Works, Book 4 · Letter 58
EPISTLE LVIII.
Mr. Mede's Answer to Dr. Twisse's Eighth Letter, further explaining himself concerning Holiness of Churches, Altars or Sacred Tables, God's Throne or Place of presence therein, &c. With a Caveat to the Reformed Churches.
SIR,
COncerning the accomplishment of the Fourth Vial, I shall be then better able to judge, when I see what will be the conclusion of these great Commotions now on foot. If they settle so, as thereby some prop shall be taken away which now upholdeth the Beast, or any further way opened to his downfal than yet hath been, then I shall think it is accomplished; otherwise not. For every Vial must be a degree of the Beast's ruine. Ergò id quo non labefactatur status Bestiae, Phialae complementum non erit. Let us expect what this new shock to be given to the H. of A. will come to. If they be once heaved out of the Imperial Throne, or their succession interrupted, I shall believe it is done. Their fall, whensoever it happens, will in all likelihood so shake the Beast, as will drive him into a*So Hippocrates sometimes call… a burning-Fever, as also foreign, otherwise called foreign. Vid. Apoca. 16. 8. 9. foreign or burning-Fever; the raging Symptomes whereof such as stand in his way are like to feel.
For the other points, of the Holiness of Churches, of Altars or Sacred Tables, of the reverent accommodation in the one at or toward the other; the paths unto them by reason of infrequency and unaccustomedness are so full of checks and impediments, as makes all collation by pen over-tedious and troublesome. For nothing almost can be presupposed by way of Postulatum, but will be questioned. In a discourse ore tenus I could rid my way a great deal better, with much more speed and ease. But in so much Penwork as this Argument would require, I am not willing to engage my self; and perhaps 'twould not be operae-pretium. Nevertheless that you might know there is something to be said by way of Answer to your Exceptions, and to give you occasion of further meditation in these things, I thought not good to wave it altogether, till I had let you see a little further into my thoughts and speculations this way before I shut the window. Thus therefore I express them, not following the order of your Letter, but as my mind prompts me.
1. Concerning Holiness of Churches.
THERE is a Threefold Holiness to be found in Scripture,*This was printed at the end of the Remain, upon the Apocalyps, but wanted both the beginning and the latter part of this Letter. or, if you will, the word Holiness is there used in a Threefold Notion, which I would distinguish thus. 1. Essential Holiness; 2. Holiness of Integrity; and 3. Relative Holiness.
1. Essential Holiness is that whereof God is called Holy; as Sanctus Israelis, i.e. Israelis Deus, juxta, illud 1 Sam. 2. 2. Non est Sanctus sicut Dominus, neque enim est alius praeter te, & non est Deus [foreign] sicut Deus noster: For this Holiness is God himself, his Essence, his Divine Majesty, whence all other Holiness is derived, not any inherent Attribute differing from him, as in created subjects.
2. Holiness of Integrity is that which the Greeks call foreign, the Latines Sanctimonia, and may be described, A state of Righteousness or of pureness and cleanness from sin. This is that Holiness whereof the Apostle speaks Heb. 12. Without Holiness no man shall see God; and whereof we call such as fear God and eschew evil, Holy men. Of this kind of Holiness nothing is capable but reasonable Creatures, Angels and Men.
3. But there is a third kind of Holiness, Relative Holiness, being nothing but a state of Relation of peculiarity to God-ward, either in respect of Presence, or Propriety and Dominion. 1. Of Presence, *Whence Luke 2. 23. for that in the Law, Whatsoever openeth the Womb is mine… is quoted, Every Male that openeth the Womb shall be called Holy unto the Lord.when God is peculiarly and in a special manner present; as when he appeared to Moses in the flaming bush, Exod. 3. 5. Exue calceamenta tua de pedibus tuis; locus enim in quo stas terra sancta est. 2. Of Propriety, when a thing being dedicated or consecrated to the Divine Majesty, the propriety thereof becomes so his, as it is no longer ours: For thus to be God's, is to be his in a peculiar manner, and not as other things are: For otherwise it is true, The whole Earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, the world and those that dwell therein. Of this Holiness any thing is capable that is capable of peculiar Relation unto God; Persons, Places, Time and Things; and is that which the Greek properly calls foreign, the Latine Sacrum: whence we say, Loca sacra, Tempora sacra, Personae sacrae. Res sacrae. Loca sacra, as the place above-said, where God communicated himself to Moses, as Temples and Churches; in which (N. B.) both these relations concur, both of Divine Presence and Divine Propriety: (for it is both God's House, as being dedicated to his Name; and the place also where God is wont to be present with the Sons of men in his Word and Sacraments.) Tempora sacra, as the Lord's Day and other holy and Festival times. Personae sacrae, as our Priests and Clergy. Res sacrae, any thing besides these which we offer and dedicate unto God. If any shall except that in the Old Testament indeed this Holiness had place, but in the New there is no such thing; I would encounter him thus: If any place under the Gospel may be more peculiarly the place of Divine Presence than every place; if any thing under the Gospel may be more peculiarly God's than every thing; Then hath this kind of Holiness place in the New Testament as well as in the Old: Sed verum prius, Ergó.
By this you may judge what I think of D. B. his assertion, That Temples were holy only in the holy use of them. If his meaning be, they are holy no longer than during such use; would he say that Ministers are sacred Persons only whilst they are officiating in preaching, praying and celebrating the Sacraments, and at other times nothing differing from Lay-men? would he say that the Lord's Day is Holy only for the time that Divine Service continues, and no longer? Par enim est ratio. I confess I heard one not long since preach so in our S. Mary's Pulpit, you may guess to what end. But he was not aware that by this assertion he blew up the foundation of his own Tenet, concerning the reverence due to Churches and Altars. Eadem enim est ratio Loci & Temporis sacri; quia utrumque sanctum est, neutrum prophanandum, sed omnino sanctè habendum est, i. e. prout convenit sanctitati. But it is ordinary with men who make passion and studium partium the rule of their Iudgments, thus to cut the throats of their own principles.
Here therefore I would desire you to consider and weigh this Proposition, That a Place may be said to be Holy in respect of relation to Divine Presence, not only where God is in such peculiar manner actually present, but where he is wont to be, yea or had wont to be, (therefore Daniel prayed toward Ierusalem, etiam cùm jam dirutum & concrematum jaceret Templum, neque Arca foederis ampliùs ibi exstaret) yea even there where he hath once been in some illustrious and extraordinary manner. Witness Mount Tabor, which only for the glorious Transfiguration of Christ thereon (having never had any other Divine relation) is by S. Peter, 2 Epist. 1. 18. termed the Holy Mount: This voice (saith he) which came from Heaven, we heard when we were with him foreign. Be it so, that Sacraments are no longer Sacraments than in the use of them; yet are they Holy as long as they are for that use.
2. Whether foreign may be rightly called Solium Christi.
I expected no scruple at that speech: For if the Holy Table be Sedes corporis & sanguinis Christi, why not Solium Christi? what is Solium but Sedes, nempe Regia? And is not the Body of Christ foreign; Hence Antiquity called the Holy Table foreign, and the place where it stood foreign. The first, in that place you mention for Altars standing in the middle of the Quire. It is in a Panegyrick Oration made at the dedication of a sumptuous and magnificent Church built at Tyre in the days of Constantine, (recorded by Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 10. cap. 4. Editione Graeco-lat. p. 282, 283.) the structure and garnishing whereof the Panegyrist there at large describing, and amongst the rest the Seats erected in the Quire for the honour of the Clergy, he adds, foreign, [and having placed the most Holy Altar in the midst] foreign, [that it might not be accessible to the multitude] foreign, [he compassed it about reticulati operis cancellis ex ligno fabricatis, adeò ad summum solertis artificii elaboratis, ut mirabile intuentibus praebeat spectaculum.] That of foreign, for the place where the Holy Table stood, is to be found in Theod. Histor. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 17. in that famous story of Theodosius and S. Ambrose, where Theodosius after his absolution coming up into the foreign, and there staying (after he had offered) to receive the holy Eucharist, (as he used to do at Constantinople, for this was at Milane) S. Ambrose admonisheth him to go out, foreign i. Quoniam interiora ista, ô Imperator, solis sunt Sacerdotibus pervia; reliquis verò omnibus inaccessa, neque tangenda. These two places I thought not unfit to cite, that it might appear how far the conceit of the Ancients and ours differ in this point.
3. How in the New Testament God or Christ our Lord can be said to have his Throne or place of Presence in our Churches and Oratories, when they are not by Divine (as were the Tabernacle and the Temple in the Old Testament) but Humane appointment, and without any such Symbolum as the Ark there was.
I answer: To erect or set apart a Place for Divine Worship and the exercise of the Rites of Religion is juris naturae, and approved by God from the beginning. It began not with that Tabernacle or Temple made by God's special appointment to Moses. Abraham, Isaac and Iacob erected places of Divine Worship (wheresoever they came and pitched their Tents) without any special appointment from God, tanquam nimirum ex recepta consuctudine generis humani. Noah bu…lt an Altar so soon as he came out of the Ark. Iacob vowed a Place for Divine Worship, by the name of God's House, where he would pay the Tithes of all that God should give him. Moses, Exod. 33. 7. (before the Ark and that glorious Tabernacle were yet made) pitched a Tabernacle for the same purpose without the Camp, whither every one that sought the Lord was to go, and called it foreign the Tabernacle of meeting, viz. of meeting with God, not of Mens meeting together, as we mean when we turn it, Tabernacle of the Congregation: Of which perhaps more*I must pass it by; but see Exod. 29. 42. & ch. 30. 36. Num. 17. 4. in which God himself gives ratio nominis, The Tabernacle of meeting where I will meet with thee. hereafter.
Now for the nature of these Places, we can no where learn it better than from that of the Lord to Moses, Exod. 20. immediately after he had pronounced the Decalogue from Mount Sinai, where premising that‖Vers. 23. they should not make with him (whom they had seen talking with them from Heaven) Gods of silver and Gods of gold, and that*Vers. 24. they should make his Altar (namely, whilst they were there in the Wilderness) of earth, and sacrifice their sacrifices thereon; he adds, In all places where I record my Name, I will come unto thee, and will bless thee. Here is contained the definition of the Place set apart for Divine Worship. 'Tis the Place where God records his Name, and communicates himself to men, to bless them, Exod. 20. 24. foreign, In every place where the Memorial I appoint of my Name shall be; or, In every place set apart for the Memorial of my name. The Memorial of God's Name is any token or symbol whereby he*Note that the LXX perpetually render foreign (the Tabernacle of meeting) foreign, the Tabernacle of the Testimony, as it is called in the N. T. and sometimes in the Old, viz. foreign, as the Ark foreign, wherein were the Tabl…s which contained the Articles of the Covenant, and Manna which was the Bread of the Covenant. testifies his Covenant, and, as it were, commerceth with Men. And though the Ark were afterward made for this purpose, as the standing Memorial of his Name, (and therefore called The Testimony and the Ark of the Covenant) yet could not that here be specially pointed at, as which yet was not in being, nor any commandment concerning the making thereof yet heard of. And so the words to be taken generally for any; such as were the Sacrifices immediately before mentioned, and the Seat of them the Altar, and therefore may seem to be more particularly referred unto: for that these were Federal Rites whereby the Name of God was remembred and his Covenant testified, may be easily proved; whence that which was burned upon the Altar is so often called The Memorial: See Levit. chap. 24. 7. & c. 2. c. 5. c. 6. And the Son of Sirach tells us, Ecclus. 45. 16. that Aaron was chosen out of all men living to offer Sacrifices to the Lord, incense and a sweet savour for a Memorial, to make reconciliation for his People. Add, Esay 66. 3. Qui recordatur thure, quasi qui benedicat idolo. But I must not stay too long in this. Now I ask, Did not Christ ordain the Holy Eucharist to be the Memorial of his Name in the New Testament? Hoc (saith he) est corpus meum, foreign. (And there be those that will not stick to say, That Christ is as much present here as the Lord was upon the Mercy-seat between the Cherubims.) Why should not then the Places appointed for the Station of this Memorial under the Gospel have some semblable Sanctity to that where the Name of God was recorded in the Law? And though we be not now tied to one only Place as under the Law, and that God*So he hears them whensoever they are made; yet is there one day in the week set apart for his solemn worship. Eaden… est ratio Temperis & Loci. hears the faithful prayers of his Servants wheresoever they are made unto him (as also he did then;) yet should not the Place of his Memorial be promiscuous and common, but set apart to that sacred purpose.
You will say, This Christian Memorial is not always there present, as at least some one or other of those in the Law were. I answer: It is enough it is wont to be; as the Chair of Estate loseth not its relation and due respect though the King be not always there. And remember that the Ark of the Covenant or Testimony was not in Ierusalem when Daniel opened his windows and prayed thitherward;The Iew… report the Ark was set upon a stone placed at the West-end of the most Holy place. See Mai…on. apud Amsworth, in v. 10. chap. 17. Num. and that it was wanting in the Holy place all the time of the Second Temple, the Seat thereof being only there. You will say, In the Old Testament these things were appointed by Divine law and commanded; but in the New we find no such thing. I answer: In things for which we find no new Rule given in the New Testament, there we are referred to the analogy of the Old: witness the Apostles proofs taken thence for the maintenance of the Ministery, 1. Cor. 9. and the like; and the practice of the Church ab initio in Baptizing Infants, from the analogy of Circumcision; in hallowing every First day of the Week as one in Seven, from the analogy of the Iewish Sabbath. For it is to be seriously considered,S. Hierome implies as much in that speech of his,Vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas ex Veteri Testamento: quod Aaron & filii ejus & Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, Presbyteri atque Diaconi vindicant in Ecclesia. That the end of Christ's coming into the world was not to give new Laws, but to fulfil the Law already given, and to preach the Gospel of reconciliation through his Name to those who had transgressed it: Whence we see the Style of the New Testament not any where to carry the form of enacting Laws; but such as are there mentioned, to be mentioned only occasionally by way of allegation, of interpretation, of proof, of exhortation, and not by way of re-enacting.
There comes now very fitly into my mind a passage of Clemens (a Man of the Apostolical Age, whose name (S. Paul says) was written in the Book of Life) in his genuine Epistle ad Corinthios, lately set forth, page 52. foreign, Omnia ritè & ordine facere debemus, quaecunque Dominus peragere nos jussit. What doth he command? foreign, i. e. praestitutis temporibus oblationes & liturgias obire; neque enim temere vel inordinatè voluit ista fieri, sed statutis temporibus & horis: V B I etiam & A QVIBVS peragi velit, ipse excelsissimâ suâ voluntate definivit. But where hath the Lord defined these things, unless he hath left us to the analogy of the Old Testament?
4. Concerning the Objection of our Saviour's eating the Passeover, and first Institution of the Holy Supper in a Common place, in an Inne.
Against the supposed Sanctity or Dignity to be ascribed to the Holy Table or Altar, as the place where the Memorial of the Body and Bloud of Christ is represented, you object the Table and place of the first Institution, which was an ordinary Table and a common Inne; whereby it should seem that the Table whereon it was afterwards to be celebrated should no otherwise be accounted of. First, I answer, It follows not, and that from the parallel of the Institution of the Passeover; which though at first it were killed in a private house, and the bloud stricken upon the door-posts, yet afterwards it might not be so, but was to be offered in the place which the Lord should chuse (Deut. 16. 5, 6.) to place his Name there; according to the Law given for all Offerings and Sacrifices in general, Deut. 12. à versu 4. ad 14. inclusivè, with a triple inculcation in one continued Series of speech.
This Answer seems to me sufficient for the Objection of the first Institution. But there is one thing more yet to be considered; That there is not the same reason of the Place where the Sacrifice is sanctified or offered and the Place where it is eaten. Every Sacrifice was to be offered and sanctified at the Altar, where the Bloud was sprinkled and the Memorial burned; but that done, it was eaten in another place: those which were eaten only by the Priests, in the Chambers of the Temple; those which the people were partakers of, (as the Peace-Offerings,) out of the Temple. Of this nature was the Passeover, the Lamb being first to be offered and slain in the Temple, and the Bloud sprinkled on the Altar (according unto the Law, Deut. 16. and the practice, 2 Chron. 35. 1, 2, 6, 10, 11.) that done, to be eaten where they would; provided it were in loco mundo, in a clean place.
And thus was the Paschal Lamb, whereof our Saviour ate, prepared and sanctified; yea, by proportion of all other Sacrifices, the Bread and the Wine, whereof the Holy Supper was instituted; for they were the*That which we usually in our Translation call Meat-offering, might more fi…ly be termed Bread-offering, for such it wa…and consider that the Sacrifices being flesh were not ea…en without bread and drink, which therefore were concom…nts of them. Minchah or Meat and Drink-offering of the Passeover, such as all other Sacrifices had annexed unto them. And to what end else was the Law so strict that they should bring all their Sacrifices and Offerings unto the Place which the Lord should chuse to put his Name there, but that they might be sanctified and hallowed at the Lord's Altar, before they feasted with them? whence perhaps that custom of the ancient Church was derived, to offer the Bread and Wine unto God upon the Holy Table before it was consecrated to be the Body and Bloud of Christ, because they supposed that at the first institution they had been so offered at the Altar in the Temple. But as the Iews used not to eat their Sacrifices where they offered them; no more did the ancient Christians think themselves bound to eat the Eucharist where it was consecrated; insomuch that they carried it sometimes to their houses, and ordinarily*Iustin in Apolog. 2. sent it to those which were absent. And if it be well observed, in the practice of our own Church there is a difference commonly between the place of consecration and the place of eating, though both be in the Church.
True it is, that at the first Institution, though perhaps not the first hallowing of the Bread and Wine for the Passeover, yet the consecration thereof to be the Symbols of the Body and Bloud of Christ was in a common room, and that out of the necessity of the connexion which the materials thereof had with the viands of the Passeover. Yet I suppose not the House to have been of the condition of our Inns, but only for such Sacred entertainments as this was; of which sort Ierusalem must needs have had very many, for the accommodation of such as came to feast before the Lord, as the whole Nation was to do three times in a year.
If all that hath been yet said will not satisfie this Objection, yet I hope what I shall now say will do it fully: What needed there any Altar or Place of relative presence,Apoc. 21. 2…. foreign. Ma…th. 12. 6. foreign. where the Son of God, the Heavenly Altar and Holy of Holies, was himself present in person? Is not the Temple of God there where he is? and what Altar was so holy as his Sacred hands?
5. Why in the posture of our adoration of the Divine Majesty more respect should be had to the Altar or Holy Table, than either to the Font or Pulpit, seeing they are also Places of God's presence as well as the other.
Suppose they be so; yet when there are many, why should not that which hath the principality draw this respect unto it? A man is present where any part of him is: yet when we salute him, or speak unto him, we are wont to direct our selves unto his Face, as that wherein his presence is most principal and erected; not to his Backer parts, or to his Shoulders, though the organ of hearing be that way. Perhaps it was this principality which that Doctor (or whatsoever he be whom you mention) intended, when he said that Hoc est Corpus meum was more with him than Hoc est Verbum meum.
But I think for my part, first, that the comparison of the Pulpit with the Sacraments and their places is heterogeneal. Secondly, that neither the Pulpit nor the Place of the Sacrament of Baptism are in this point, or for this purpose (we speak of,) of the same nature with the Altar.
For it ought to be considered (though it be a thing now-a-days in a manner quite forgotten) that the Eucharist (according to the meaning of the Institution) is the Rite of our address unto God the Father in the New Testament, wherewith we come before him, to offer unto his Divine Majesty our thanksgivings, supplications and praises in the Name of his Son Iesus Christ crucified for us: that is, It is not only a Sacrament, but, as the ancient Church used to speak, a Sacrifice also. For that Sacrifices were Rites whereby they invocated and called upon God, is a Truth, though perhaps not so vulgarly taken notice of, yet undeniable: as on the Gentiles behalf may be seen in Homer in divers places where he describes the manner of offering Sacrifices; on the Iews behalf by that speech of Saul, 1 Sam. 13. 12. when Samuel expostulating with him for having offered a Burnt-offering, I said, saith he, the Philistins will come down upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication to the Lord. I forced my self therefore and offered a Burnt-offering. See also 1 Sam. 7. 8, 9. Ezra 6. 10. Baruch 1. 10, 11. 1 Mac. 12. 11. 2 Chron. 7. 12, & sequentia. Hence of Abraham and Isaac it is said when they built Altars, that there they called upon the name of the Lord; but Altars were the place for Sacrifice.
In stead therefore of the slaughtering of Beasts, and the Sacrifices offered by fire and incense, whereby they called upon the name of God in the Old Testament, the Fathers and primitive Christians believed that our Saviour ordained this Sacrament of Bread and Wine, as a Rite whereby to give thanks and make supplication to his Father, in his Name, in the New. The mystery of which Rite they took to be this; That as Christ by presenting his Death and Satisfaction to his Father continually intercedes for us in Heaven; so the Church on earth semblably approaches the Throne of Grace by representing his Death and Passion to his Father in these holy Mysteries of his Body and Bloud.
Veteres enim (saith Cassander) in hoc mystico Sacrificio non tam peractae semel in Cruce oblationis, (cujus hîc memoria celebratur) quàm perpetui Sacerdotii & jugis Sacrificii quod in coelis sempiternus Sacerdos offert, rationem habuerunt; cujus hîc Imago per solennes Ministrorum preces exprimitur.
This that reverend and learned Divine Mr. Perkins (once Fellow of our Society) saw more clearly, or expressed more plainly, than any other Reformed Writer that I have yet seen, in his Demonstrat. Problem. titulo de Sacrificio Missae. Veteres (inquit) Coenam Domini, seu totam coenae actionem & formulam, vocârunt Sacrificium, tum aliis de causis, tum quia est commemoratio, adeóque repraesentatio Deo P…tri, Sacrificii Christi in Cruce immolati. He goes on, Hoc modo (saith he) fideles etiam inter orandum Christum offerunt Deo Patri victimam, dum scilicet mente affectúque ad Sacrificium ejus unicum feruntur, ut Deum sibi habeant faciántque propitium: that is, What every Christian doth mentally and vocally when he commends his prayers to God the Father, through Iesus Christ, making mention of his Death and Satisfaction, that in the publick and solemn service of the Church was done by that Rite which our Saviour ordained to be used in commemoration of him; in whose death and Passion is founded the New Covenant of God with Men.
For here take notice that all those bloudy Sacrifices of the Law were Federal Rites, or Epulae foederales, as the Eucharist also is; namely, that they were Oblations wherein the Offerer (either by himself or his proxy the Priest) banquetted, or ate and drank, with his God, in token of covenant and reconcilement with him. So that to approach God with this Rite, was to do it by way of commemoration or renewing of a Covenant with him, and as much as to say, Remember thy Covenant; which is the foundation of all Invocation: For what hath Man to do with God, to beg any favour at his hands, unless he be in Covenant with him? Whereby appears the reason why Mankind from the beginning of the world used to make their address unto their God by this Rite of Sacrificing, viz. Ritu foederali. And this is that which the Ancient Church did, and supposed our Lord intended they should do, in the holy Eucharist of his Death and Passion; which therefore they called the New or Christian Sacrifice. A definition whereof (as it consists of the Rite and Action both together) may be framed out of those words of Mr. Perkins, An Oblation of Thanksgiving and Prayer to God the Father, through Iesus Christ and his Sacrifice upon the Cross, commemorated and represented in Bread and Wine.
This is a point of great moment and consequent, worthy to be looked farther into by all the Learned of the Reformed Religion; lest whilst we have deservedly abolished that prodigious and blasphemous Sacrifice of the Papists, wherein Christ is again hypostatically offered to his Father, we have not (or but very implicitly and obscurely) reduced that ancient Commemorative Sacrifice of Christians, wherein that one Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross was continually by that sacred Rite represented and inculcated to his Father, his Father put in mind thereof by those monuments set before him, wherein we also testified our own mindfulness thereof unto his sacred Majesty, that so he would for his sake, according to the tenour of the New Covenant in his Bloud, be favourable and propitious unto us miserable Sinners. But to clear this point, and to remove all scruples, objections and prejudices against it, is not for a Letter, but a Volume. This is enough for the end I intended, which was, to shew how the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our address unto God, and therein of a different nature from Baptism, which is not so, but the Rite only of our New Birth, whereby we become the Sons of God, and are admitted to be members of his Church; not the Sacrament whereby we exercise the functions of this new life, in worshipping, invocating and glorifying God our Father through Iesus Christ. These premisses considered, the Answer to your demand, Why in the posture of our adoration of the Divine Majesty more respect should be had to the Altar or Holy Table, than either to the Font or Pulpit, is plain and easie; namely, because Adoration is an act of address and of tender of honour unto God, and therefore most fitly to be performed at or toward the place of our address, which is the Altar, whereat anciently as the Sacrament of the Eucharist, so the whole Devotions of the Church were performed and presented to the Divine Majesty. The Pulpit is the place where God speaks to us, not we to him. The Font the place where he reaches his favour unto us, in accepting us to be his Servants; not where, being initiated, we offer our spiritual sacrifice and service to him. You must understand me here to speak according to the ancient manner of the Church.
Whereas you seem to question, Whether the Iews had any such respect unto the Altar of Burnt-offering: I answer, they had; for it was so placed, that when they turned and worshipped toward the Mercy-seat, they worshipped toward it also; but the denomination of their posture is from the Ark, as the principal memorial of the Divine presence; yet sometimes from the Altar also, as 1 Kings 8. 22, 31. 2 Chron. 6. 12. Vide & 2 Kings 18. 22. cum locis parallelis, 2 Chron. 32. 12. Isai. 36. 7. Also Ecclus. 47. 9. we have foreign, instead of that which is 1 Chron. 16. 4. foreign. But the Altar of Incense better befits our Holy Table than the Altar of Burnt-offering, though it may not untruly be affirmed, if rightly taken, that the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ is to us Christians both Arca foederis, Incensum & Holocaustum, being the commemoration of him who is all these unto us.
AND thus far I have adventured to discover my thoughts in this nice and doubtful argument, presuming upon the experience I have formerly had of your judgment, freedom and ability of discerning, especially of your affection and good opinion of my self. You may guess my thoughts have not been a stranger to things of this nature. You will admire perhaps they were no hinderance to my Apocalyptical Speculations, and how I could so easily, being possessed with such Tenets, believe the Popedom to be the Beast, and Rome the Whore of Babylon; seeing in the apprehension of the most these things accord not well together.
But this seeming incompetibility will soon vanish, if you consider that in all my meditations I make the Apostasie of the Visible Church to consist, not in Iudaism, but in Gentilism; the constant character of the Apocalyptical Allegories warranting and first suggesting this conceit, where namely I observed Iudaism to bear the Type of the true Church, and Gentilism of the false.
Secondly, Altiùs hoc animo meo insedit, That the Reformed Churches, out of extream abomination of Idolatry, have, according to the nature of men, incurred some guilt before God foreign, by taking away the distinction almost generally between things Sacred and Prophane, and that they shall one day smart for it. But the prejudices hereabout are so great, that I have little hope to perswade others to my opinion: Yet I could say much for it, and if it be well observed, the present Iudgments of God upon the Reformation do insinuate some such thing. Let the godly wise consider it. Divine Iudgments have usually some brand or stamp upon them, which points at the Sin for which they are inflicted: you may call it a Sin-mark. If the passages and ground of the continuance of this German War be well considered, would not a man think they spake that of the Apostle, Thou that hatest Idols, dost thou commit Sacriledge? But I dare go no further; it may be I have said too much already: For I well know, the way that I go pleaseth neither party; the one loves not the Pope should be Antichrist, nor the other to hear that these things should not be Popery.
Thus you see I have at length brought both ends together, and end where I began. Pardon me this one Letter, and I will trouble you no more with this Theme; your Reply to my short Answer to your Quere occasioned it—
I forget not my best respect unto your self, nor my prayers to the Almighty for blessing to you and yours. Thus I rest
Christ's Coll. Iuly 15. 1635. Your assured Friend, Ioseph Mede.
I sent by Mr. B. 4. or 5. Exercises upon passages of Scripture; such as I had in separate papers and fit to be communicated. For those that were in Books joyned with other things, I could not; and some that were apart, for some Reasons, I would not expose to danger of censure. I hope those which I sent are safely arrived with you.