« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
pared your letters; and I found that well it might be, by your opinion. And if it be so, how sorry should I be to observe that you should have a hand in the slaughtering of them !,* as namely, by promoting of such courses and countenancing them, for not conforming whereunto many are like to be slaughtered, that is, (according to your interpretation,) turned out of their places. And as for outward compliments, nothing
themselves, which is not a subject of common grief, but rather to be deplored in tears of blood! For how few are they who are seriously affected with grief at the affliction of Joseph, or who lament the destruction of their brethren! On the contrary, the greater part of those persons whom these evils have not yet molested, though they are close to them and impending over their heads, indulge themselves with such security in their mutual dissensions, hatred and partialities, as if they had made a covenant with death, and with hell were at perfect agreement !”.
This opinion could not be very grateful to the Calvinistic prepossessions of Doctor Twisse, who was vexed at Mr. Mede's making both parties exceedingly culpable.
** But (you say] 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 man's sake, to commit to paper. Syracus& vestræ capientur, et in pulvere pingitis." Mede's Reply.
This is one of the most notable passages in the whole correspondence: The old Doctor esteemed his Calvinistic and Nonconforming friends the two witnesses, who had “prophesied clothed in sack-cloth." But Mr. Mede was not of that opinion : He viewed them as men of a rash and turbulent spirit, who would effect their owu destruction, instead of being “ overcome and killed by the beast.” However, the Doctor and his friends took the most compendious method in the world to have the prophecy fulfilled, in their sense of the Apocalyptical expressions, by accounting the three days and a half” to be just then (1640) 'expiring, after “ the dead bodies of the two prophets had lain in the street of the great city.". To make the prophecy complete, therefore, they thought“ the Spirit of life from God had' entered into themselves," as composing an essential and important part of the two witnesses ; and they contrived, by their tyrannical measures, to inject“ great fear into them who were spectators.” I have proved, in another note, that the grand finale of the prophecy was not perfected in their experience, as Sir Henry Vane had likewise previously shewn. Indeed, the small portion of truth to be found in Mr. Mede's modest conjectures on this subject, seems to apply to the persecuted Arminians in Holland, Eugland, and France, who were compelled “to prophesy in sack-cloth” while the enthusiastic notion of an universal Calvinistic empire prevailed, and was inculcated as one of the verities of scripture. But He, in whose hands are “ the times and seasons' of human affairs, and whose providential appointments are incontrollable, manifested his high displeasure against this presumptuous mode of dictating to him and of their desire to become his counsellors; for before twenty years bad elapsed, he gave such a direction to public affairs in this kingdom, as evidently to demonstrate to the whole world, that, if the English Calvinists had ever possessed the least claims to the honour of being two witnesses” described in the Apocalypse, they had prematurely cast aside their “sack-cloth” and vain-gloriously assumed the royal purple. They were therefore, in this their own prophetic view of the maiter, punished with a just retribution, by being compelled to resume their discarded sackcloth, and to come under the yoke to those men over whom they had exercised a brief but cruel triumph. Thus, almost literally, was fulfilled the concluding prophetic expression of Mr. Mede: “ Their Syracuse was taken by storm : and they, as captives, had leisure to engrave iheir sorrows on the sand!”
more pleaseth a natural man in religious worship, and he finds himself apt enough for it, yea far more apt than they who, knowing and considering that God is a Spirit and they that wore ship him must worship him in spirit, are most careful for the performance thereof: Whereupon while their minds are intent, they find themselves not so free for outward compliments, the care whereof is apt to cause avocation and disturbance in that unum necessarium.--You bade me stand up at Gloria Patri ; and it was in such a note too, that you had the mastery of me I know not how: I profess I little looked for such entertainment at your hands. My wife's father, Dr. Moore, was Bishop Bilson's chaplain, and most respected by him of any chaplain that ever he had, and he a cathedral-man too; but they could never get him to stand up at Gloria Patri.* I, living in a countryauditory, am a mere stranger to such ceremonies; neither do I know any order of our church urging thereunto; neither do I know when it begun and upon what grounds: It may be, it was upon their prevailing against the Arians; and, as the Creed is pronounced standing, so and in the same respect this also: All which is duly to be considered before we come to the practice of it. It is true, we were private, and I was loth to offend you.--In like sort concerning bowing towards the altar, for which it was (as I heard) that you preached, I profess unto you I have hitherto received no satisfaction; and I long to hear of my Lord of Armagh's judgment of the passages between us. And therein, I perceive, the main thing you reached after was a certain mystery concerning a sacrifice, which the Papists have miserably transformed, but, in your sense, is now-a-days become a mystery to all the christian world. And hereupon you touched upon the judgments of God at this time in Christendom, as if it were for the neglect of that sacrifice ;t which, while I attended, in the issue came only to the sacrilege of these times : But whether your meaning were not,
that for God to be robbed of such a sacrifice was a great sacri
* The reader is referred to Mr. Reid's account in a preceding page, (454,) and he will instantly perceive how galling it must have been to this sturdy old Puritan, to be compelled in good manners to stand up when Glory be to the Father, 8c. was repeated in the service of the college-chapel. He seems to bemoan his compliance, as if it had been a mortal sin.-But his chagrine appears to have been increased on recollecting, “ his wife's Father, Dr. Moore, a cathedral-man too,” could never be prevailed upon to stand up at Gloria Patri !" +
6. Because the close of my letter l expressed my fear of some judgment to befal the Reformed Churches, because out of the immoderation of their zeal they had in a manner taken away all difference between sacred and profane, you will needs suspect l aimed to make the present judgments of
God upon Christendom to be for neglect of that sacrifice of which I had spoken; 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? not to esteem the Eucharist a Sacrament, to account it a sacred thing, unless it be accounted a sacrifice ?” Mede's Reply.
·lege,' I know not.* And by Mr. B. I heard, as [coming] from yourself, the practice of Bishop Andrews's chapel was that which first cast you upon such a way, so as from thence to observe the course and practice of Antiquity. But, in my poor judgment, it is very strange that a matter of such importance, as you seem to make it, should have so little evidence in God's word and antiquity, and depend merely upon certain conjectures.t That which you style your conjectura de Gogo et
*" I meant between sacred things, persons, times, and places, and profane : The neglect or violation of the respect due to all which may, in a large sense, be termed sacrilege. And then consider, whether God may not in time upbraid the Reformation with that of St. Paul, Thou that hatest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? This was that I reached at.”-Ibid.
t" 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 Ouosolos [-being of one substance']. 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 ? 1 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 at Newstadt in the Palatinate, in 1584 and 1591, De mystico et incruento Ecclesiæ Sacrificio, [says] page 6, ! This was always the standing, accordant and unanimous
opinion of all the ancient Fathers of the Church, that the memorial of the passion and death of Christ in the Holy Supper, instituted by Him,
contained also in itself the commendation of a sacrifice.'-Bishop Morton, in the Epistle Dedicatory prefixed to his book of the Eucharist, [says] "We freely acknowledge the fact, that there is frequent mention made by the
Ancient Fathers of the bloodless sacrifice of the body of Christ in the • Eucharist ; and it is not possible to describe how much such passages have exercised, tortured and vexed the genius of some men, who were otherwise very learned, or with what arrogance on the contrary the Papists boast themselves on this matter.'-And that, in the age immediately fola lowing the Apostles, the Eucharist was generally conceived of under the name and notion of a sacrifice, (to omit the testimonies of Ignatius and Justine Martyr,) take only this of Irenæus, lib. iv, cap.32, 34. [Which we here omit.] The evidence of this was such as forced Hospinian to say, Even in that first age, whilst the Apostles were still alive, the devil
had the audacity to lieiu ambush under this sacrament more than under that of Baptism, and gradually seduced men from that primitive form :' And Sebastianus Francus [to say,] 'Immediately after the time of the Apostles, ' all things were inverted, the Lord's Supper was transformed into a sacrifice.'
“ Now, Sir, if I was loath to pass so harsh a censure as some do upon the First Fathers and Church Christian, and could not be persuaded but that which the Catholic Church from her infancy conceived of the Eucharist should have some truth in it, and accordingly endeavour 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 6 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
Magogo, in my poor judgment, is more rational by far ;* and yet the matter thereof you know to be very strange, but it prevails very much with me.--Indeed, the matter of bowing at heuring of the name of Jesus, is nothing pleasing to some in these times. But how doth Bishop Andrews's reading in Antisome hurt.—That which I wrote to you concerning this mystery, was, for the most part, little other than testimony of matter of fact. If it were false, testare de mendacio; if true, cur cædor ? Yet one thing more : It is no time now to slight the Catholic 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.” Ibid.
* The rising of the martyrs is that which is called the first resurrection, being, as it seems, a prerogative to their sufferibgs above the rest of the dead ; who, as they suffered with Christ in the time of his patience, so should they be glorified with him in the reign of his victory before the universal resurrection of all. Blessed and holy are they who have part in the first
resurrection, for on them the second death hath no power ;'namely, because they are not in via but in patria ; being a prerogative, as I understand it, of this sort of reigners only, and not of the second. Thus I yet admit the first resurrection to be corporal as well as the second, though I confess I have much striven against it.
“The second resurrection, to be after the end of the thousand years, Justin Martyr, by way of distinction, calleth Thy kaboAukny kal alwviav ouobupadov aua wartw avasaow, the eternal and universal resurrection of all together : namely, in respect of the former which was particular, and but of some. And that it is common both to the godly and to the wicked, and not of the wicked only, may appear in that there are two books opened for the dead, (Rev. xx, 12, whereof one is the Book of Life,' which argues two sorts of dead to be judged. Nor can I imagine how it can be otherwise, unless all the just which live during the thousand years be supposed to be immortal ; which is a paradox I dare not admit, understanding not that all the individuals, but that the body of the church here on earth should successively reign with Christ her Lord a thousand years. Besides, the attempt of the nations, after the devil's loosing, argues a state subject to mutability. As for those words of verse 14, which seem to intimate no other dead then judged but the wicked, because it is said that death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death; I suppose nothing else is meant thereby, but that death was now quite vanquished, and that there should be no more death of body, or separation of soul, but only the second death. As if it had been said, Death and Hades are now confined only to the lake of fire which is the second death; but the former death of bodies in the grave, and the state of separate souls in Hades, was no more.
“ For Gog and Gog Magog, who, after Satan's loosing and before the last resurrection, shall gather together against the camp of the saints and the beloved city, it canuot be literally understood of the nations so called in the Old Testament. For there Gog the prince, with the people of Magog came out of the north parts, where the posterity of Magog was seated. But Gog and Magog here are said to be nations which are in the four quarters of the
earth. As therefore the Apocalyptical Babylon is not Babylon in Chaldea, hut a counter-type thereof, most like for universal ambition and metropolitanship of spiritual fornication: So this Apocalyptical Gog and Magog is. not the Gog and Magog of the North, but a counter-type of them which should, after the same manner, attempt against the beloved city then, which the Scythian Gog and Magog (I mean the
Turk) doth against the church of the Gentiles now, and should, before his last ruin, attempt against Israel at their return. And if there ever be an Antichrist, such as the Fathers describe, now will be the most likely time for him, when the devil is loose but for a little season."-Mede's Remains.
The concluding paragraph is an epitome of Mr. Mede's conjecture in Latin.
quity serve his turn for that?* Cornelius a Lapide is a Papist and a Jesuit: He saith, ' Ad nomen Jesu in St. Paul, is no more than ad Jesum,' I know it is the Father's pleasure, that as we
* Mr. Mede's acquaintance with Bishop Andrews is thus related in the Account of his Life: “His first shewing himself abroad was by an address he made to that great patron and example of learning, Dr. Andrews, (then Lord Bishop of Ély, afterward of Winchester,) in a Latin tract, De Sanctitate Relativa,&c." A piece of that commendable learning that, had it been published when it was first written, would have discovered the author's pregnant parts, and raised his just estimation in the world. And though himself, in his latter time, was pleased to censure it, as savouring too much of bis 'infancy in divinity, and first thoughts, and affectation of style,' and that upon this score he would not permit the forementioned tract to see the light: yet this early specimen of his theological studies gained the approbation of so great a judgment as his was to whom it was presented; insomuch that shortly after, he having need of the King's favour concerning his election to a fellowship, that worthy bishop stood his firm friend, and not only maintained his right then, but afterward desired him for his household chaplain ; which place notwithstanding he civilly refused, as valuing the liberty of his studies above any bopes of preferment; and esteeming that freedom which he enjoyed in his cell, (as be used cheerfully to term it,) as the haven of all his wishes.'
Dr. Twisse has likewise alluded, in a preceding sentence, to “ the practice of Bishop Andrews's Chapel” as " that which first cast Mr. Mede upon such a way of observing the course and practice of Antiquity." When that pious and learned Bishop, whose high and well-merited encomium has been pronounced by persons of all denominations, was first appointed Dean of the Chapel to King James I, he saw the danger to which his Majesty was exposed by his pride and vanity, and how easily he might be perverted to the Popish faith. To prevent this,-which, was not an imaginary danger, as may be proved by the king's private correspondence with the Prince and the Duke of Buckingham in Spain, and his degrading negotiations with the Spanish and French courts respecting a family alliance, Bishop Andrews employed his profound knowledge and great skill in Antiquity in giving as much pomp and ceremony to the service of the Church, when performed in the Chapel Royal and in his own, as might be rendered conducive to practical godliuess, and not repugnant to the simplicity of the Gospel. That prudent divine was much commended for the conscientious manner in which he brought into display many of the ceremonies of the Church of England that had fallen into disuse or neglect, and for thus guarding the volatile mind of his royal master from the two extremes of PRESBYTERIANISM and POPERY. When Bishop Andrews demonstrated to that erudite monarch, from the writings of the Ancient Fathers, the Antiquity as well as the propriety of many of those chaste and primitive observances, his Majesty was delighted, because he possessed learning suffic to enable him to appreciate the correctness of the Bishop's observations, and he expressed wonderful satisfaction at being the Head of such a pure ecclesiastical establishment. The subjoined extract from Heylin's Life of Laud will shew, that the Doctor pursued the same practice as his learned predecessor, and commenced bis ministrations with an act which is highly creditable to his memory: “ But the Deanery of the Chapel (Royal] had not been void above nine days, when Laud was nominated to it, and was actually admitted into that office on the sixth day of October following, [1626,] by Philip Earl of Montgomery Lord Chamberlain of Majesty's houshold, before whom he took the usual and appointed oath. He had before observed a custom used in the court since the first entrance of King James. The custom was, that at what part soever of the public prayers the King came into his closet, (which looked into the chapel,) to hear the sermon, the divine service was cut off, and the anthem suug, that the preacher might go into the pulpit. This the new Dean disliked, as he had good reason, and thereupon humbly moved his Majesty, that he would be present at the Liturgy, as well as the sermon every • Lord's day; and that, at whatsoever part of prayers he came, the priest