§. IV.
Now besides these general Titles of Honour, what gross Abuses are crept in among such as are called Christians in the Use of Compliments, wherein not Servants to Masters, or others, with Respect to any such Kind of Relations, but others, who have no such Relation do say and write to one another at every Turn, Your humble Servant, Your most obedient Servant, &c. Such wicked Customs have, to the great Prejudice of Souls, accustomed Christians to lie; and to use Lying is now come to be accounted Civility. O horrid Apostasy! for it is notoriously known, that the Use of these Compliments imports not any Design of Service, neither are any such Fools to think so; for if we should put them to it that say so, they would no doubt think we abused them; and would soon let us know they gave us Words in Course, and no more. It is strange, That such as pretend to Scripture as their Rule should not be ashamed to use such Things; since Elihu, who had not the Scriptures, could by the Light within him (which these Men think insufficient) say, Job. xxxii. 21, 22. Let me not accept any Man’s Person, neither let me give flattering Titles unto Men. For I know not to give flattering Titles; in so doing my Maker would soon take me away. A certain ancient devout Man, in the primitive Time, subscribed himself to a Bishop, Your humble Servant; wherein I doubt not but he was more real than our usual Complimenters; and yet he was sharply reproved for it.[157]
[157] This History is reported by Casaubonus, in his Book of Manners and Customs, P. 160. “In this last Age he is esteemed an uncivil Man, who will not either to his Inferior or Equal subscribe himself Servant. But Sulpitius Severus was heretofore sharply reproved by Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, because in his Epistle he had subscribed himself his Servant, saying, Beware thou subscribe not thyself his Servant, who is thy Brother; for Flattery is sinful, not a Testimony of Humility to give these Honours to Men, which are only due to the One Lord, Master, and GOD.”
But they usually object, to defend themselves, That Luke saith, Most Excellent Theophilus; and Paul, Most Noble Festus.
I answer, Since Luke wrote that by the Dictates of the Infallible Spirit of God, I think it will not be doubted but Theophilus did deserve it, as being really endued with that Virtue: In which Case we shall not condemn those that do it by the same Rule. But it is not proved that Luke gave Theophilus this Title, as that which was derived to him, either from his Father, or by any Patent Theophilus had obtained from any of the Princes of the Earth? or that he would have given it him, in Case he had not been truly excellent: And unless this be proved (which never can) there can nothing hence be deduced against us. Concerning the Title Paul gave to Festus.The like may be said of that of Paul to Festus, whom he would not have called such, if he had not been truly noble; as indeed he was, in that he suffered him to be heard in his own Cause, and would not give Way to the Fury of the Jews against him; it was not because of any outward Title bestowed upon Festus, that he so called him, else he would have given the same Appellation to his Predecessor Felix, who had the same Office; but being a covetous Man, we find he gives him no such Stile.