Works, Book 4 · Letter 71
EPISTLE LXXI.
Mr. Mede's Answer to Dr. Twisse's several Expostulations; together with his judgment of Mr. Potter's Discourse touching the Number of the Beast, 666.
Worthy Sir,
I Have received yours, and heartily thank you for the Book you sent me, which I find to be no laxe, but a nervous, close and well-composed Discourse, as written by an abler hand than Voetius or any Dutch-man of them all; yea I believe the ablest in that argument now living.
Concerning Mr. Potter's Discourse, before I tell you my opinion, I find I have some things else to answer, and such as press me so hard as I cannot deny them the first place; especially one of them, which complains much of being mistaken: As that I bad you (hearing Prayers in our Master's Closet) to stand up at Gloria Patri. I'le assure you, you were mistaken. My words were, We stand up, or They stand up, (I know not certainly which,) intending only to have you take notice of our manners and fashions; as I did also the night before, when they bowed at the name Iesus in the Creed. I confess indeed when I saw you so suddenly to alter your posture, I had some suspicion lest you misunderstood me, and repented me I had spoken, and thought of it sometimes afterward. Yet mine was but doubting: I would yours had been so too. For why would you suppose me to be so uncivil as to speak unto a stranger and my better in degree in such a rude manner, or note as you call it? Surely in this you were to blame. Nay I do not remember that ever I bad any one, little or great, either to stand up at Gloria Patri, or how at the name Iesus, or to conform to other the like posture, all days of my life; however my opinion hath been concerning them. The plain truth is, I had a desire to have talked with you about these things, and to have acquainted you with something I had that way; which, now I find your mind so averse, I shall never do. For this end it was that I ever anone put you in mind to observe our postures, and now and then at other times in our discourse touch'd upon something of that kind, to have given occasion of conference about those matters. And the rather I desired it, because I had declared my self so far in my Letters unto you formerly, as I thought might require more to be added to prevent such scruples as might arise from thence. You may remember what hint I gave you in our Gate-house the first night, concerning that place in*Dan. 7. 25. Daniel, And he shall think to change Times and Laws, and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times and half a time. I would fain have entred with you upon that Scripture, and told you I had some Notion thereabout which some friends of mine had termed Dog and Cummin-seed, &c.
As for my Sermon at S. Marie's, if I could have enjoyed you privately & sine arbitris, (which I much, but in vain, desired) in all probability you had been (together with some other things) better acquainted with some of the Contents thereof. And as for preaching for Bowing to Altars; if my memory fail me not, the word Altar (unless in citing a place of Scripture) was never mentioned in my whole Discourse. Sure I am, there was no Bowing spoken of, either with respect to it or to the Communion-Table; but only of Bowing in general without any determination. Besides, that which was spoken was done as it were obiter and in few words, without insisting thereupon, and that too with premised caution; and nothing so much by a great deal, nor so punctual, as I had discoursed in the same place*See this printed in Book II. pag. 398. Sixteen years ago in a Concio ad Clerum for my Degree upon another Text.
The Text now was that of Solomon, Eccles. 5.*See this printed in Book II. pag. 340. Look to thy feet when thou comest to the House of God; and be more ready to obey (for so I rendred foreign) than to offer the Sacrifice of Fools, &c. The Parts, 1. A Precept of reverent and awful demeanour and accommodation when we come to God's House, in the first words. 2. A Caution, not to prefer the secondary Service of God before the first and principal, in the latter words, Be more ready to obey, &c.
I discoursed of the Condition of Places dedicated to Divine worship or God's House. 2. What the Ratio was, or wherein consisted the specification of the Divine Presence, when he is said to be in one place more than another. The Precept [Look to thy feet] I understood and interpreted as an Allusion to that Rite of Discalceation used by the Iews and other Nations of the Orient when they came into Sacred Places, and still to this day continued amongst them. Concerning which I produced divers Testimonies; the ancientest that of God to*Exod. 3. 5. Moses in the bush, and to‖Ios. 5. 15. Ioshua, together with that Symbole of Pythagoras, foreign, Discalceato pede sacrificato, adoratóque, &c. Hence I made the sense of these words of Solomon to be as if we inflecting them to our manners should say, Look unto or Be observant of thy Head when thou comest into the House of God; meaning that he should put off his Hat, and use any other Reverence wont to accompany it as a leading Gesture. For so was this Rite of Discalceation among the Iews, a leading Ceremony to other Reverential guises then used; as the putting off of the Hat (in civil use) is wont to be with us.
Hence I inferred, It was not only lawful, but fit and a Duty commended to us in Scripture, to use some kind of Reverence, yea some Reverential guise and gesture, when we come into God's House. Where after a very few words of the thing in general, in the close I had these words.
[For, should we come into God's House as we do into a Barn or Stable? It was not good manners once so to come into a man's house. Therefore our Blessed Saviour, when he sent forth his Disciples to preach the Gospel, Matth. 10. would not have them to enter into a man's house without salutation; foreign, (saith he) foreign, When ye enter into a house, salute it. Why should we not think it to be a part of Religious manners to do as much when we come into the house of God? But if any shall ask me here, what other Gesture besides the Uncovering of the Head I would require in this case, because I intimated that (even now) to be a leading Gesture; I answer, This belongs to the discretion of our Superiors and the authority of the Church to appoint, not to me to determine. For here, as in all other Ceremonies, the Church is not tied, but hath liberty to ordain that which she shall think most suitable and agreeable to the time, place and manners of the people where she lives. Yet if I may without offence or presumption utter what I think, then I say, That Adoration or the Bowing of the Body, together with some short Ejaculation, (which the Church of Israel used in her Temple together with Discalceation, and which the Christians of the Orient at this day use in their Churches, and time out of mind have done so) is of all others the most seemly, ready and fitting to our manners; were it once by uniform order and practice established: namely, according to that of Psal. 132. 7. Introibimus in Tabernacula ejus, incurvabimus nos Scabello pedum ejus; or to that of Psal. 5. 7. I will enter into thine House in the multitude of thy mercies; in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy Temple: Which is the Form the Iews use at this day at their ingress into their Synagogues, and so for ought I know might we too.]
This was the whole passage verbatim as I spake it. Whence I passed immediately to the Second part of my Text, Be more ready to obey, &c. where my chief Observation, wherewith I concluded, was, The Condition of all External Service of God in general, in the eyes of God; which was such as he accepted no otherwise than secundariò, namely as issuing from a Heart respectively affected with that Devotion it importeth. That as the Body without the Soul is but a Carcass; so is all Bodily worship wherein the pulse of the Heart's devotion beats not.
Now, Mr. Doctor, what was there in all this that an honest, discreet and moderate man, being so perswaded as I am, might not speak? But you will say, What need had I to say any thing at all? I'le tell you. My opinion in these things was well known to many in the University. Our Pulpit had a long time been inflamed with such Discourses. My obstinate silence, having had more than once opportunity to declare my self, and being studied in these matters, was imputed to me by some to proceed either ex malitioso affectu toward such as furthered these things, or out of too much addition and tenderness to the Puritan faction; which is a crime here, if it be once fastened upon a man, nullo Oceano eluendum. I thought good therefore to declare my self; which yet I did with that caution and tenderness, which might not give any just cause of offence to those who were contrary-minded; who yet now I perceive deserved it not, by their over-lavish report of what was spoken.
Besides I observed, both out of Books daily printed and out of such Discourses as I had heard, upon what dangerous Grounds some defended these things; namely such as would in time infer the lawfulness of Image-worship: I thought good therefore in more private Discourses to set them upon safer Principles, and such as might, if it were possible, prevent such an Evil. And in all this why may I not say, What have I done? was there not a cause?
Yea but I am a great Practiser and Prosecuter of such ways. Yet for all this I bowed not to the Altar when I came out of S. Marie's Pulpit, as others commonly use to do. I have urged no man at any time to use any of these Ceremonies, nor conformed my self to any of them, till I saw them prevail so generally as I should have been accounted singular. Our own Chappel is very regular, yet was not any thing introduced by me, but others. I confess I had no scruple to follow them; besides I took occasion by my Chappel-exercises to inform them of the nature and grounds of what they practised, lest for want thereof they might cherish some unsafe conceit. And notwithstanding I preached for Bowing (as you say) to Altars, yet I have not hitherto used it my self in our own Chappel, though I see some others do it. If I come into other Chappels where it is generally practised, I love not to be singular where I have no scruple.
But you would not have me have any hand in killing the Witnesses. God forbid I should; I rather endeavour they might not be guilty of their own deaths. And I verily believe the way that many of them go is much more unlikely to save their lives, than mine. I could tell you a great deal here, if I had you privately in my chamber, which I mean not for any mans sake to commit to paper. Siracusae vestrae capientur, & in pulvere pingitis?
As for Bowing at the name Iesus, 'tis commanded by our Church. And for my self, I hold it not unlawful to adore my Saviour upon any Cue or hint given. Yet could I never believe it to be the meaning of that place of the*Chap. 2. 10, Philippians; nor that it can be inferred thence, otherwise than by way of a general and indefinite consequence. I derive it rather from the Custom of the World in several Religions thus to express some kind of Reverence, when that which they acknowledge for their God is named; as we find the Turks do at this day. Besides I conceive, to do this reverence at the name Iesus only, is proper to the Latine Church, and it may be of later standing. For, if some Greeks have not deceived me, the custom of the Orient is to bow the head not only at the name Iesus, but at the name Christ, and sometimes (though not so frequently) at the name God. And if that were the fashion of the elder Christianity, that out of S. Hierom would found more to the purpose, Moris est Ecclesiastici Christo genu-flectere. This is all I can say to this point, having had fewer Notions thereabout than about any of the rest.
That the worship of the Inward man is that which God principally requires and looks at, I think no Christian man denies. But what then? Doth not our Saviour's rule hold notwithstanding in such a comparison,*Mat. 23. 23. foreign; And consider that the Question is not here (as most men seem to make it) between Inward worship and Outward worship seorsim, (for in such case it is plain the Outward is nothing worth) but whether the Inward worship together with the Outward may not be more acceptable to God than the Inward alone. As for that so commonly objected Scripture in this question,Iohn 4. Of worshipping the Father in spirit and truth, as the Characteristical difference of the Evangelical worship from the Legal; I believe it hath a far different sense from that it is commonly taken to have, and that the Iews in our Saviour's sense worshipped the Father in spirit and truth. But my work grows so fast, that I must let it pass, and be content with that vulgar answer, viz. That under the Old Testament God was worshipped in types and figures of things to come: but in the New, men should worship the Father in spirit and truth, that is, according to the verity of the things presignified, not that they should worship him without all gestures or postures of Body, to which purpose it is wont to be alledged.
But all this while my mind is upon another matter, which at length I am gotten unto, viz. your strange construction and censure of the pains I took in opening my thoughts so freely unto you concerning these matters of reverential posture and gesture, in respect of that interlaced piece wherein I intimated the Eucharist to have in it ratio sacrificii. For
1. Because in the close of my Letter I expressed my fear of some Iudgment to befall the Reformed Churches, because out of the immoderation of their zeal they had in a manner taken away all Difference between*I meant, Between Sacred Things, Persons, Times and Places, and Prosane. The neglect or violation of the respect due to all which may in a large sense be termed Sacriledge. And then consider whe…her that of S. Paul [Thou that hatist Idols, dost thou commit Sacriledge?] God may not in time up…raid the Reformation w…th. This was that I reached at. Sacred and Prophane; you will needs suspect I aimed to make the present Iudgments of God upon Christendom to be for neglect of that Sacrifice which I had spoken of: a thing I never thought of, nor thought so plain an expression of my meaning could ever have been so mistaken. I pray let me intreat you to read over those papers once again, and then tell me with whom the fault is. For why? Is not to esteem the Eucharist a Sacrament, to account it a Sacred thing, unless it be accounted a Sacrifice?
2. It seems strange to you that a matter of so great importance, as I seem to make this Sacrifice to be, should have so little evidence in God's Word and Antiquity, and depend merely upon certain conjectures. As for Scripture, if you mean the name of Sacrifice, neither is the name Sacrament nor Eucharist (according to our Expositions) there to be found; no more than foreign. Yet may not the thing be? But when you speak of so little Evidence to be found in Antiquity, I cannot but think such an Affirmation far more strange than you can possibly my Opinion. For what is there in Christianity for which more Antiquity may be brought than for this? I speak not now of the Fathers meaning, (whether I guessed rightly at it or not) but in general of their Notion of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist. If there be little Antiquity for this, there is no Antiquity for any thing. Eusebius Altkircherus, a Calvinist, printed Neustadii Palatinorum 1584. & 1591. De mystico & incruento Ecclesiae Sacrificio, pag. 6. Fuit haec perpetua semper omnium Ecclesiasticorum Patrum concors & unanimis sententia, Quòd instituta per Christum passionis & mortis suae in Sacra Coena memoria etiam Sacrificii in se contineret commendationem. Bishop Morton in Epist. Dedicator. prefixed to his Book of the Eucharist, Apud veteres Patres (ut quod res est liberè fateamur) de Sacrificio Corporis Christi in Eucharistia incruento frequens est mentio, quae dici vix potest quantopere quorundam alioqui doctorum hominum ingenia exercuerit, torserit, vexaver…; aut è contrà quàm jactanter Pontificii de ea re se ostentent. And that in the Age immediately following the Apostles the Eucharist was generally conceived of under the name and notion of a Sacrifice, (to omit the Testimonies of Ignatius and Iustin Martyr) take only this of Irenaeus Lib. 4. cap. 32. Dominus discipulis suis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis—eum qui ex creatura Panis est accepit, & gratias egit dicens, Hoc est Corpus meum; & Calicem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura quae est secundùm nos, suum Sanguinem confessus est: & Novi Testamenti novam docuit Oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo, &c. And chap. 34. Igitur Ecclesiae Oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo, purum Sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum & acceptum est ei, &c. The evidence of this was such as forced Hospinian (Hist. Sacrament. lib. …. c. 6.) to say, Iam tum primo illo seculo, viventibus adhuc Apostolis, magis huic Sacramento quàm Baptismo insidiari ausus sit (Daemon,) & homines à prima illa forma sensim adduxit: and Sebastianus Francus, Statim post Apostolos omnia inversa sunt—Coena Domini in Sacrificium transformata est.
Now, Sir, if I was loth to pass so harsh a censure (as some do) upon the First Fathers and Church Christian, and could not be perswaded but that which the Catholick Church from her infancy conceived of the Eucharist should have some truth in it, and accordingly endeavoured to find out that ratio Sacrificii therein, such as might be consonant both to the Principles of the Reformed Religion and unto the Scripture of the New Testament, yea perhaps found therein not quoad rem only, but quoad nomen also; did I merit to be irrided for having found out I know not what Mystery of a Sacrifice, now-a-days a Mystery in my sense to all the Christian world? When all men are at a seek, and one cries I think I have found it, shall he be chidden therefore? Sir, I can remember when you understood me more rightly, and interpreted my freedom with much more candour. To tell you true therefore, I am somewhat suspicious lest the air of Cambridge did you some hurt. But let that pass—
That which I wrote to you concerning this Mystery, especially in my Second Reply, was for the most part little other than Testimony of matter of Fact. If it were false, testare de mendacio; if true, cur caedor? Yet one thing more; It is no time now to slight the Catholick consent of the Church in her First ages, when Socinianism grows so fast upon the rejection thereof; nor to abhor so much the notion of a Commemorative Sacrifice in the Eucharist, when we shall meet with those who will deny the Death of Christ upon the Cross to have been a Sacrifice for sin. Verbum intelligenti. There may be here some matter of importance.
Lastly, You may remember how much I desired to be spared from any farther writing or answering upon this argument, because I knew it was a nice and displeasing theme, and such as I should have no thanks for. Now I see I am become a Prophet, and that when I looked not for it. And thus I have done with this business, which hath made me so much work.
The Censure I gave of the Declaration of the Palsgrave's Churches was not in respect of the matter, but the manner of handling, as the term of laxe shewed. And before I had seen it, I heard that Censure given of it by one that wishes the Palsgrave's Churches and their Doctrine as well as I know any. Is I erred in my judgment, there is an end. I use not to be often faulty in rashness that way: And this shall teach me to be more wary hereafter. If I had had any suspicion of misconstruction, I could in this kind have held my tongue with as much ease as any man.
What my Lord of Armagh's opinion is of the Millennium, I know not, save only that I have not observed him, neither when I gave him my Synchronisms, nor in discourse thereabout after he had considered them, to discover any opposition or aversation to the Notion I represented thereabout. The Like Mr. Wood told me of him, after he had read his papers; nay that he used this complement to him at their parting, I hope we shall meet together in Resurrectione prima. But my Lord is a great man, and thinks it not fit (whatsoever his opinion be) to declare himself for a Paradox; yet the speeches I observed to fall from him were no wise discouraging. He told me once he had a Brother (si bene memini) who would say, He could never believe but the 1000 years were still to come.
Now for Mr. Potter's Discourse, I confess I came to the reading thereof with as much prejudice as might be, having been cloyed with so many vain and fancisul Speculations about that mystical Number, that I had no stomack to any more of them. Which was the reason (to tell you true) that I shewed no more desire or eagerness to have a sight of your Exscript, notwithstanding your commendations and offer of the same. For I was loth to be put to give my Censure, which I doubted, according to former experience, must be in sequiorem partem. But when I was a little entered thereinto… and began to perceive the Grounds whereon he meant to build, I found my self presently to altar, and to anticipate in my mind with much content what he aimed at, before I could come to read it; and longed not a little to find it well proved and to fall out accordingly. That which wone me was the way to reduce Ezekiel's and S. Iohn's so differing measures of the New Ierusalem unto the same, and so as both should allude to the Measures of the Ierusalem that was in being. As soon as I found this, I was not a little glad to see that made fecible which I before took for desperate; and as it is ill halting with Criples, I began presently to wish, O that the Number of the Beast might have the like success for the designing of his See of Rome! Concerning which and the compleat foreign of both Numbers when I found such Testimonies produced, you may guess how I was affected; namely, That if it be not a Truth, (which I was very willing to believe) it is the most considerable Probability that ever I read in that kind.
And thus with many thanks for your kind communication thereof unto me, even when you had found me not to long for a sight of it, I commend you and your learned meditations to the Divine blessing, and so I rest
Christ's Coll. Aprill 1637. Yours, Ioseph Mede.
Diversum sentire bonos de rebus iisdem Incolumi licuit semper amicitiâ.
Eusebius De laudibus Constantini, p. 492. Edit. 1612.
Quis (praeter Christum Servatorem) cunctis totius Orbis terrarum incolis,But the Sanctification of Holy Time cannot possibly be maintained, unless we admit the like for Holy Places. Things, Persons. All move upon the same principles. sen terrâ seu mari illisint, praescripserit, ut singulis septimanis in unum convenientes Diem Dominicum sestum celebrarent?
I know not whether the Tractators of this argument have observed this passage or not. Graeca sic habent;
foreign;
See the Vanity of man's life. When I began this Letter, Dr. Whaley, your good and religious Friend, was in health: Before I had finished (intermitting some few days) I heard he was fallen suddenly sick, and soon after that he was recovering: Now, when I was about to seal my Letter, (upon the opportunity of a Friend's going to London) I hear he is departed this life, and the Bells are yet ringing out for him. I expected not to have been the messenger of this ill news.
May 2. Vale.