Library › Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjurors › Correspondence (1716–1725)

Correspondence (1716–1725)

Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjurors, ed. Williams, 1868

No. 30: A Letter Containing Arsenius, Arch-Bp. of Thebais, His Answer to Certain Queries,…

Yours of September 11th has given me very much satisfaction, because of what you say of the Concordate, which I hope you have had long ere this can reach you; and I shall now answer the queries you put to me as well as I can. Your first is, What is the present true state of the Greek Church as to Doctrine and Worship? (2) Whether are the four Patriarchs in communion with one another? (3) Have they any fellowship with the Abyssine Christians? (4) What Churches are there in the East that have no dependence on the four Patriarchs? (5) What are the present sentiments of the Greek Church concerning the Councils of Chalcedon and the second of Nice? (6) Whether is the Arch Bp. of Thebais a Joannite²? (7) What does he think of Lay-deprivations? These your queries I have set down here, lest you might not have taken a copy of your letter to me. And now in answer to them.

Answer 1st. As to the present state of their Church, they have set forth not many years since, an authentic Confession (which I have read) of their faith, containing a particular account both of their Doctrine and Worship, and delivered in a plain catechetical method, being ratified by all their Patriarchs. It was printed in Holland, by their commission in Greek and Latin; but the copies are dispersed among themselves, and not otherwise but by some of them to be obtained. It is divided into three parts—(1) of Faith, upon the foundation of the Constantinopolitan Creed without the [Filioque], and you well know that Creed (i.e. what is commonly called the Nicene Creed), as it stands at present, in that article, hath no other authority than of the single pope Nicholas the first, who took upon himself to insert that clause; and indeed I take the whole dispute to be only a mere logomachie. For my own part, I can bona fide say either a Patre Filioque, or a Patre per Filium, without hesitation; and therefore, I would not break communion for the one or the other. (2) Of Hope, upon the bottom of the Lord’s Prayer, and (3) of Charity upon that of the Decalogue, which they divide as we do, but explain away the second Commandment in favour of the second Council of Nice, by limiting it chiefly to certain magical or heathenish superstitions introduced among Christians.

They differ from the Latin Church in five points: (1) of the Papal Supremacy, which they abhor. (2) The Procession of the Holy Spirit. (3) The Communion of the laity in both kinds. (4) Purgatory, and (5) the Invocation of Saints and Angels. In these two last articles, they approach very near us: so that neither their invocation of the blessed, nor their prayers, for the faithful deceased are to be taken strictly in the same sense as those of the Roman communion, or upon the same foundation. For instance, they do justly and reasonably distinguish, not only the degrees of happiness, according to the different mansions in hades, or the middle state, but also between the joys or attainments before and after the resurrection, or the re-union of soul and body. They are so far from owning the monarchy of the bishop of Rome, or holding any communion with him, that a metropolitan of theirs, who communicated lately with him, was deprived and excommunicated by them, and is said to have died in twenty-four hours after. For they give wonderful relations of the power of their excommunication; and which are so well and circumstantially attested, as that they can hardly admit of any doubt. And so they also give of the power of their public prayers and offices in the cases of lunacies, manias, and other possessions or influences of evil spirits; and likewise of some very extraordinary effects of their fasting, praying, &c. as appears by a book which I have read of theirs, which is printed in Greek and Latine, and also in Latine alone, in 8vo. or rather 12mo. called [Status et Ritus Ecclesiæ Græcæ descripti a Christophoro Angelo, Græco-Latine autem conversi a Georgio Thelavio Ecclesiate Dantiscano in Templo Parochiali: cum ejusdem Annotatis, quibus et Græcorum, et Muscovitarum Religio, Vita, Mores et Reliqua clarius proponuntur, et dilucide explicantur. Francfurth Sumptibus Joannis Beyeri 1665]. The other in Greek and Latin is in 4to.

On the other hand, they are very averse to the Calvinistic scheme, both as to doctrine and worship; and greatly condemn Cyrillus Lucarus for his inclining too much that way, as indeed all the learned that are not Calvinists likewise do, not only for his errors on that side, but also for his unfaithful representations of several facts, which he has asserted contrary to truth.

In Baptism, they use trine immersion and Chrism; and have two fonts, the one for the male and the other for the female infants; and in their churches, the men and the women are divided, so as not to see one another.

The bread which they offer at the Eucharist hath salt and leaven; and they mix always water with the eucharistical wine, which is very primitive and was the practice of our deceased friend the Dean, and is the practice at all our altars, and indeed in several Churches, both in the City of London and in the country. They administer the bread and wine separately to the clergy, but the laity receive it in a spoon, with the words which the angel said to Esaias the Prophet, chap. vi. 7, “Lo, this hath touched thy lips.” They make use of a side altar, or table. They believe the Real Presence and own a Μετουσίωσις; yet say they are against determining the Modus.

Ans. 2. Their four Patriarchs are in perfect amity and communion with each other; and nothing is accounted an act of their Church, but what is done by mutual concert, and consent of the four Patriarchs; who to determine matters, after each of them has consulted with his own Bishops, as his council, do either all four meet bodily, or by proxy.

Ans. 3. They have no other communion with the Abyssinian Christians, but in that the Patriarch of Alexandria consecrates theirs. But the proper way for establishing communion with them may, by that medium, be set on foot, if by any.

Ans. 4. Besides the Abyssinians, of whom we have very various and imperfect accounts, there are vast numbers of Nestorians in the East, who have also a Patriarch of their own. The Coptics are computed to be above 40,000; and they have prayers in Coptick and Arabick. There is some conversation betwixt them and the Abyssinians. The Roman missionaries have attempted by their means to introduce themselves into that empire, but without success.

Ans. 5. The Greeks, who are Melchitos, adhere to the Councils of Chalcedon and the second of Nice; but the Jacobites reject the Council of Chalcedon and admit but one will, one nature, and one operation in Christ; and many of them look upon Dioscorus and Eutyches as saints.

Ans. 6 and 7. As to the case of lay deprivations, the A. B. of T. has declared himself as fully to me, and to some others at my desire, as we could even expect, desire or wish; and indeed I myself was the first who informed him of the disputes among us upon that head. Though that Church be under great hardships, yet they are most zealous for the ancient Canons.

Thus I have gone through your queries and might have saved myself pains, if I had at first bethought myself to do, what now I design to do; which is to subjoin some Queries, which I proposed to the Archbishop a great while ago, and his Answers for your further satisfaction. I showed them to our good Dean a pretty while before his death, to his satisfaction. Indeed, I asked some more questions, which were answered me, than are here; but in the hurry I was in about a year ago, I misplaced my fuller copy and cannot come at it since; however though this I now subjoin, be not quite so full as the other, yet I hope it will contribute to your farther satisfaction.

Queries.

Qu. 1. Whether they are Dioscorites, or own the Council of Chalcedon, which deposed Dioscorus?

Ans. No, they own the Council of Chalcedon.

Qu. 2. How come the Dioscorites to be called Jacobites, and those who own the Council of Chalcedon Melchites?

Ans. He that preached on the word (Μονοφυσίτης) after Dioscorus and Eutyches were condemned by the 4th Synod of Chalcedon (An. Dom. 425) in which were 650 Fathers, was called Jacobus a Syrian. They who own the Council of Chalcedon, are called Melchites (for Melchi in the Syrian tongue signifies a King); They having followed the opinion of the Council and their Emperor.

Qu. 3. Whether the Ethiopian Abyssines are Jacobites or Melchites?

Ans. They are now Jacobites.

Qu. 4. Whether the Copti are Melchites or Jacobites, and derive their succession from Dioscorus?

Ans. They are Jacobites, and derive their succession from Dioscorus.

Qu. 5. Whether the Melchites or Orthodox condemn the successors of Dioscorus as heretics and intruders?

Ans. They condemn the Monothelites, Monophysites, and Theopaschites as heretics.

Qu. 6. Whether in the archbishop’s province the prayers are in Greek or in Coptic? And if in Greek, whether in learned or in vulgar Greek?

Ans. The Copticks have prayers in Coptick and Arabick, but in the archbishop’s province they are read in the old Greek.

Qu. 7. Whether they use the Liturgy of St Mark; or if they do not, whether it is used by the patriarch of Alexandria?

Ans. Once a year it is used in all the Greek churches, viz. on St Mark’s day.

Qu. 8. Whether they pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary and other Saints?

Ans. They use them as Μεσίτοι.

Qu. 9. What they think of the history of Eutychius, which tells us that the Presbyters of Alexandria ordain their bishops?

Ans. They utterly disclaim this, and say that it is absolutely false; for their practice is, that three bishops there must be to consecrate a bishop, and one bishop to ordain priests and deacons.

Qu. 10. What their opinion is of Origen?

Ans. They do not approve of him because of his heresy, as they call it, of hell torments not being sempiternal.

Qu. 11. Whether men and women sit together in their churches?

Ans. No; they are divided so as not to see one another. I wish it were so among us.

Qu. 12. Whether they baptize male and female infants together?

Ans. No. They have two fonts, and use trine immersion and chrism, &c. as above.

Qu. 13. Whether they communicate infants immediately after they are baptized?

Ans. Yes.

Qu. 14. Whether they own the doctrine of Transubstantiation or μετουσίωσις?

Ans. They believe a real Presence without determining the modus.

Qu. 15. Whether they own the Bishop of Rome’s supremacy or monarchy, and communicate with him?

Ans. No: A Metropolitan who communicated with him lately was deprived by them and excommunicated, and died in 24 hours after.

Qu. 16. Whether they mix water with the Eucharistical wine?

Ans. Yes; always.

Qu. 17. Whether they use the kiss of peace?

Ans. Yes.

Qu. 18. Whether they administer the bread and wine separately?

Ans. Separately to the clergy, but the laity receive them together in a spoon.

Qu. 19. Whether the bread which the faithful offer at the Eucharist be leavened or unleavened?

Ans. Leavened.

Qu. 20. Whether the deacons or people prepare the Eucharistical elements?

Ans. The ministers, at the charges of the churches.

Qu. 21. Whether the Greek Bible which they use be printed or manuscript?

Ans. Both.

Qu. 22. Whether they know Renaudatii Historia Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum?

Ans. No. (And, by the way, they positively deny several things asserted by our Dr Smith, in his history of the Church.)

Qu. 23. Whether they pray for the Sultan, as the Primitive Christians did for the heathen emperors?

Ans. They pray for all Christian Kings, and pray God to hinder those they live under from doing them mischief, and to make those that are evil good.

Qu. 24. Whether they marry in Lent?

Ans. No.

Qu. 25. Whether they allow priests to marry?

Ans. Yes; but never after allow them to consecrate or touch the cup or to wear the same habit as before; but only the Trochelion or Horarium (which with their other habits and customs are fully set forth by Father Goar in his ΕΥΧΟΛΟΓΙΟΝ Græcorum in folio, printed at Paris, 1647, with cuts), nor to preach; yet they after marriage visit the sick.

Qu. 26. Whether they ordain married men priests?

Ans. If they are capable, i.e. each living with his first wife and she a virgin when he married her.

Qu. 27. Whether the Jacobites and Melchites intermarry with one another?

Ans. No; except the Jacobite comes over to the Faith; otherwise the person who so marries is excommunicated, or, as they observe often, turns Mahometan.

Qu. 28. Whether they allow their people to resist the Sultan or any in authority under him, upon account of religion or any other pretence whatsoever?

Ans. It is allowed for religion; which, by the way, is the less to be wondered at in them considering the very hard usage they meet with from the Turks, and that they are flesh and blood.

Qu. 29. Whether they allow of Lay Baptism?

Ans. No; they discourage it all they can, yet they do not repeat it, and are very shy of saying in what cases it may be used; so that they rather seem to think, Factum valet, fieri non debuit.

And now that I have ended these queries and their answers, I beg leave to represent to you my own opinion as to Lay Baptism, which I have communicated to some of our friends, who approve of it. It is thus:

In the early ages of Christianity, while the Charismata were frequent in the Church, such laymen as were anointed by the Holy Ghost did (I question not) frequently administer Baptism (particularly prophets, who notwithstanding had no imposition of hands nor no outward commission given them), especially in the absence of bishops and presbyters: and no doubt of it this they did as they were thereunto prompted or moved by the Holy Ghost from within them: but yet, even these illuminated laymen or prophets (I presume, and I think reasonably) did not attempt to administer Baptism unless they were such as were well known to be thus illuminated, either by agreeing testimony of other illuminated ones, or by their working of miracles, which did prove and was a sufficient outward testimony and visible proof apparent to the outward senses of others, that they were thus anointed from on high, and so consequently that they were qualified to administer this Sacrament (and perhaps other branches of the priestly office, though still without schism or division); for unless they were thus perfectly and publicly known to be illuminated, although their own inward calling might satisfy themselves as to their own part, yet without outward vouchers of their inward anointing, others could not reasonably be satisfied that they were thus qualified. Then, upon the general failure of the Charismata, the unilluminated, Christians by profession, observed and took notice that several laymen in preceding times had baptized, and not considering and distinguishing aright how such were qualified by the unction of the Holy Ghost for such administrations, they imagined that mere laymen as such, and without the heavenly unction, had a right to baptize; at least in what seemed to them, and was called by them, cases of necessity; and they thought or fancied such Baptisms valid and not to be repeated; and it is not improbable that they were led into this imagination not only from having observed that these really—though to them not known to be so, at least not by them considered as such—illuminated laymen or prophets did baptize; but also that they did not baptize except absente Episcopo et presbytero. Thus they attached the power to the mere laymen as such, without the Holy Spirit: whereas it was the call of the Holy Ghost alone that authorised such laymen or prophets to attempt such administrations, and His effectual co-operation that makes all divine administrations effectual to the recipient.

This seems to me to be the original of Lay Baptism, as now defended by severals from the example and early practice of the Church; though it is very apparent that no man can honestly because of usurpation, nor effectually for want of such unction, as is above mentioned, administer Baptism who hath not first had a Commission given him to baptize, either immediately from God himself from within him, as above, and which must be proved by outward vouchers, or mediately by such as themselves have a power to baptize and also a power to convey by commission such their power.

Thus I understand Tertullian; when he allows of Lay Baptism he did not, nay he could not mean consistently with himself, that a mere layman without the Holy Spirit could baptize; because he verily thought every Christian received the Holy Ghost in baptism, and he called them kings and priests only upon supposition of their being thus in possession of the Holy Spirit; and consequently it was only because he presumed them thus anointed that he allowed of their administering of baptism.

Consider, also, that tho St Paul was particularly, expressly, and miraculously called to the apostleship, and had his commission immediately from Christ himself; and that the giving of the Holy Ghost was in ordinary reserved to the chief apostles themselves, as appears plainly from the case of the Samaritan converts; yet Ananias, a disciple indeed, but a mere layman for aught we know, was the person pitched upon by God himself to give the Holy Ghost to St Paul, an apostle of the first rank. And this Ananias showed his authority and vouched his commission, not only by telling he had it, but more effectually and convincingly by this public outward act, that he restored St Paul, who was stone blind, to his eye-sight miraculously. Nor do I doubt at all but that, as the case of the Samaritan converts shows what was then, and what was to continue to be, the common and ordinary channel of conveying the Holy Ghost to the faithful who were capable recipients, so the other is left us upon record by the same Holy Spirit to show that He alone has the power of conveying himself effectually either immediately or mediately as He pleases. Nor must He be pretended to be, nor is He at all confined even to the instituted regular and ordinary administrations; which yet being institutions by divine appointment, are not to be broken in upon without sufficient well-vouched authority from the Holy Ghost himself, who is the chief minister of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I come next to the part of your letter concerning the Liturgy, and that very Thorndike whom you mention says somewhere in his preface to his epilogue to this effect; that persecution is the proper and most convenient season for putting such things as are out of order to rights in the Church: and that our present Liturgy is very defective is self-evident, if any regard is to be had (as undoubtedly there is) to all and every one of the primitive Liturgies, and to primitive usages: for (to pass over the want of several very material offices, such as Reconciling of Penitents from Heathenism, Mahometanism, Popery, Fanaticism, Deism, Socinianism, Arianism, &c., and for those that are under persecution or die publick violent deaths, &c.) none of the primitive Liturgies are without a most solemn Invocation of the Holy Ghost in the altar service, and indeed that Invocation is full enough, and very primitive also, as it stands in King Edward the Sixth’s First Liturgy, and also as it is taken from thence and put in the Scots Common Prayer-book. The words are these, “[And with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ] who in the same night He was betrayed,” &c. ‘Tis true indeed this Invocation is differently planted or situated here in this office from what it is in the primitive Liturgies, where it is always said after the words of institution; but that is a small matter in comparison of leaving it out entirely, since here and in all the old ones also it is said in the office, the whole of which is but one eucharistical office. And for my own share, I own it that the mind of the Church declaring by our present prayer of consecration that she means a consecration thereby, is the only thing that can make me think that a consecration is really made thereby without any invocation of the Holy Ghost to make it effectual; and in this I am sure I am no Papist, for it is only a remain of Popery which allows of a consecration without that invocation.

Next, as to the alterations which are in our present Liturgy as it differs from that far better and much more primitive Liturgy of Edward the Sixth. They were not done with such reasonable views as people generally have thought: for nothing procured them but a prevailing foreign Calvinistical interest of such Puritans as Bucer, &c. acting upon the Puritanical disposition of Archbishop Cranmer; and the whole plot or design of the alterations was to level the sacerdotal powers, to extinguish the memory of a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, to banish the real Presence, prayers for the dead, which are very primitive even during the Charismata, and I think very necessary, and to introduce the Sabbatarian doctrine and the rest of the peculiarities of Calvin’s system. And yet that Parliament, which gave sanction to the present, did not formally abolish the former Liturgy; but rather complained of the madness of these people who made it necessary, or at least convenient, to lay the old one aside for a while; and even in the very act of laying it aside they gave it the testimony that it was compiled by the aid of the Holy Ghost, which they did not so much as pretend that which they then substituted in its stead had any title to.

To make good my charge, please to consider that the words of Institution are in our present Liturgy thought sufficient to consecrate the Eucharist; whereas they are more properly the words by which the Christian priesthood is empowered to consecrate; or they are the words of the commission for consecrating; and, indeed, also to move the covenant of Divine love, who left us such an inestimable pledge of it; and then immediately after the institution followed the invocation of the Holy Ghost, whereby God is entreated to make good to us that His covenant in this His instituted pledge of His love: and so in both together consists a full, regular, and perfect consecration, which is made effectual by faith.

Then in our present Liturgy the word (Sacrifice) is left out, because according to Calvin it must be only a bare insipid remembrance, contrary to Scripture, to antiquity, the nature of a mystery, and to common sense.

I cannot indeed conceive why the Introits, consisting only of certain picked Psalms, were left out; unless it was to make the transition from the first to the second service more clumsie and ridiculous; but then it is easy to tell why these words (militant here on earth) were added to the former invitatory (Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church): for these included the full communion both of the living and of the departed saints, which the addition restricts to the earth and life in the body entirely; that so they who are departed, though with the sign of faith (baptism), and have not yet attained to light, rest, or refreshment, might have none of the help of our prayers: as if by dying they were no more our brethren, no more our fellow-members of Christ’s body; or as if the communion of saints were really confined and restrained to this life.

Then, also, were the excellent express prayers for the dead, according to the primitive standard, thrown out not only of that then noble prayer for the whole state of Christ’s Church, but also out of the funeral office: and only the general heads of those prayers were afterwards restored in the Scots Common Prayer-book. But what made the throwing out of the prayers for the dead go the easier down at that time was this; Henry VIII. had been so far from satisfying the hunger of his nobles after dedicated lands, by his profuse giving away to them what was not his own, and what brought a visible curse upon his posterity, that he only increased it the more; and they, being uneasy in the possession of those lands which had been given by the owners for praying for their souls, while prayers for the dead were in use, lest some time or other they might occasion some squeamish stomachs to vomit them up again, they concluded the best way to live easy in their sacrilegious possessions was to banish the prayers for the dead and (of course) the doctrine of a middle state; and this chimbing in with Calvinism, at least with Puritanism, made that alteration go down much the better and easier.

Then, to promote the Sabbatarian doctrine, the Commandments and their Responses were added—merely for the sake of the Response to the fourth Commandment, which I do truly think cannot be honestly said by a Christian without a deep regard had to the great mystery of it, which is far from being obvious to every one; and I heartily wish were universally better understood, though it is also plainly and clearly explained by St Paul throughout the whole fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews, and in parallel places. And so now this our present Liturgy is the first Christian Liturgy in the whole world in which in the altar service the Commandments are to be found; and you see with what view they were there inserted.

Likewise that reformed noble Office of anointing the sick with oil is entirely laid aside and left out; and indeed it is even almost now quite forgot that ever there was such a thing, and people content themselves without it because, for want of instruction, they believe they are happy in losing the Popish Extreme Unction, and know not that in that case, as in many others, there was a foundation in truth, which the Papists indeed perverted, but which we ought to restore to its primitive purity.

But after all I have said (which is but a sketch of what I could say upon the subject), there is no design of forcing in these better and primitive usages upon the people; but the case is plainly this,—It hath pleased God in His mercy of late to move the hearts of very many of our people, especially of those who have more lately come amongst us, and more particularly of our brightest young men, to study antiquity; and so they come to know, to love, and to have a great relish of primitive usages; and finding thus the defect of our present Liturgy when compared with those of the ancients, they desire an amendment according to the primitive standard; which it were hard to refuse them absolutely; nay, it were the way to lose them. Yet are not these alterations, however desirable in themselves, granted or to be granted them all at once, only thus: At present all such presbyters as have a mind, and the greater part of whose congregations desire it, have leave to add (in its proper place) the invocation of the Holy Ghost, when they consecrate; and just so they are allowed to anoint the sick (when such desire it). Likewise (if our purses were not too low for it) King Edward the Sixth’s Liturgy would be reprinted for preservation and information; and, that being done, then to wait for a sufficient demand for alterations before they be made.

One thing, however, more I beg leave to say; that I am not yet sensible of any benefit the Church has ever reaped by great concessions, especially such as remove her farther from the primitive standard; and, not to trouble you with many instances which were very easy to be brought,—What advantage did the Church of Scotland reap by that most unjustifiable concession of laying aside all Liturgic forms at once? Why, truly, that the Presbyterians, for whose sake it was pretended to be done, loved her much less than her sister the Church of England, which retained them; and all the Church of England got by altering her better, purer, more primitive Liturgy for her present one, is that she lost the doctrines which that Liturgy retained in memory, she confirmed the sacrilege of the nobles, she hatched Puritanical vipers in her bosom, and fed them till they grew to have numbers and strength enough to gnaw their passage into the world, and to preferment through the belly of their mother; to her being once if not again almost extinguished, and by thus receding farther from her own standard of primitive antiquity she became less defensible in her innovations: and consequently she hath the more Papists to molest her, and to grapple with at the disadvantage for her, and she hath the more of her children perverted by Popery. For, as to the other sects which separate from her, while she retains Episcopacy or any shadow of it, however low, and although she should cast away all her forms, liturgies, and ceremonies entirely, yet they are never to be in friendship with her, because they are for root and branch work, for the utter extirpation of all hierarchy.

And now in the last place, in answer to what you write of obtaining an establishment of all such alterations as may be made: First, Several of the most learned and most judicious of the present Clergyhave owned their desire to have all the above-mentioned alterations made good and many more which we would well approve of. And, Secondly, let us do our duty, and leave the event to God; who, if He approves of what is done, can easily move the hearts of all concerned to give their assent to truth and right; and blessed be God for it, the desire and longing after primitive Doctrine, Discipline and Worship is very much increased of late, which shows the blessing of God upon persecution and carrying of the Cross. For before we were tried and afflicted we went astray, and sat down upon our lees, taking all upon trust: and because we had the bacon and the mammon in possession, we thought nothing could be amiss or to be amended in an establishment which afforded them. But now, while we seek as in Col. i. 24 to fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in our flesh for his body’s sake, which is the Church, and willingly offer ourselves as in Mal. iii. 2, 3, 4, to be purified with the refining fire (of persecutions and sufferings, which is the Cross) and to be washed as with fuller’s soap, then we become desirous of having everything rectified according to the pattern in the Mount, and at all hazards to help to restore all pure, primitive, orthodox doctrine, discipline, and worship, though still with the prudence of the serpent, as well as with the innocency of the dove: throwing politics as such, and so far as they are merely human and carnal, far away from us: for if we cast our burden upon the Lord, He will sustain us, and if after all we should not succeed nor ever get an establishment, it would be a great comfort to every one who gave a helping hand to so good a work that he has done his duty and his utmost for the glory of God and the service of his Church.

Since I wrote the above I have recollected myself of two Queries which I proposed to the Archbishop.

Qu. 30. Whether they allow of eating Blood or things strangled?

Ans. No—nor was it ever allowed in the East from the beginning (and, say I, nor in the West, until much about the time they took the Cup, the Blood of Christ, from the people—A fine exchange).

Qu. 31. Whether they pretend to cure all demoniacs, lunatics, &c. by the prayers of the Church?

Ans. Yes. They cure all sorts of madness, possessions, lunacies and several other diseases by fasting and prayer. They have no mad houses amongst them, nor no occasion for them.

I have received the MS. but too late to get it published as designed. Our friends here as well as elsewhere are under a severe persecution, and our Clergy are hunted like partridges in the wilderness. I pray God forgive our enemies and impute it not to them; and may God give strength to those that call upon Him in sincerity and truth: may His blessed will be done in time and in eternity. Amen.

P.S. pray consult Bp Forbes of Edinburgh his Considerations Modest and Pacific, and he will confirm to you what I say of the alterations in our present liturgy from that of Ed^d. VI^ths first liturgy; and as to ordinals consult Morinus de ordinationibus, and as to the Abyssines consult Ludolphi Historia Abyssinorum, and D^r Geddes his history of them 8^VO in English, and for Liturgies you’ll find some excellent things in Cardinal Bona’s Works 4^to. And you’ll find several things in Strype’s Annals concerning our Liturgy, and the mangling of it, that are worth your perusal.

N.B. Arsenius ArchB^p. of Thebais was a Missionary hither from the Patriarch of Alexandria for supply to the Greek Church in her distress, and the above answers were made by him to the Questions when residing at London An. 1715.

Previous · Contents