it but an Ignoramus who understands not the word Supererogation Nor know I any one that teacheth Original Sin thereby understanding Corruption of Nature to be rather our Misfortune than our Fault which is your 8th Doctrine Nor consequently that Concupiscence is no sin which is your 9th Nor your 10th That man hath a power in his own will to chuse and doe what is spiritually good i. e. without the Assistence of Divine Grace And with this Assistence I hope you Dissenters do all hold it Nor know I any one of our Divines who teacheth That we are not accounted righteous before God or Justified onely for the Merits of Christ that is that there is any other Meritorious cause of our Justification besides the Active and Passive obedience of Christ Nor your 11th That we are not Justified by Faith alone Understanding by Faith not a dead but a living Faith that purefies the heart and works by love Nor your 12th That good works must go before justification and are not the fruits of Faith but Faith it self For I know no one of our Church that asserts more than this that a sincere Resolution to obey all God's Commandments must in order of nature go before Justification Nor your 13th That there is no Eternal Predestination of persons to life and the means tending thereunto I know of none of our Church that have ever taught this Doctrine as you have expressed it nor any worse than this That Eternal Predestination to life is not Irrespective or Absolute which no Article of our Church saith it is And Abundance of you Dissenters hold this Doctrine as well as Church of England men And thus have I gone over all the Doctrines contradictory to the 39 Articles taught by your Ecclesia Loquens yours I say for she is not ours and I declare again that I know of no Divine of our Church that teacheth or holdeth such Doctrines If you know any as one would think you do very many I pray name them You say we spare any names in these cases but be you entreated not to spare them But if you won't be prevailed with we shall very shrewdly guess at the reason Sir to deal freely with you I cannot but wonder at your adventuring into the World this other Celeusma since the Author of the former had so ill success and must needs have repented him heartily of that Undertaking All that have consideratively read his Answerer I am confident are convinced that after a Great Cry Little Wooll appeared or rather none at all Nor can such be ignorant what foul play was used to make our Divines of the Church of England broach Heresie And I doubt not but you your self have blushed at it if you have ever read the Parallela imparia five Specimen fidei Celeusmaticae Could you catch us thus dealing with the Books of your Authors as ours have been
dealt with by that Author and some others that might be named we should at another kind of rate have been exposed than they have been But Sir for God's sake let us make as much Conscience of vile Calumny than which there is not a more express Transgression of the Law of God nor of the very Light of Nature as of Obedience to Authority in such things as no Divine Law can be produced against and nothing but strained and far-fetcht Consequences And for God's sake also let us at length be perswaded to have so great a concern for our common Religion as to give over exposing it by such unchristian doings to the Scorn and Derision of our Common Enemy But I cannot take my leave of this heavy Charge of yours till I have asked you what you inferr from thence on supposition you can make good proof of it It is plain your design in all this talk is to justifie if not a total yet a partial Separation You do indeed to conceal nothing of your Candour after all acknowledge That you are very far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens that in these things are of another mind And therefore I hope you will not excuse Separation from their Churches Nay you say That hundreds of the Speaking Church are as we believe as far from symbolizing with the Church of Rome you mean in Doctrine as the Articles And that in this thing a Separation from the Silent as well as this part of the Speaking Church must needs be highly Sinfull And in thus declaring you condemn the generality of those that Separate it being well known that Communion with those whom you will acknowledge to be Orthodox Divines and those which you account Heterodox is much alike boggled at But I fear when all is done you condemn onely separation in Heart from these Orthodox men your Undertaking in your 8th Page makes me fear this viz. That all the Valuable persons in Presbyterian and Independent Congregations shall give any reasonable assurance that they are not in Heart divided from a Single Person in the Church of England that speaketh in matters concerning Doctrine as our Church doth in her Articles But if you think that all the Communion you are obliged to hold with these Divines is onely that of the Heart that is thinking them Orthodox and loving them as such but allow it to be lawfull to refuse to worship God with them nay and not so much as to hear them we thank you for nothing This is such Church Communion as will well consist with rending and tearing the Church in pieces But I pray do not think that all this while I take it for granted that 't is lawfull to separate from the Congregations of those Divines whom we take to be in some points Heterodox Nay upon supposition that your Ecclesia Loquens did as generally depart from the Doctrine of our Church as the Pharisees in our Saviour's time did from the Law of Moses I shall be far from granting that Separation from their Congregations is lawfull except there be a constraint laid upon us to subscribe to their Heterodox Opinions till you can prove that our Saviour allowed of the Jews Separation from the Pharisees which you never can but the contrary who cannot shew He bad his Disciples indeed to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and so are we to beware of the Leaven of such Heterodox Teachers but not so to beware of it as not to come within their Churches for that that caution of our Saviour is not to be so interpreted appears not onely from his own practice who was far from being a Separatist from the Jewish Temple or Synagogues and by what he saith Mat. 23. 2 3. In the last Paragraph of your 9th Page you return to speak more directly to our Author And first you reflect upon these words in his Book p. 24. But I am so far from taking it for granted that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondered how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not commanded so neither is it forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law there is no Transgression c. To this you say that it is an obvious begging the Question And it might be so if our Author stopt here but he thus proceeds And whereas certain circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither Duties nor Sins to be either Duties or Sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinfull So that this is the Obvious meaning of our Author's words that he hath wondered how it should become a Question whether a Church may lawfully agree in some things with the Church of Rome which the Law of God hath not forbidden And whereas somethings that are not forbidden by the Law of God directly are notwithstanding forbidden thereby Consequentially he hath admired how the more Circumstance of a thing 's being practised by the Church of Rome can speak it to be forbidden by God's Law Consequentially And then he immediately betakes himself to the consideration of some of those Laws given to the Israelites that prohibit their imitating the Doings of the Egyptians and Canaanites which are urged by Nonconformists to prove it unlawfull to imitate the Church of Rome in things of a mere indifferent nature and that that circumstance of their being practised by that Church makes them cease to be indifferent and to become Sinfull And endeavours to shew that this cannot with any shew of reason be gathered from these Laws And how I pray is this an Obvious begging of the Question which is Whether a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome be a warrant for separatian from the Church so agreeing This I say is the Question which our Author handles But you next make a Question for him and say it is this Whether a thing in its own nature indifferent be still indifferent as to Christians use in God's worship when it hath been once used in Idolatrous Services if the use of it be neither Naturally necessary to the worship of God as it is an humane Act nor suitable to the Ends of it nor such without which it cannot in common judgment be decently performed But our Author much more wonders how this should become a Question than how that of his own propounding should For First There are three apparent Contradictions in it It being a contradiction to say concerning the same thing that it is in its own nature indifferent and yet naturally
A DEFENCE OF THE RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE VIZ. Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it Unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England In Answer to a Book Intituled A Modest Examination OF THAT RESOLUTION LONDON Printed by J. H. for B. Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1684. A DEFENCE OF THE Resolution c. SIR I who know the Author of the Book which hath given you this trouble better than any man do conclude that you are not more a stranger to him than he is to you from the Epithets you so frequently bestow upon him throughout your Papers except you do it which I would not be so uncharitable as to think by way of Irony In your First Paragraph you express a Liking of the Complexion of his Book and I perceive you mean that it pleaseth you to find it not written in a heat and that there is nothing of a Censorious or Peevish humour or of a haughty contempt of those he deals with therein exprest And he hopes that upon the same accounts you are no less pleased with the other Resolutions of Cases which bear this company But he thinks it no mighty Attainment to be able in writing to manage a Controversie Coolly and Sedately without bitter or provoking Reflexions or contemptuous Expressions Though men of warm Tempers may find it somewhat difficult to govern their Spirits and Passions as it becomes them in the heat of disputing by word of mouth one would think that a small measure of Humility or Good nature or of Discretion and Prudence should make it no hard matter to acquire that other Attainment And much more that no one who is a Christian in Spirit and Temper as well as in Notion and Profession can find it a difficult thing to arrive at it But enough of this In your Second Paragraph you seem to intimate that our Author might have spared his pains in dwelling so long upon the Distance between our Church and the Church of Rome in points of Doctrine But he is not satisfied with the reasons you give for the needlesness of so doing Your reasons are two First because he argued chiefly for Communion in Worship And Secondly you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish nor our Church reflected on as symbolizing with that Idolatrous Church in Points of Doctrine But these reasons have not convinced our Author that he is over long upon this Argument for it was not his design to shew that our Church doth not symbolize in Points of Doctrine with that of Rome but that She stands at greatest defyance with that Church Not that She doth not teach her Corrupt Doctrine in her Articles but that she designedly confutes them and exposeth the falsity and corruption of them And this surely was worth the shewing in so many instances for their sakes who never read or considered those Articles as I fear very few of the Dissenters have done And whereas you say you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish and it would be strange if you had I say there is too great cause to suspect that very few of our Dissenting Brethren do understand how Anti-popish they are though they do not charge them as Popish And I doubt you have met with many I am sure very many are to be met with who have reflected upon our Church as an Idolatrous Church though you never heard her accused as symbolizing with the Idolatrous Church of Rome in Points of Doctrine But they will find it somewhat hard to understand how a Church can be Idolatrous in matters of Practice and yet be pure in her Doctrine from any tang of Idolatry Surely her Practices must be grounded upon her Doctrines or they would be strange Practices indeed And it would be wonderfull if she should Practise Idolatry and yet Believe nothing that tends to the encouragement of that soul Sin nay believe and teach all those Doctrines that are as Opposite to Idolatry as Light to Darkness So that I conceive nothing could be more to our Author's purpose than to endeavour to remove that prejudice of many against the Constitution of our Church which is grounded upon an Opinion of its being near of kin to Popery And what could signifie more to their Conviction that there is not any ground for such an Opinion than the shewing how abhorrent to Popery our Church is in her Doctrine and what a testimony she beareth in her Articles against the Idolatrous and Superstitious Doctrines of the Romish Church and the Practices which she foundeth upon those Doctrines As to the several Additions you say may be made to the Anti-popish Doctrines contained in the 39 Articles our Author conceives he was not guilty of any Oversight in not preventing you because some of them are not properly Anti-popish but contrary to the Doctrine of other Sects which are to be found among Abhorrers of Popery as well as Papists and others of them our Author hath not omitted but if you 'll look again you may find them in their proper places Viz. those Doctrines contained in Artic. VI. and Artic. XI This under the head of Doctrines flatly contradicting the Holy Scriptures pag. 9. That under the head of the Authority on which each of the two Churches founds its whole Religion pag. 18. Now I hope by this time you understand very well what our Author would have you conclude from this first part of his Performance which you say you do not well understand And whereas you ask whether it be that the 39 Articles have in them nothing of kin to Popery as to matters of Faith And add that you dare say there is not a judicious Dissenter in England will say they have I answer if there be any injudicious Dissenters in England that will say they have I hope these poor people ought not to be so despised as that we should use no means for the undeceiving of them But our Author would have you conclude that he hath done what he designed which is as hath been already said not to shew that the 39 Articles have nothing of kin to Popery but that they are most abhorrent from it and that our Church is at the widest and vastest distance from Popery in her Doctrinals and consequently one would think too in matters of Practice But our Author does not satisfie himself to prove this by this consequence but goes on to shew it in the particular instances of matters of Practice after he had done it in Points of Doctrine To return now to your Second Page You say that it is mightily Satisfactory to you to hear our Author assuring you that our Church alloweth her Members the judgment of Discretion c. But Sir you needed no Authors to assure you of this since our Church hath done it as fully as it can be
Author's mind as to the two other Texts You say The following part of the Chap. Lev. 18. gives some colour to interpret that place of things morally evil yet why are they forbidden under the notion of things done after the doings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites I answer because they were the doings of those people whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate even their greatest Immoralities And this is a sufficient Answer Then you tell us Nor is Deut. 14. 1. or Lev. 19. 8. capable of such a sense But our Author saith not a word of Lev. 19. 8. for 't is verse the 19th that he speaks to and as hath been said already he never saith that in this place the things forbidden are morally evil but the contrary But as to those things forbidden in Deut. 14. 1. he sheweth that they are morally evil nor is your bare saying that that place is not capable of such a sense a confutation of him And now we come to the Text which you desire your Author to consider in these words But because our Author tells us he can find no other Texts that make more if so much for this purpose I shall desire you Sir but to consider Hos 2. 16 17. And it shall be at that day saith the Lord that thou shalt call me Ishi and shalt call me no more Baali For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall no more be remembred by their name Now upon this Text you say That Baali was a very good name if we consider it in its self what doth it signifie more than my Lord Adonai is of the same signification by which name it was never unlawfull to call God But because the Idol was called Baal God abhorred it though he allowed himself to be called by another name of the same significancy Nor will I believe our Author himself owns that it was lawfull for the Jews to apply themselves to God under the name of Baali Now because you lay so much weight upon this Text you shall have the fuller Answer And 1. I say that God doth not in the former verse give the Jews a Prohibition no more to call him Baali but makes them a gratious Promise that they shall not T is plain by what goes before that the words are a Promise viz. by the two foregoing verses wherein God promiseth them to cease from plaguing them for their Idolatry that is upon their true Repentance and to give them again happy days And then he saith Thou shalt call me Ishi and shalt call me no more Baali That is thou shalt call me no more by a name of Fear as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was but by a name of Love as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is this signifying Sponsus Benignus but that Durus imperiosus Maritus or Dominus such as Baal was to his Worshippers as the Criticks will tell you Which is as much as to say there shall no more be an occasion given you from my severe usage of you to call me by a name that signifies a harsh Lord or he would not be to them like such a Lord as Baal was but he would shew them the kindness of a tenderly loving Husband for the time to come 2. It is manifest that God's meaning was not that they should never use that word Baal because Idolaters used it and an Idol was called by that name for then they might not use the name Jah neither because the Heathens used the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor would God have called himself by the name of Baal as you will find he does Isa 54. 5. if you consult your Hebrew Bible as that word signifies no more than Husband 3. Whereas it follows in the next verse For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall no more be remembred by their name The following Criticks do give such a sense of them as will not in the least favour your purpose This is Liveleius's In the renovation of the Church Idolatry shall be abolished Calvin's is I will cause my people to cast away all their Lies and to be content with the pure Doctrine of my Law The Exposition of Vatablus is this By Baalim God understands the various Images of Baal which had various names according to the places wherein they were erected as there were many Jupiters among the Heathens And whereas you say because the Idol was called Baal God abhorred that name I must needs tell you that to think God can abhor a good name merely because of its having been given to an Idol speaks a childish notion and opinion of that Infinitely perfect Being But after all this let us suppose that God here forbad the Jews to call himself for the future by the name of Baal this will not in the least affect our Author for if it were so it could be onely upon the account of their vehement inclination to the worship of the Idol Baal and therefore they might not take his name into their mouths that so they might not be tempted by using it to worship him again But our Author hath said enough to convince you that there is not the least appearance of an Argument to be fetched from hence against the lawfulness of our Ceremonies or to prove that since they were used without any Idolatry or Superstition by the Ancient Fathers before they were abused by the Apostate Church of Rome they may not return to their first use the Idolatry and Superstition being perfectly removed and moreover no danger arising from the using of them to the Members of our Church of returning to Popery But in your next Page you find fault with our Author for asserting as he doth in his 28th Page That there is no such inclination in the Members of our Church to go over to that of Rome nor hath any such inclination been observed ever since the Reformation as was in the Jews to the Superstitious and Idolatrous practices of the Heathens But need I shew you the impertinency of your Answer to this passage which is this that the people now are more devoutly inclined I very much doubt I am sure they had much more reason then than now to be averse to it having more miraculous Operations and extraordinary appearances of God to them than we can pretend to And I am sure the hearts of all are by nature now as bad as then But 1. Doth it argue that our people are more devoutly inclined than the Jews were because they are not so inclined to Idolatry Men that have nothing of Devotion in their tempers may have no inclination at all to some certain Vices But I need onely to ask you whether the Turks be a devouter sort of people than the Jews then were or whether the Jews be more devout now than they were then because as every body knows they both have at present not onely no inclination but the