which is so called by him to be very farr from being truly Catholick the Romanists Doctrine of Concomitancy being a late Figment to countenance their spoyling the people of the legacy of Christ unknown to Antiquity and contrary to Scripture and enervating the Doctrine of the death of Christ whose most pretious bloud was truly separated from his body the benefit of which separation is exhibited unto us in the Sacrament by himself appointed to represent it we neither believe nor value As the necessity of it is denyed so also that there is any precept for it what think you then of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drink you all of it that is this Cup They think this to be a Precept to be observed towards all those who come to this Supper What Christ did that he commanded his Apostles to do he gives the Cup to all that were present at his Supper and commands them all to driâ—â— of it Why I pray are they not to do so Why is not this part of his command as Obligatory to them as any others Alass They were the Priests that were present all Lay people were excluded not one was excluded from the Cup that was there at any part of the Ordinance What if they were all Priests that were there as no one of them was Was the Supper administred to them as Priests or as Disciples or is there any colour or pretence to say that one kind was given to them as Priests another as Disciples Dic aliquem dic Quintiliane colorem Was not the whole Church of Christ represented by them Is not the command equal to all Nay as if on purpose to obviate this Sacrilegious figment Is not this word Drink you all of this added emphatically above what is spoken of the other kind Many strange things there are which these Gentlemen would have us believe about this Sacrament but none of them of a more incredible nature then this that when Christ says to all his Communicants Drink you all of this and commands them to do the same that he did his meaning was that we should say Drink you none of this They had need not of a Spatula linguae to let such things as those down our Throats but a Bed-staffe to cram them down or they will choak us in the swallowing and I am sure will not well digest when received He must have an Iron-Stomach that can concoct such crude morsels But if this will not do he would fain have us grant That the whole manner of giving the Communion unto the Laity whether under one or both kinds is left to the disposition of the Church I tell you truly I should have thought so too had not Christ and his Apostles before-hand determined it but as the case stands it is left so much to the disposition of the Church whether the blessed Cup shall be administred to the people as it is whether we shall have any Sacraments or no and not one jot more And let not our Author flatter himself that it was a pre-conceived Opinion of the arbitrariness of this business that made men scruple it no more in former ages when the Cup was first taken from them They scrupled it until you had roasted some of them in the fire and shed the bloud of multitudes by the Sword which was the old way of satisfying scruples At length our Author ventures on St. Paul and hopes if he can satisfie him he shall do well enough and tells us This indifferent use of Communion amongst the antient Christians in either kind sometimes the one sometimes the other sometimes both is enough to verifie that of St. Paul We are all partakers of one Bread and of one Cup. But what is this indifferent use and who are these antient Christians he tells us of Neither is the use of one or of both indifferent among the Papists nor did the antient Christians know any thing at all of this business of depriving the People of the Cup which is but a by-blow of Transubstantiation He knows they knew nothing of it whatever he pretends Neither doth the Apostle Paul say nakedly and only that We are all partakers of one Bread and one Cup but instructing the whole Church of Corinth in the right use of the Lords Supper he calls to mind what he had formerly taught them as to the celebration of it and this he tells them was the imitation of the Lord himself according as he had received it in command from him to give the blessed Bread and Cup to all the Communicants This he lays down as the Institution of Christ this he calls them to the right use and practice of telling the whole Church that as often as they eat this Bread and drink this Cup not eat the Bread without the Cup they do shew forth the Lord's Death until he come And therefore doth he teach them how to perform their duty herein in a due manner Ver. 28. Let saith he a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. Adding the reason of his caution for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh c. intimating also that they might miscarry in the use of either Element For saith he whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily In the administration of the whole Supper you may offend unless you give heed in the participation of either Element What can possibly be spoken more fully distinctly plainly as to Institution Precept Practice Duty upon all I know not And if we must yet dispute about this matter whilest we acknowledge the Authority of the Apostle I think there is small hopes of being quit of Disputes whilest this world continues The pitiful Cavils of our Author against the Apostle's express and often repeated words deserve not our notice yet for the sake of those whom he intends to deceive I shall briefly shew their insufficiency to invalidate St. Paul's Authority and Reasonings 1. He says That we may easily see what was St. Paul 's opinion from those words whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup of our Lord unworthily and so say I too the meaning of them is before declared but saith he repeating the institution as our Lord delivered he makes him after the consecration of the bread say absolutely Do this in commemoration of me But after the chalice he speaks with a limitation Do this as oft as you shall drink it in commemoration of me What then Pray What are the next words Are they not For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup Is not the same term as often annexed to the one as well as to the other Is it a limitation of the use of either and not a limitation of that kind of Commemoration of the Lord's Death to the use of both From these doughty observations he concludes that the particle and in the other Text must needs be taken disjunctively we are all
Apostles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Administring Liturgying Sacrificing to our Lord. For what he adds of Ordination it belongs not unto this discourse Authority and Reason are pleaded to prove I know not what Sacrifice to be intended in these Words Erasmus is first pleaded to whose interpretation mentioned by our Author I shall only add his own Annotations in the explication of his meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he Quod proprium est operantium sacris nullum autem Sacrificium Deo gratius quà m impartiri doctrinam Evangelicam So that it seems the Preaching of the Gospel or taking care about it was the Sacrifice that Erasmus thought of in his Translation and Exposition Yea but the word is truly translated Sacrisicantilus But who I pray told our Author so The Original of the word is of a much larger signification It s common use is to minister in any kind it s so translated and expounded by all learned impartial men and is never used in the whole new Testament to denote Sacrâ—ficing Nor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever rendred in the Old Testament by the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Nor is that word used absolutely in any Author Profane or Ecclesiastical to signifie precisely Sacrificing And I know well enough what it is that makes our Author say It is properly translated Sacrificing and I know as well that he cannot prove what he sayes but he gives a Reason for what he sayes It 's said to be made to the Lord whereas other inferior Ministerial acts are made to the people I wish heartily he would once leave this scurvy trick of cogging in words to deceive his poor unwary Reader for what I pray makes his made here what is it that is said to be made to the Lord It is when they were Ministring to the Lord so the words are rendred not when they were making or making Sacrifice or when they made Sacrificing unto the Lord. This wild guord made puts death into his Pot. And we think here in England that in all Ministerial acts though performed towards the people and for their good yet men administer to the Lord in them because performing them by his appointment as a part of that worship which he requires at their hands In the close of our Authors discourse he complains of the persecutions of Catholicks which what ever they are or have been for my part I neither approve nor justifie and do heartily wish they had never shewed the world those wayes of dealing with them who dissented from them in things concerning Religion whereof themselves now complain how justly I know not But if it be for the Masse that any of them have felt or do fear Suffering which I pray God avert from them I hope they will at length come to understand how remote it is from having any affinity with the devotion of the Apostolical Churches and so free themselves if not from suffering yet at lest from suffering for that which being not accepted with God will yield them no solid Gospel-consolation in what they may endure or undergo CHAP. XVI Blessed Virgin SECT 23. Pag. 267. THe twenty second Paragraph concerning the blessed Virgin is absolutely the weakest and most disingenious in his whole discourse The work he hath in handâ— is to take off offence from the Roman Doctrine and Practice in reference unto her Finding that this could not be handsomely gilded over being so rotten and corrupt as not to bear a new varnish he turns his pen to the bespattering of Protestants for contempt of her without the least respect to truth or common honesty Of them it is that he says That they vilifie and blaspheme her and cast Gibes upon her which he sets off with a pretty tale of a Protestant Bishop and a Catholick boy and lest this should not suffice to render them odious he would have some of them thought to taunt at Christ himself one of them for ignorance passion and too much haste for his breakfast Boldly to calumniate that something may cleave is a Principle that too many have observed in their dealings with others in the world But as it containes a renuntiation of the Religion of Jesus Christ so it hath not alwayes well succeeded The horrid and incredible reproaches that were cast by the Pagans on the primitive Christians occasioned sundry ingenious persons to search more into their way then otherwise they would have done and thereby their conversion And I am perswaded this rude charge on Protestants as remote from truth as any thing that was cast on the first Christians by their adversaries would have the same effects on Roman-Catholicks might they meet with the same ingenuity and candor That any Protestant should be moved or shaken in his Principles by such Calumnies is impossible Every one that is so knows that as the Protestants believe every thing that is spoken of the blessed Virgin in the Scripture or Creed or whatever may be lawfully deduced from what is so spoken so they have all that honour and respect for her which God will allow to be given to any creature Surely a confident accusation of incivility and blasphemy for not doing that which they know they do and profess to all the world they do is more like to move men in their patience towards their accusers then to prevail with them to join in the same charge against others whom they know to be innocent as themselves Neither will it relieve our Author in point of ingenuity and truth that it may be he hath heard it reported of one or two brain-sick or frantick persons in England that they have cast out blasphemous reproaches against the blessed Mother of God It is credibly testified that Pope Leo should before witnesses profess his rejoycing at the advantages they had at Rome by the fable of Christ. Were it handsome now in a Protestant to charge this blasphemy upon all Papists though uttered by their head and guide and to dispute against them from the confession of the Jews who acknowledge the story of his death and suffering to be true and of the Turks who have a great honour and veneration for him unto this day Well may men be counted Catholicks who walk in such paths but I see no ground or reason why we should esteem them Christians Had our Author spoken to the purpose he should have proved the lawfulness or if he had spoken to his own purpose with any candor of mind or consistency of purpose in the pursuit of his design have gilded over the practise of giving Divine honour to the holy Virgin of worshipping her with Adoration as Protestants say due to God alone of ascribing all the Titles of Christ unto her turning Lord in the Psalms in most places into Lady praying to her not only to entreat yea to command her Son to help and save them but to save them her self as she
them when it is used in the service of the Church as any other in the world whatever are such monstrous Presumptions as I wonder a rational man would make himself guilty of by giving countenance unto them For him whom he calls the Father of the Family of Christians if it be God he intends the only Father of the Family all men know he 〈◊〉 to any of the sons of men immediately nor by any Prophet by him inspired communicated his mind in Latine If it be the Pope of Rome whom he ascribeth that title unto I am sorry for the man not knowing how well he could make himself guilty of an higher Blasphemy CHAP. XIX Communion Sect. 26. IN the next Section entituled Table our Author seems to have lost more of the moderation that he pretends unto to have put a keener edg upon his spirit then in any of those fore-going and thence it is that he falls out into some more open revilings and flourishes of a kind of a Dispute than elsewhere In the entrance of his discourse speaking of the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper by Protestants wherein the Laity are also made partakers of the blessed Cup according to the Institution of our Saviour the practice of the Apostles and the Universal Primitive Church this civil Gentleman who complains of unhansome and unmannerly dealings of others in their writings compares it to a treatment at my Lord Maiors Feast adding scornfully enough For who would not have drink to their meat and what reason can be given that they should not or that a feast with Wine should not caeteris paribus be better then without If he suppose he shall be able to scoff the Institutions of Christ out of the world and to laugh men out of their Obedience unto Him I hope he will find himself mistaken which is all I shall at present say unto him only I would advise him to leave for the future such unseemly taunts lest he should provoke some angry men to return expressions of the like contempt and scorn upon the transubstantiated Host which he not only fancies but adores From hence he pretends to proceed unto disputing but being accustomed to a loose Rhetorical Sophistry he is not able to take one smooth step towards the true stating of the matter he is to speak unto though he sayes he will argue in his plain manner that is a manner plainly his loose in concluding sophistical The plain story is this Christ instituting his blessed Supper appointed Bread and Wine to be blessed and delivered unto them that he invites and admits unto it of the effect of the blessing of these Elements of Bread and Wine whether it be a transubstantiation of them into the Body and Bloud of Christ to be corporeally eaten or a consecration of them into such signes and symbols as in and by the use thereof we are made partakers of the body and bloud of Christ feeding really on him by Faith is not at all now under dispute Of the Bread and Cup so blessed according to the appointment of Christ the Priests with the Romanists only do partake the people of the Bread only This exclusion of the people from a participation of the Cup Protestants averre to be contrary to the institution of Christ practice of the Apostles nature of the Sacrament constant usage of them in the Primitive Church and so consequently highly injurious to the Sheep of Christ whom he hath bought with the price of his Bloud exhibited in that Cup unto them Instead of arguing plainly as he promised to do in justification of this practise of the Church of Rome he tells us of the Wine they give their people after they have received the Body which he knows to be in their own esteem a little common drink to wash their mouths that no crums of their Wafer should stick by the way What he adds of Protestants not believing that the consecrated Wine is transubstantiated into the Bloud of Christ which is not the matter by himself proposed to debate of the Priest's using both Bread and Wine in the Sacrifice though he communicates not both unto the people when the Priest's delivering of the Cup is no part of the Sacrifice but of the Communion besides he knows that he speaks to Protestants and so should not have pleaded his fictitious Sacrifice which as distinct from the Communion Paul speaks of 1 Cor. 11. neither do they acknowledge nor can he prove it very vain yet with these empty flourishes it is incredible how he triumphs over Protestants for charging the Romanists with excluding the People from the use of the Cup in the Sacrament when yet it is certain they do so nor can he deny it Yea but Protestants should not say so Seeing they believe not in Transubstantiation They believe every word that Christ or his Apostles have delivered concerning the nature and use of the Sacrament and all that the Primitive Church taught about it if this will not enable them to say the Romanists do that which all the world knows they do and which they will not deny but that they do unless they believe in Transubstantion also they are dealt withall on more severe terms then I think our Author is authorized to put upon them But it seems the advantage lies so much in this matter on the Roman-Catholicks side that the Protestants may be for ever silent about it and why so Why Catholicks do really partake of the animated and living body of their Redeemer this ought to be done to the end we may have life in us and yet Protestants do it not Who told you so Protestants partake of his Body and his Blood too which Papists do not and that really and truly Again Catholicks have it continually sacrificed before their eyes and the very death and effusion of their Lords bloud prefigured and set before them for faith to feed upon This Protestants have not I think the man is mistaken and that he intended to say the Catholicks have not and to place Protestants in the beginning of the sentence for it is certain that this is the very doctrine of the Protestants concerning this Sacrament They have in it the Sacrifice of Christ before their eyes and the death and effusion of his bloud figured for how that should be prefigured which is past I know not and set forth for faith to feed upon This they say this they teach and believe When I know not how Catholicks can have any thing figured unto them nothing being the sign of its self nor is it the feeding of Faith but of the Mouth that they are sollicitous about But this saith he they do not though he had not spoken of any doing before which is an old last that we have been now well used to and yet this saith he ought to be done For so our Lord commanded when he said to his Apostles Hoc facite This do ye which ye have seen me to do
and in that manner you see me do it exercising before your eye my Priestly Function according to the order of Melchisedech with which power I do also invest you and appoint you to do the like even unto the Consummation of the world in commemoration of my Death and Passion exhibiting and shewing forth your Lords Death until he come This Protestants do not and we are mad-angry that the Papist does what his Redeemer injoyned him I fear his Readers which shall consider this odd medly will begin to think that they are not only Protestants who use to be mad-angry This kind of Writing argues I will not say both madness and anger but one of them it doth seem plainly to do For setting aside a far-fetched false notion or two about Melchisedech and the Doctrine of the Sacrament here expressed is that which the Pope with Fire and Sword hath laboured to exterminate out of the world burning hundreds I think in England for believing that our Lord instituting his blessed Supper commanded his Apostles to do the same that he then did and in the same manner even to the Consummation of the world in the commemoration of his Death and Passion exhibiting and shewing forth their Lord's death until he come a man would suppose that he had taken these words out of the Liturgie of the Church of England for therein are they expresly found and why then have not Protestants that which he speaks of Yea but Christ did this in the exercise of his Priestly Function and with the same power of Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech invested his Apostles Both these may be granted and the Protestants Doctrine and Faith concerning this Sacrament not at all impeached but the truth is they are both false The Lord Christ exercised indeed his Priestly Function when on the Cross he offered himself to God through the Eternal Spirit a Sacrifice for the sins of the world but it was by vertue of his Kingly and Prophetical power that he instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud and taught his Disciples the use of it commanding its Observation in all his Churches to the end of the world And as for any others being made Priests after the Order of Melchisedeck besides himself alone it 's a figment so expresly contrary to the words and reasoning of the Apostle that I wonder any man not mad or angry could once entertain any approving thoughts of it That our Author may no more mistake in this matter I desire he would give me leave to inform him that setting aside his proper Sacrificing of the Son of God and his hideous figment of Transubstanatition both utter strangers to the Scripture and Antiquity there is nothing can by him be named concerning this Sacrament as to its honour or efficacy but it is all admitted by Protestants He pretends after this loose Harangue to speak to the thing it self and tells us that the consecrated CHALICE is not ordinarily given to people by the Priest in private Communion as though in some cases it were given amongst them to the body of the people or that they had some publick communion wherein it was ordinarily so given both which he knows to be untrue So impossible it seems for him to speak plainly and directly to what he treats on But it is a thing which hath need of these artifices If one falsity be not covered with another it will quickly rain through all However he tells us that they should do so is neither expedient nor necessary as to any effects of the Sacrament I wish for his own sake some course might be found to take him off this confidence of setting himself against the Apostles and the whole primitive Church at once that he might apprehend the task too difficult for him to undertake and meddle with it no more All expediency in the administration of this great Ordinance and all the effects of it depend solely on the institution and blessing of Christ If he have appointed the use of both elements what are we poor worms that we should come now in the end of the world and say the use of one of them is not expedient nor necessary to any effects of Communion Are we wiser then he Have we more care of his Church then he had or Do we think that it becomes us thus arbitrarily to chuse and refuse in the institutions of our Lord and Master What is it to us what Cavils soever men can lay that it is not necessary in the way of Protestants nor in the way of Catholicks we know it is necessary in the way of Christ. And if either Protestants or Catholicks leave that way for me they shall walk in their own wayes by themselves But why is it not necessary in the way of Protestants Because they place the effect of the Communion in the operation of faith and therefore according to them one kind is enough nay if we have neither kind there is no loss but of a Ceremony which may be well enough supplyed at our ordinary Tables This is prety Logick which it seems our Author learned out of Smith and Seaton Protestants generally think that men see with their eyes and yet they think the light of the Sun necessary to the exercising of their sight and though they believe that all saving effects of the Sacrament depend on the operation of faith and Catholicks do so too at least I am sure they say so yet they believe also that the Sacrament which Christ appointed and the use of it as by him appointed is necessary in its own kind for the producing of those effects These things destroy not but mutually assist one another working effectually in their several kinds to the same end and purpose Nor can there be any operation of faith as to the special end of the Sacrament without the administration of it according to the mind and will of Christ. Besides Protestants know that the frequent distinct Proposals in the Scripture of the benefits of the death of Christ as arising sometimes from the suffering of the body sometimes from the effusion of the bloud of their Saviour leads them to such a distinct acting of faith upon him and receiving of him as must needs be hindred and disturbed in the administration of the Sacrament under one kind especially if that Symbol be taken from them which is peculiarly called his Testament and that bloud wherewith his Covenant with them was sealed So that according to the Principles of the Protestants the Participation of the Cup is of an indispensible necessity unto them that intend to use that Ordinance to their benefit and comfort and what he addes about drinking at our ordinary tables because we are now speaking plainly I must needs tell him is a prophane piece of scurrility which he may do well to abstain from for the future What is or is not necessary according to their Catholick Doctrine we shall not trouble our selves knowing that
he will ever be easily dispossessed of it This is the only root of Dirge though our Author flourishes as though it would grow on other stocks It is their Prayer for the dead which he so entitles and in the excellency of their Devotion in this particular he is so confident that he deals with us as the Orator told Q. Caecilius Hortensius would with him in the Case of Verres bid him take his option and make his choice of what he pleased and it should all turn to his disadvantage Hortensius by his eloquence would make any thing that he should fixe on turn to his own end He bids us on the matter chuse whether to think the souls they pray for to be in Heaven Hell or Purgatory all is one he will prove praying for them to be good and lawful Suppose they be in Heaven What then What then may we not as well pray for them as for sanctifying the Name of God which will be done whether we pray or no. Suppose they are in Hell yet we know it not and so may shew our Charity towards them but suppose they be in Purgatory It is the only course we can take to help them Of Purgatory we shall speak anon If there be no other receptacle for Saints departed but Heaven and Hell it is but a flourish of our Author to perswade us that Prayers for them in the Roman-mode would be either useful or acceptable to God Suppose them you pray for to be in Hell the best you can make of your Prayers is but a vain babling against the Will and Righteousness of God an unreasonable troubling of the Judge after he hath pronounced his Sentence Yea but you do not know them to be in Hell then neither do you suppose them to be there which yet is the case you undertake to make good Suppose they be in Hell yet it s well done to pray for them and to say they may not be there is to suppose they are not in Hell not to suppose they are unless you will say Suppose they are not in Hell you may pray for them suppose they are in Hell hereunto doth this subtilty bring us But it is not the Will of God that you should pray for any in Hell no not for any in Heaven unless it be the will of God that you should oppose his will in the one and exercise you selves in things needless and unprofitable in the other both which are far enough from his mind and that Word which I believe at last will be found the only true and infallible rule of Worship and Devotion When we pray for the sanctifying of God's Name the coming of his Kingdom the doing of his will we still pray for the continuance of that which is as to outward manifestation in an alterable condition for the Name of God may be more or less sanctified in the world and for that which is future But to pray for them that are in Heaven is to pray for that for them which they are in the unalterable enjoyment of and besides to do and practise that in the Worship of God which we have no precept no precedent no rule no encouragement for in the Scripture nor the approved examples of any Holy men from the foundation of the world Whatever Charity there can be in such prayers I am sure faith there can be none seeing there is neither precept for them nor promise of hearing them But it is Purgatory that must bear the the weight of this duty This saith our Author need not to be so condemned being taught by Pagans and antient Rabbies and so came down from Adam by a popular Tradition through all Nations a great many of whose names are reckoned up by him declaring by the way which of them came from Shem which from Ham which from Japhet to whom the Hebrews are most learnedly assigned For the Pagans Virgil Cicero and Lucretius are quoted as giving testimony to them This testimony is true in the first especially lies the whole Doctrine of Purgatory Some Platonick Philosophers whom he followed have been the inventers of it That some of the Pagans invented a Purgatory and that Roman-Catholicks have borrowed their seat for their own turn is granted What our Author can prove more by this Argument I know not The names of the old Hebrew Rabbins that had taught or did believe it he was pleased to spare and I know his reason well enough though he is not pleased to tell us And it is only this that there are no such old Rabbins nor ever were in the world nor was Purgatory ever in the Creed of the Judaical Church nor of any of the antient Rabbins Indeed here and there one of them seemed to have dreamed with Origen about an end of the pains of Gehenna and some of the latter Masters the Cabbalists especially have espoused the Pythagorean Metempsychosis but for the Purgatory of the Pagans and Papists they know nothing of it On these testimonies he tells us that this opinion of the Soul's immortality and its detention after death in some place citra coelum is not any new thing freshly taught either by our Saviour or his Apostles as any peculiar Doctrin of his own but taken up as granted by the tradition of the Hebrews and supposed and admitted by all sides as true upon which our Lord built much of his Institutions Gallantly ventured however I confess a man shall seldom meet with pretier shuffling Purgatory it seems is the doctrine of the Soul's Immortality and detention in some place citra coelum Who would ever have once dreamed of this had not our Author informed him This it is to be learned in the Roman Mysterie the doctrine of Purgatory is the doctrine of the Soul's Immortality never was doctrine so foully mistaken as that hath been but if it be not yet it is of the detention of the souls in some place citra coelum It is indeed but yet our Author knows that in these words as bad if not a worse fraud than under the other is couched It was the opinion of many of the Antients that the souls of the Saints that departed under the old Testament enjoyed not the blessed presence of God but were kept in a place of rest until the Ascension of Christ. And this our Author would have us to think is the doctrine of Purgatory he himself I hope enjoyes the contentment of believing the contrary But he tells us that our blessed Saviour and his Apostles were not the first that taught this Doctrine that is of Purgatory As though they had taught it at all or had not taught that which is inconsistent with it and destructive of it which is notorious that they have And for the Traditions of the Hebrew Church as that was none of them so I believe our Author knows but little what were But he takes a great deal of pains to prove though very unsuccessfully that the Jews did believe that the