minde them of their duty as they do us of ours telling us it is our duty to imitate the Apostles practise in a special manner to be tender of the Churches peace and to advise of such expedients as may conduce to the healing of breaches and uniting those that differ For preserving of the Churches peace we know no better nor more efficatious way than our set Liturgy there being no such way to keep us from Schism as to speak all the same thing according to the Apostle Reply If you look to the time past by our Duties we suppose you mean our Faults For it is not Duty when it 's past If you in these words respect only the time present and to come we Reply 1. The Liturgy we are assured will not be a less but a more probable means of Concord after the desired Reformation than before the defects and inconveniencies make it less fit to attain the end 2ly Whether the Apostle by speaking the same thing did mean either all using this Liturgy of ours or all using any one form of Liturgy as to the words may easily be determined This is of much later date unless you will denominate the whole form of the Lords Prayer and some little parts And those that affirm that the Apostles then had any other must undertake the task of proving it and excusing the Churches for losing and dis-using so precious a Relict which if preserved would have prevented all our strifes about these things And in the mean time they must satisfie our Arguments for the Negative As 1. If a Liturgy had been indited by the Apostles for the Churches being by universal Officers inspired by the Holy Ghost and so of universal use it would have been used and preserved by the Church as the Holy Scriptures were But so it was not Ergo no such Liturgy was indited by them for the Churches 2ly If a prescript form of words had been delivered them there would have been no such need of exhorting them to speak the same thing for the Liturgy would have held them close enough to that And if the meaning had been see that you use the same Liturgy some word or other to some of the Churches would have acquainted us with the existence of such a thing and some Reproofs we should have found of those that used various Liturgies or formed Liturgies of their own or used extemporary prayers and some express exhortations to use the same Liturgie or Forms But the holy Scripture is silent in all those matters It is apparent therefore that the Churches then had no Liturgy but took liberty of extemporate expressions and spoke in the things of God as men do in other matters with a natural plainess and seriousness suiting their expressions to the subjects and occasions And though Divisions began to disturb their Peace and holy Orders the Apostle instead of prescribing them a Form of Divine Services for their Unity and Concord do exhort them to use their Gifts and liberties aright and speake the same thing for matter avoiding Disagreements though they used not the same words 3. Just Martyr Tertull. and others sufficiently intimate to us that the Churches quickly after the Apostles did use the personal Abilities of their Pastors in prayer and give us no hint of any such Liturgy of Apostolical fabrication and imposition and therefore doubtlesse there was nothing for it could not have been so soon lost or neglected 4. It is ordinary with those of the contrary judgment to tell us that the extraordinary Gifts of the Primitive Christians were the reason why there were no prescribed forms in those times and that such Liturgies came in upon the ceasing of those Gifts And 1 Cor. 14. describeth a way of publick worshiping unlike to prescript forms of Liturgy So that the matter of Fact is proved and confessed And then how fairly the words of the Apostles exhorting them to speake the same thing are used to prove that he would have them use the same forms or Liturgy we shall not tell you by any provoking aggravations of such abuse of Scripture And indeed for all the miraculous Gifts of those times if prescript forms had been judged by the Apostles to be the fittest means for the Concord of the Churches it is most probable they would have prescribed such Considering 1. That the said miraculous Gifts were extraordinary and belonged not to all nor to any at all times and therefore could not suffice for the ordinary publick Worship 2. And those Gifts began even betimes to be abused and need the Apostles Canons for their regulation which he giveth them in that 1 Cor. 14. without a prescript Liturgy 3. Because even then divisions had made not only an entrance but an unhappy progress in the Churches to cure which the Apostle exhorts them oft to Unanimity and Concord without exhorting them to read the same or any Common-Prayer-book 4. Because that the Apostles knew that perillous times would come in which men would have itching ears and would have heaps of Teachers and would be self-willed and unruly and divisions and offences and heresies would encrease And Ergo as upon such fore-sight they indited the holy Scriptures to keep the Church in all generations from error and divisions in points of Doctrine so the same reason and care would have moved them to do the same to keep the Churches in unity in point of Worship if indeed they had taken prescribed forms to be needfull to such an unity they knew that after departure the Church would never have the like advantage infallible authorized and enabled for delivering the universal Laws of Christ And seeing in those parts of worship which are of stated use and still the same forms might have suited all ages as this age and all Countries as this Country in the substance there can no reason be given why the Apostles should leave this undone and not have performed it themselves if they had judged such forms to be necessary or the most desirable means of unity If they had prescribed them 1. The Church had been secured from error in them 2. Believers had been preserved from divisions about the lawfulnesse and fitnesse of them as receiving them from God 3. All Churches and Countries might had one Liturgy as they have one Scripture and so have all spoke the same things 4. All ages would have had the same without innovation in all the parts that require not alteration whereas now on the contrary 1. Our Liturgies being the writings of fallible men are lyable to error and we have cause to fear subscribing to them as having nothing contrary to the word of God 2. And matters of Humane institution have become the matter of scruple and contention 3. And the Churches have had great diversity of Liturgies 4. And one age hath been mending what they supposed they received from the former faulty and imperfect So that our own which you are so loath to Change hath
in this Church and Nation occasioning sad divisions betwixt Minister Minister betwixt Minister and People exposing many Orthodox Preachers to the displeasure of Rulers And no other fruits than these can be looked for from the retaining these Ceremonies Repl. We had rather you had taken our Reasons as we laid them down than to have so altered them Ergo having told you that some hold them unlawful and others inconvenient c. and desired that they may not be imposed on such who judge such Impositions a violation of the Royalty of Christ c. You seem to take this as our own sense and that of all the Ceremonies of which we there made no mention You referre us to Hooker since whose writings Ames in his fresh suit and Bradshaw and Parker and many others have written that against the Ceremonies that never was answered that we know of but deserve your Consideration Before we give particular Answer to these several Reasons it will not be unnecessary to lay down some certain general premises or rules which will be useful in our whole discourse 1. That God hath not given a power only but a command also of imposing whatsoever should be truly decent and becomming his publick Service 1 Cor. 14. After St Paul had ordered some particular Rules for Praying Praising Prophesying c. He concludes with this general Canon Let all things be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a fit Scheme Habit or Fashion decently and that there may be uniformity in those decent performances let there be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rule or Canon for that purpose Repl. As to your first rule we answer 1. It is one thing to impose in general that all be done decently and in order This God himself hath imposed by his Apostle And it s another thing to impose in particular that this or that be used as decent and orderly Concerning this we adde it is in the Text said Let it be done but not let it be imposed yet from other Scriptures we doubt not but Circumstances of meer decency order as determined time place utensils c. which are common to things civil and sacred though not the Symbolical Ceremonies which afterwards we confute may be imposed with the necessary cautions and limitations afterward laid down But 1. that if any Usurpers will pretend a power from Christ to impose such things on the Church though the things be lawful we must take heed how we acknowledge an usurped power by formal obedience 2. A just power may impose them but to just ends as the preservation and successe of the modified Worship or Ordinances And if they really conduce not to those ends they sin in imposing them 3. Yet the Subjects are bound to obey a true Authority in such impositions where the matter belongs to the Cognizance and Office of the Ruler and where the mistake is not so great as to bring greater mischiefs to the Church than the suspending of our active obedience would do 4. But if these things be determined under pretence of order and decency to the plain destruction of the ordinances modified and of the intended end they cease to be means and we must not use them 5. Or if under the names of things decent and of order men will meddle with things that belong not to their Office as to institute a new Worship for God new Sacraments or any thing forbidden in the general Prohibition of adding or diminishing this is a Usurpation and not an act of Authority and we are bound in obedience to God to disobey them 6. Where Governours may command at set times and by proportionable penalties enforce if they command when it will destroy the end or enforce by such penalties as destroy or crosse it they greatly sin by such commands Thus we have more distinctly given you our sense about the matter of your first rule Not Inferiours but Superiours must iudge what is convenient and decent They who must order that all be done decently must of necessity first judge what is convenient and decent to be ordered Repl. Your second Rule also is too crudely delivered and therefore we must adde 1. A Judgement is a Sentence in order to some Execution and Judgements are specified from the ends to which they are such means When the question is either what Law shall be made or what penalty shall be exercised the Magistrate is the only Judge and not the Bishop or other Subject In the first he exercises his judicium discretionis in order to a publick Act. In the second he exerciseth a publick judgement When the question is what order pro tempore is fittest in Circumstantials for this present Congregation the proper Presbyters or Pastors of that Congregation are the directive Judges by Gods appointment 3. The Magistrate is Ruler of these Pastors as he is of Physicians Pailosophers and other Subjects He may make them such general Rules especially for restraint to go by as may not destroy the exercise of their own Pastoral power As he may forbid a Physician to use some dangerous Medicine on his Subjects and may punish him when he wilfully killeth any of them But may not on that presence appoint him what and how and when and to whom he shall administer and so become Phisician himself alone 4. When the question is who shall be excluded from the Communion of a particular Church The Pastors of the Church or Congregation are the first proper Judges 5. When the question is who shall be excluded from or received into the Communion of all the associated Churches of which we are naturally capable of Communion The associated Pastors or Bishops of these Churches in Synods are Judgâ—â— Beyond this there are no Judges 6. When the question is whether the Laws of Magistrates or Canons of Bishops are agreeable or not to the Word of God and so the obedience is lawful or unlawful the Conscience of each individual Subject is the Judge per judicium discretionis as to his own practise And if men had not this judgement of discerning but must act upon absolute implicite obedience then first man were ruled as unreasonable Secondly the magistrate were made a God or such a Leviathan as Hobbs describeth him Thirdly And then all sin might lawfully be committed if commanded But we are assured none of this your sense These Rules and Canons for decency made and urged by Superiours are to be obeyed by Inferiours till it be made as clear that now they are not bound to obey as it is evident in general that they ought to obey Superiours for if the exemption from obedience be not as evident as the Command to obey it must needs be sin not to obey Repl. To your third Rule we adde It is first considerable what the thing is and then how it is apprehended if it be really lawful and well commanded and to be obeyed it is no ignorance doubt or errour of the
the contrary then you have here given us for what you thus affirm We might set Epiphanius against Augustine and all the Greek Church till in the midst of Chrysostom's time when they changed their opinion And in our time the judgment of the famous Chronologers Scaliger Beroaldus Broughton Capellus Clopenburgius with many others are not contemptible as set against such an unproved Assertion as this Sect. 8. That our sinful Bodies c. It can no more be said those words do give greater efficacy to the blood then to the body of Christ then when our Lord saith This is my blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins c. And saith not so explicitly of the Body Reply Sure Christ there intimateth no such distinction as is here intimated there his body is said to be broken for us and not only for our bodies Sect. 9. 20. Com. Kneel It is most requisite that the Minister deliver the Bread and Wine into every particular Communicant's band and repeat the words in the singular number for so much as it is the propriety of Sacraments to make particular obsignation to each Believer and it is our visible profession that by the Grace of God Christ tasted death for every man Reply 1. Did not Christ know the propriety of Sacraments better than we and yet he delivered it in the plural number to all at once with a take ye eat ye drink ye all of it we had rather study to be obedient to our Master than to be wiser than he 2. As God maketh the general Offer which giveth to no man a personal interest till his own acceptance first appropriate it so it is fit that the Minister that is Gods Agent imitate him when his example and the reason of it so concern to ingage us to it Clemens Alexandr Stromat lib. 1. Prope In it giveth a reason as we understand him for the contrary that man being a free Agent must be the chooser or refuser for himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quemadmodum eucharistiam cum quidam ut mos est diviserint permittunt unicuique ex populo ejus partem sumere and after rendreth this reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad accuratè enim perfecteque eligendum ac fugiendum optima est conscientia And that thing is so agreeable to your own doctrinal principles that we fear you dis-relish it because it comes from us Sect. 10. Kneel at Sacra Concerning Kneeling at the Sacrament we have given account already only thus much we adde that we conceive it an errour to say that the Scripture affirms the Apostles to have received not-kneeling The posture of the Paschal Supper we know but the institution of the holy Sacrament was after Supper and what posture was then used the Scripture is silent The Rubr. at the end of the 1. Ed. C. that leaves kneeling crossing c. indifferent is meant only at such times as they are not prescribed and required But at the Eucharist kneeling is expresly required in the Rubr. following Reply Doubtless when Matthew and Mark say it was as they did eat to which before it is said that they sate down and when Interpreters generally agree upon it this would easily have satisfied you if you had been as willing to believe it as to believe the contrary Matth. 26. 20 21 26. the same phrase is used v. 26. As In vers 21. where it sheweth they were still sitting For the sense of the Rubr. if you prove that the makers so interpret it we shall not deny it but the reason of both seems the same Sect. 11. Com. three times a Year This desire to have the Parishioners at liberty whether they will ever receive the Communion or not savours of too much neglect and coldness of affection towards the holy Sacrament It is more fitting that order should be taken to bring it into more frequent use as it was in the first and best times Our Rubr. is directly according to the ancient Council of Eliberis C. 81. Gratian. de Consecrat no man is to be accounted a good Catholick Christian that does not receive three times in the year The distempers which indispose men to it must be corrected not the receiving of the Sacrament therefore omitted It is a pitifull pretence to say they are not fit and make their sin their excuse Formerly our Church was quarrelled at for not compelling men to the Communion now for urging men how should she please Reply We confess it is desireable that all our distempers and unfitnesses should be healed and we desire with you that Sacraments may be oftner But that every person in the Parish that is unfit be forced to receive is that which we cannot concurre with you to be guilty of Two sorts we think unfit to be so forced at least First abundance of people grossely ignorant and scandalous that will eat and drink judgment to themselves not discerning the Lords Body Secondly many melancholy and otherwise troubled doubting Souls that if they should receive the Sacrament before they find themselves more fit would be in danger to go out of their wits with fear lest it would seal them to destruction and as the Liturgy saith lest the Devil enter into them as into Judas or at least it would grievously deject them As formerly so now there is great reason at once to desire that the unprepared be not forced to the Sacrament and yet that so great a part of the body of the Church may not be let alone in your Communion without due admonition and discipline that ordinarily neglect or refuse the Churches Communion in this Sacrament those that are so prophane should be kept away but withall they should be proceeded with by discipline till they repent or are cast out of the Church Sect. 12. This Rubr. is not in the Liturgy of Queen Elizabeth nor confirmed by Law nor is there any great need of restoring it the World being now in more danger of profanation then of Idolatry besides the sense of it is declared sufficiently in the 28. Article of the Church of England The time appointed we conceive sufficient Reply Can there be any hurt or danger in the people's being taught to understand the Church aright Hath not Bishop Hall taught you in his life of a Romanist that would have faced him down That the Church of England is for Transubstantiation because of Kneeling p. 20. And the same Bishop greatly differing from you saith in the same Book p 294. But to put all scruples out of the mind of any Reader concerning this point let that serve for the upshot of all which is expresly set down in the fifth Rubrick in the end of the Communion set forth as the judgment of the Church of England both in King Edward and Queen Elizabeth's times note that though lately upon negligence note upon negligence omitted in the Impression and so recites the words Where you say there is no great need
The reserving of Confirmation to the Bishop doth argue the Dignity of the Bishop above Presbyters who are not allowed to Confirm but does not argue any excellency in Confirmation above the Sacraments St. Hierom argues the quite contray ad Lucif cap. 4. That because Baptism was allowed to be performed by a Deacon but Confirmation only by a Bishop therefore Baptism was most necessary and of the greatest value The mercy of God allowing the most necessary means of Salvation to be administred by inferiour Orders and restraining the lesse necessary to the higher for the honour of their Order Reply O that we had the Primitive Episcopacy and that Bishops had no more Churches to oversee than in the Primitive times they had and then we would never speak against this reservation of Confirmation to the honour of the Bishop But when that Bishop of one Church is turned into that Bishop of many hundred Churches and when he is now a Bishop of the lowest rank that was an Arch-bishop when Arch-bishops first came up and so we have not really existent any meer Bishops such as the Antients knew at all but only Arch-bishops and their Curates Marvel not if we would not have Confirmation proper to Arch-bishops nor one man undertake more than an hundred can perform But if you will do it there is no remedie we have acquit our selves Prayer after the Imposition of hands is grounded upon the practice of the Apostles Heb. 6. 2. Acts 8. 17. Nor doth 25. Article say that Confirmation is a corrupt imitation of the Apostles practice but that the 5. commonly called Sacraments have ground partly on the corrupt following the Apostles c. which may be applied to some other of those 5 but cannot be applied to Confirmation unless we make the Church speak contradictions Reply But the question is not of Imposition of hands in generall but this Imposition in particular And you have never proved that this sort of Imposition called Confirmation is mentioned in those Texts And the 25. Article cannot more probably be thought to speak of any one of the 5. as proceeding from the corrupt imitation of the Apostles than of Confirmation as a supposed Sacrament We know no harm in speaking the language of holy Scripture Acts 8. 15. they laid their hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost and though Impositions of hands be not a Sacrament yet it is a very fit sign to certifie the persons what is then done for them as the Prayer speaks Reply It is fit to speak the Scripture language in Scripture sense But if those that have no such power to give the Holy Ghost will say Receive the Holy Ghost it were better for them to abuse other language than Scripture language After Confirmation There is no inconvenience that Confirmation should be required before the Communion when it may be ordinarily obtained that which you here fault you elsewhere desire Reply We desire that the credible approved profession of Faith and repentance be made necessaries But not that all the thousands in England that never yet came under the Bishops hands as not one of many ever did even when they were at the highest may be kept from the Lords Supper for some cannot have that Imposition and others will not that yet are fit for Communion with the Church The Ring is a significant sign only of humane institution and was alwayes given as a pledge of fidelity and constant love and here is no reason given why it should be taken away nor are the reasons mentioned in the Roman Ritualits given in our Common-Prayer-Book Repl. We crave not your own forbearance of the Ring but the indifferencie in our use of a thing so mis-used and unnecessary These words in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost if they seem to make Matrimony a Sacrament may as well make all sacred yea civil actions of weight to be Sacraments they being usual at the beginning and ending of all such It was never heard before now that those words make a Sacrament Reply Is there no force in an argument drawn from the appearance of evil the offence and the danger of abuses when other words enow may serve turn They go to the Lords Table because the Communion is to follow Reply They must go to the Table whether there be a Communion or not Consecrated the estate of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery c. Though the institution of Marriage was before the Fall yet it may be now and is consecrated by God to such an excellent mystery as the representation of the spiritual marriage between Christ and his Church Eph. 5. 23. We are sorry that the words of Scripture will not please The Church in the 25. Article hath taken away the fear of making it for a Sacrament Reply When was Marriage thus consecrated If all things used to set forth Christs offices or benefits by way of similitude be consecrated then a Judge a Father a Friend a Vine a Door a Way c. are all consecrated things Scripture phrase pleaseth us in Scripture sense The new married persons the same day of their marriage must receive the Holy Communion This inforces none to forbear Marriage but presumes as well it may that all persons marriageable ought to be also fit to receive the Holy Sacrament And marriage being so solemn a Covenant of God they that undertake it in the fear of God will not stick to seal it by receiving the Holy Communion and accordingly prepare themselves for it Is were more Christian to desire that those licentious Festivities might be supprest and the Communion more generally used by those that marry the happiness would be greater then can easily be exprest Unde sufficiat ad enarrandum felicitatem ejus Matrimonii quod Ecclesia conciliat confirmat oblatio Tertul. lib. 2. ad Uxorem Reply Indeed will you phrase and modify your administrations upon such a supposition that all men are such as they ought to be and do what they ought to do Then take all the World for Saints and use them accordingly and blot out the doctrine of Reproof excommunication and damnation from your Bibles Is it not most certain that very many married persons are unfit for the Lords Supper and will be when you and we have done our best And is it fit then to compell them to it But the more unexpected the more welcom is your motion of that more Christian course of suppressing of licentious festivities When shall we see such Reformation undertaken Visitation of the Sick FOr as much as the condition c. All which is here desired is already presumed namely that the Minister shall apply himself to the particular condition of the person but this must be done according to the Rule of prudence and justice and not according to his pleasure therefore if the sick person shew himself truly penitent it ought not to be left
to the Ministers pleasure to deny him Absolution if he desire it Our Churches direction is according to the 13. Can. of the venerable Council of Nice both here and in the next that follows Reply But the question is whether he shew himself truly penitent or not If we have not here neither a judgment of discretion for the conduct of our own actions What do we with reason Why are we trusted in the Office and Whose judgment must we follow The Bishop cannot have leisure to become the Judge whether this man be penitent It must then be the Minister or the man himself And must we absolve every man that saith he repenteth Then we must believe an incredible profession which is against reason Some are known Infidels and in their health profess that they believe not the Scripture to be true and make a mock at Jesus Christ and perhaps in a sickness that they apprehend no danger in will send for the Minister in scorn to say I repent and force him to absolve them that they may deride him and the Gospel Some of us have known too many of those that have for twenty or thirty years been common drunkards seldom sober a week together and still say when they came to themselves that they were sorry for it and did unfeignedly repent and as they said in health so they said in sickness dying with in a few daies or weeks after they were last drunk must we absolve all these Some dye with a manifest hatred of an Holy Life reviling at those that are carefull to please God yet saying they hate them not as holy but because they are all Hypocrites or the like And yet will say they repent of their sins Some forbear not their accustomed swearing and cursing while they profess repentance Some make no restitution for the wrong which they say they repent of And must we take all these for truly penitent If not the Minister must judge What you mean by your saying Our Churches direction is according to the 13th Canon of the venerable Council of Nice both here and in the next that follows we know not the second Council of Nice you cannot mean its Can. being uncertain and the 13th is of no such sense And the 13th Can. of the first Council of Nice is only that lapsed Catechumens shall be 3 years inter and ientes before they pray again with the Catechumens This shews they then took not up with every word of seeming penitence as true repentance but what it is to your purpose we know not nor is here any other Can. in that Council for you The 11th Can. is sufficiently against you The lapsed that truly repented were to remain among the penitent for three years and seaven years more if they were fideles c. Ab omnibus vero illud praecipue observetur ut animus eorum fructus poenitentiae attendatur quicunque enim cum omni timore lacrimis perseverantibus operibus bonis Conversationem suam non verbis solis sed opere veritate demonstrant cum tempus statutum etiam ab his fuerit impletum orationibus jam coeperint communicare licebit etiam Episcopo humanius circa res aliquot cogitare We know this rigor as to time was unjust and that to the dying it was abated but you see here that bare words that were not by seriousness and by deeds made credible were not to be taken as sufficient marks of penitence of which it was not the person himself that was to be the Judge The form of Absolution in the Liturgy is more agreeable to the Scriptures then that which they desire it being said in St. John 20. Whose sins you remit they are remitted not whose sins you pronounce remitted and the Condition needs not to be expressed being alway necessarily understood Reply It is a Controversy among the Learnedst Expositors how much of that of John 20. was proper to the Apostles and such others as were then to have the spirit in an extraordinary manner who did remit sin effectively by remitting the punishment of it by casting out Devils healing the sick c. according to that of Jam. 5. 14 15. Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray for him and anoint him with Oyl in the name of the Lord And the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him If besides this remitting them effectively the rest be no other then a Ministerial pronouncing them forgiven by God according to his Covenant in the Gospel then you cannot plead the phrase of a Text which respecteth another way of Remission then we pretend to But must phrase it according to the nature of the thing and the sense of other Scriptures also that fullier open it There are three waies of pardoning 1. By grant or Guift whether by a general Act of pardon or a particular 2. By sentence 3. By execution that is preventing or taking off the penalty The first of these is done already by God in the Gospel The Second God doth principally and his Ministers instrumentally as his Messengers The third the taking off the penalty they can do no otherwise in the Case before us then by praying that God will take it off and using his ordinary means So that it is most evident that this Absolution that Ministers are to perform can be no other then to pronounce the penitent Believer to be absolved by God according to his Covenant And if there be no other should we not speak as intelligibly as we can Indeed there is more in absolving the excommunicate for then the Church both judiciously and executively remitteth the penalty of excommunication to which also the Text John 20. may have much respect but the penalty of damnation can be no otherwise remitted by us then as is expressed And indeed the thing is of such exceeding weight that it behoveth us to deal as intelligibly and openly in it as we can And therefore we admire that you should say the Condition needs not be expressed being always necessarily understood by necessarily do you mean necessitate naturali irresistibili so that all the wicked men in the world cannot chuse but understand us to speak conditionally Surely this is none of your meaning if it were it were far from truth Or do you mean not de necessitate vel actitudine eventus but de debito ex obligatione no doubt but it is necessary as a duty and also ad finem as a means And therefore it is that we desire it may be expressed And doubtless you think not that all men do their duties and understand all that they ought to understand no not in this particular If you mean that all sick men may be rationally supposed to understand it this can never be believed by us that are acquainted personally and have been with