Works, Book 4 · Letter 69
EPISTLE LXIX.
Mr. Mede's Fourth Letter to Mr. Estwick, (with part of another Letter, the beginning whereof is wanting) in answer to several Enquiries.
1. FOR my Paradox of the American World, I could say that to make it probable, and so much, as would be too tedious to write. For the present I will add this more concerning it, That I believe it was not inhabited in Christ's and his Apostles times, nor some Ages after it; nor are there any vestigia found therein of any elder habitation thereof. I believe it to have been first inhabited since the days of Constantine, when the Devil saw he could no longer reign here without control and the continual affront of the Gospel and Cross of Christ. Then he sought out another World to plant him a Kingdom in, ubi nec Pelopidarum facta neque nomen audiret. Upon this ground may be answered many scruples concerning that World: as, of Noah's Deluge; of the Creatures there, not found here, where Noah's Ark rested; of the Apostles preaching the Gospel, why it was contained within out World, and yet said,*Rom. 10, The sound thereof went into the ends of the Earth, &c.
Some of them, you say, are converted. But the New-Englanders have not yet converted one; the Spaniards have, but unto Antichrist, not to Christ; and the Story of their Conversion is such, as may make a man justly suspect there hath scarce yet been ever a true Christian of that race. Yet I speak, in my*See Book III. page 571. Conjectura de Gogo & Magogo, of a General Conversion only, not of a Conversion of some few or of some small and scarce considerable part in regard of the Vastness of the whole.
2. To your Case of Conscience I answer thus. Though the teaching of a School be in some sort reducible to a Sacred Function, as it may be managed and intended; yet for Titius to leave a Pastoral charge for it, when he hath been once dedicated to that Sacred Office, I hold an inexcusable Sacrilege, unless perhaps in a case of Necessity. I would rather therefore advise the continuance of both, than to forsake the one for the other.
3. For that of the Ark of the Covenant, what do you mean? There is nothing more indubitate in Scripture, than that the Ark was under the wings of the Cherubins in the Sanctum Sanctorum or most Holy place; as Exod. 26. 33, 34, 1 Kings 8. 6, &c. and Heb. 9. Or do you mean (for I have not the Bishop's Book) that it was not there when Hilkiah found the Book of the Law?2 Chron. 34. That place of the Chronicles indeed (if it be rightly translated) should argue it had been taken thence during Manasseh's prophanation of the Temple, and that, it may be, by the true worshippers, (for what fellowship had the Ark of God with Idols?) and so not restored again to his place till Iosiah purged the Temple. Or what if Manasseh himself had caused it to be taken thence when he dedicated the Temple to his Idols, lest it might serve them as it once did Dagon? But Tremellius or Iunius turns the place otherwise; and yet methinks somewhat forcedly. Videsis.
4. How often is the Resurrection of the Vnjust mentioned in the Epistles, either together with that of the Iust, or by it self? And where both are mentioned elsewhere, it is not said, they should be together, though they be mentioned together; for there is difference between mentioning and being. As for the*1 Cor. 15. 52. Last Trump, it proves nothing until you define what is the First Trump, yea what Trump is. It is no where said, The Resurrection of the dead shall be in a moment; but that*Vers. 51, 52. those who are alive shall be changed in a moment. And what though the Resurrection in respect of each Individuum be in a moment? Yet would it not follow that all that rise shall rise in one and the same moment. To that of the*See this cleared in Epistle IXVI. Sect. 6. 25 of Matthew you shall have a sufficient answer when you have made progress enough to understand it. (For out of chap. 24. (which you cite) I see not any thing toward your purpose. For those in ver. 39. are not the dead, but the living; nor is the Resurrection at all mentioned in that Chap. but at the most implied only.) In the mean time I send you the Copie of an*This is that Epistola ad Amicum, &c. beg…ng with C. …on…ocie. See … printed in Book III. page 571. Epistle written once to Mr. Chappel, to satisfie a friend of his who had desired him to know my Answer to certain Quaere's and Objections somewhat like those of yours: His Letter being directed to Mr. Chappel, and not to me, I made my Answer accordingly as you see. Keep it clean, and send me it again when you have done with it; and as I see occasion, I may perhaps send you some more of the like Argument.
5. For reading the Service at the Altar, &c. was it not enough to give you the Premisses, but I must put the Conclusion into your mouth? I add now, That the Priest or Deacon came down from the Altar to read the Gospel, unto the Ambo or other eminent place where he might be seen and heard of the people. And in such place were all Lessons of Scripture read whosoever read them and not at the Altar. The Altar was the place to speak to God at; the Ambo or Pulpit (or such like place) to speak to the People. Besides those Prayers at the Altar, whereto the People were to say Amen, were read in a high distinct and singing tone, which might be heard and understood at great distance of all the people. That submiss reading in Churches sine cantu, which we use now, was not then in use. If it had, it could never have been heard of half the Congregation in so large Churches, and where some stood so far off, as the Catechumeni, Auditores, Penitentes, who were to be partakers of the Readings and Sermons, and nothing else, and yet stood at the remotest distance from the place both of it and Prayer. I love not to answer to things in Hypothesi, but in Thesi. The world is right on no side. Let them look to the hypothesis whom it concerns. Quo jure ego qui Thesin tantùm defendo, ad hypothesin praestandam adigerer?
6. Concerning the*viz. The Holy Table, Name and Thing. Book written mediately or immediately by the B. of Lincoln; It is written very ably and with much variety of Learning; and where that Coal lay open to the lash, (as it did in some things very fouly) he pays him soundly and very magisterially. Yet I may tell you that in the Discourse concerning the Antiquity of the Name Altar, there is parùm aut nihil sinceri aut sani: And though his Adversary quoted what he never seems to have read and examined, and is accordingly (and deservedly) met withal; yet are there such strange mistakes, confusions, concealments and wrested interpretations of the Answerer, that he lies open to the lash for that part extremely; insomuch that I believe that part to have been elaborated by another hand, and one that gave more trust to the opinions of some of our Writers than to his own search and judgement—
But whereas the Coal maintained that Altars had generally and anciently stood up against the East-wall, and not in medio foreign, (which was a monstrous and foul error, as I had often told some of ours here) you shall find him most fully and largely confuted; but the place of Socrates as strangely expounded, as the Coal's illation therefrom was most illogically and weakly deduced.—
Thus with my wonted affection and prayers I rest Yours, Ios. Mede. Christ's College, March 22. 1636/7.