The works of the pious and profoundly-learned Joseph Mede, B.D., sometime fellow of Christ's Colledge in Cambridge

THE FOURTH BOOK; CONTAINING Mr. MEDE'S EPISTLES: BEING ANSWERS to divers LETTERS OF Learned Men. (Book 4)

EPISTLE I.

The Fellows of Trinity Colledge near Dublin, their Letter to M^r. Mede, desiring him to accept of the Provostship of their Colledge.

Worthy Sir,

THE vacancy of the place of Provost of this Colledge, happening by the death of our late Governour Sir William Temple, hath drawn us the Fellows of the same to seck abroad for a Successor, on whom that place might be confer∣red: among many whom we have had recommended unto us, especially by the Lord Primate of Ireland, your worthy self is one, Vpon which conside∣ration, being of all other the weightiest, we have fixed our resolutions upon your person, and have accordingly setled the Election. And howsoever we are as yet igno∣rant of your intentions, as unacquainted with your person; yet the hope of your acceptance is so much advanced by the Lord Primate his confidence of the same, as we conceive you will not expect we should use many words to that purpose. A long-continued uncertainty in your determinations will (as matters now stand) be a means to lay us open to many dis∣advantages, which we hope you will stop by your freely accepting of what we so freely tender unto you. What the Affairs are that require your speedy settlement in the Government, we refer to the Relation of Mr. Temple and Mr. Lloyd, two of the senior Fellows, to whom you may give credit as our Agents, whose Commission is from us, and Imployments in the behalf of our Colledge have our approbation. And thus ceasing to be further trouble some un∣to you, we commit you to the protection of the Almighty, ever resting

Your assured Friends,

Trinity Colledge, March 15. 1626.

Io. Brodley, Io. Iohnson, Edw. Parry, Io. Wigget, Nath. Linch, Ranulp. Adams.

EPISTLE II.

M^r. Mede's Answer to the foregoing Letter.

Worthy Gentlemen,

YOur love and good opinion of me, a person so unknown unto you, hath so far obliged me to your Society, that I confess an Answer by Letter is no way suffici∣ent to acknowledge it: Yet both the great difference accompanying your Election, with such inconveniences as I saw must needs have followed thereupon, besides the consciousness of mine own disabilities and infirmities, which gave me just cause to suspect I should not satisfie that expectation which would be of a Stranger in such a place, hath deterred me from accepting that honour which was by you so lovingly conferred upon me: which therefore I must, and do fully and freely resign into your hands, hoping that God will direct you in the choice of some other, both more able and worthy to take that charge upon him. Howbeit, as I shall never forget this so undeserved a favour, so will I ever account my self to have that relation to your So∣ciety, which shall bind me as affectionately to love and pray for the prosperity there∣of, as if I were a Member; and, if God should ever give me opportunity, no less to endeavour the same. In the mean time I heartily desire Almighty God to bless you, and will ever remain

Your obliged Friend, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Coll. 10 April, 1627.

EPISTLE III.

Ios. Medi Epistola ad R. Ia. Usserium, Archiepisc. Armachanum.

Reverende Primas,

EX nu••errimis Domini Loei ad Capellum nostrum literis,* 1.1 haud medio••ri cum animi molestia intellexi, quos numero Apocalyptico septem ad R. D. tuam in Hiberniam tran••miseram Libellos, in itinere Dublinum & Droghedam inter deperiisse. Hem, itá∣ne eos in fraterculorum Hibernorum, quibus minimè laboraveram aut sumptus feceram, manus devenisse? Ut ut sit, jacturam istam, Reverende Antistes, quantum possum, nunc resarcio, missis, numero quidem propter inopiam meam paucioribus, sed paris omnino meae in R. Paternitatem tuam, tot mihi nominibus honorandam, observantiae & officii testibus. Unum autem me malè habet, quod cui praecipuè atque inprimis debu∣eram hoc quicquid sit literarii muneris, ei jam, malo infortunio meo, postremo ferè omnium obveniat quod destinaveram. Tu enim, Reverende Praesul, primus mihi ad haec ulteriùs excolenda stimulus, Tu torpentem animum alloquio, comitate, & plausu tuo excitâsti. Imò, quod nunquam mihi nisi cum gratissimi animi significatione memo∣randum est, Tu illustri illâ tuâ ad Collegii Dubliniensis Praeposituram commendatione effecisti, ut nullius antea neque meriti neque existimationis homuncio, exinde tamen aliquid esse videar ab aestimatione Vestra. Quidni igitur aegerrimè feram, tam serò ad Teperventuram esse hanc qualemcunque officii mei & devotionis tesseram?

Huic igitur malo sive infortunii, sive culpae fuerit, aliquatenus ut medicer, consultum fore putabam si Auctariolum aliquod Libellulis hisce meis adjungerem, Dissertatiuncu∣lam de gemina illa apud Daniclem periodo Dierum, c. 12. v. 11, 12. praeterea Specimen interpretationis Millennii Apocalyptici, à reliquo similium Speciminum corpore resectum. Nam rogatu, seu magìs instantiâ amicorum, quibus institutum meum in Libellulo meo praeter omnem opinionem placuit, factum est, ut Specimina quaedam exinde concinna∣verim Interpretationum Apocalypticarum ad amussim Clavis Apocalypticae. In quibus quae de septima Tuba ejúsque mille annis disseruerim, limatissimo judicio ••uo, R. P. e•• quâ par est humilitate subjicio. De quo etiam quid paulò post mihi acciderit, apud Paternitatem tuam tacere non possum; nimirum vixdum me haec conscripsisse, atque cum amicis de iisdem contulisse, cùm ecce in Catalogo Francofurtensi, propter tumul tus bellicos & marinorum itinerum pericula post quadrimestre demum ad nos allato, Libellum deprehendo hoo titulo, Verosimilia Historico-Prophetica De rebus in novissimo

die eventuris, è sacris utriusque 'Iestamenti Oraculis collecta, pio & accurato studio cujus∣dam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Protinus animum meum suspicio incessit (quam postea veram comperi) de Millennio Apocalyptico agi. Proinde Bibliopolis nostris id negotii dedi, ut omni studio Librum istum perquirerent. Duo tan••ùm aut tria exemplaria Londinum advecta sunt. Unum ego nactus sum. Author Lutheranus est, sed Anonymus; vir quidem, ut videtur, doctus &, quod in istius sectae homine rarum, permodestus. Haud temerè suspicatus sum de argumento; nam eandem planè tuetur de Die suo Novissimo sententiam quam ego de Die Iudicii conceperam. Ut Li∣bro prelecto non mediocriter in sententia mea confirmatus sim, tum propter hoc ip∣sum, tum quòd multa Scripturae loca in eo reperi adeò ad meam mentem interpretata; ut consensionem in talibus à communi sententia abeuntibus oppidò mirarer. Vides, Reverende Praesul, quò me rapit Contemplatiunculae meae nimium forta••se studium, ut etiam tibi hisce narrandis importunus sim. Sed ultrà Paternitatem tuam à graviori∣bus tuis meditationibus non distinebo. Deus te, Reverendissime ac Illustrissime Do∣mine, quàm diutissimè incolumem & superstitem velit Ecclesiae & Patriae tuae bono.

E. Collegio Christi, 24 Aprilis An. 1628.

Reverendissimae Paternitatis

tuae studiosissimus, Iosephus Medus.

EPISTLE IV.

Mr. Mede's Second Letter to Archbishop Usher touching the Mil∣lennium, and the Chronology of the Samaritan Pentateuch, &c.

My Reverend Lord,

HAving understood by Mr. Lowe's Letter to Mr. Chappel, that my* 1.2 Books were lost between Dublin and Droghedah, as they were coming to your Lord∣ship; I presumed a second time to obtrude upon your Grace three or four more of them: howsoever the worth were not such that the first loss was much material. I sent with them a Letter, and a‖ 1.3 Speculation or two with it, which yet, through some defect in sending, I fear will come after them. I beseech your Lordship pardon me, if I have offended (as I am afraid I have) either against discr••tion or good manners: For I confess I have been since somewhat jealous, that the Books I first sent were not so lost, but that they were found again: which if they were, how can I but blush to think, that I have with such either shew of self-love or unmannerly importunity again troubled your Lordship with them, who should no•• have presumed at the first to have offered any more than one? But my confidence is in your Grace's experienced humanity to accept any thing in good part from a Scholar's hand, though perhaps accompanied with some melancholick vanity.

My Lord, I sent in the Letter I mention the last Paragraph or piece of some Speci∣mina Interpretationum Apocalypticarum, namely, that which concerned the Millenni∣um. Whereto I added, for further probability of my Conceit, somewhat more out of my Adversaria, and in special that one of Carpentarius's Com. in Alcinoum Platonis p. 322.* 1.4 Septimum Millenarium ab universa Cabbalistarum Schola vocari MAGNVM DIEM IVDICII. Wherein I had no intent or thought, not yet have, to avow that old conceit of the Chiliasts, That the World should as it were labour 6000 years, and in the Seventh thousand should be that glorious Sabbath of the Reign of Christ, (I inclined to think it much nearer:) But only to shew how fitly in the Hebrew notion, not only a long time of some Years and Ages, but even this very time of a Thousand years, might be styled a Day. Howbeit I desire your Lordship to give me leave (if but for your recreation) to relate the event of a piece of my Curiosity since that time; the rather, because the means thereof is beholding to your Grace.

I chanced to light upon Mr. Selden's Marmora Arundelliana, and found therein, together with an honorable and deserved mention of your Grace's name, the Chrono∣logy of your Samaritan Pentateuch, published to the view of the whole world. I had thereby opportunity to take more curious notice thereof than I had done when your Lordship was in England; and observed, that it much more exceeded the Iewish in

the Genealogy of the Patriarchs after the floud, then it came short in those before it. It came therefore into my mind to try how near the 6000 years of the world would be by that computation: I found it would be Anno AErae Christianae 1736, which is just the very year when the 1260 years of the Beast's reign will expire, if it be reckoned from the Deposition of Augustulus the last Roman Emperor.

Depositio Angustuli Anno AErae Christ.

476

Anni Regni Bestiae

1260

Sum.

1736

6000

A Condito Mundo ad AEram Christ. juxta Scaligerum

3949

Adde quadriennium quo idem anticipat initium Nebuchadnezzaris, nam in caeteris nihil muto

4

Excessus Chronologiae Samaritanae supra Iudaicam

311

Ità à condito Mundo ad AEram Christ. erunt Ann.

4264

Adde annos AErae Christ. quando exibunt Tempora Bestiae seu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, si ducantur à depositione Angustuli

1736

Sum.

1736

6000

I began here to consider, whether this difference of the Account of the years of the world were not ordered by a special disposition of Providence, to frustrate our Curi∣osity in searching the time of the Day of Iudgment.

My Lord, I would trouble your Lordship with a Conceit or two more, if I had time. As that I conceive Nebuchadnezzar's dream, Dan 2. to have been some years before he sought for the interpretation, which was the reason he had forgotten it: the words in ver. 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be taken for the dream, and may be well so construed; viz. That his dream came upon him, or came into his mind. Also that the 40 years, Ezek. 4. 6. should be the time of Manasses Idolatry, for which God threa∣tens so often that he would destroy that Kingdom. But Mr. Provost will not stay for me. I beseech the Almighty long to bless your Grace, and grant you life: and thus I end with my humble Service, and am

Christ's Coll. 22 May, 1628.

Your Lordship's most ready to be commanded, Ioseph Mede.

EPISTLE V.

Mr. Hayn his First Letter to Mr. Mede, about several pas∣sages in Daniel and the Revelation.

SALUTEM in CHRISTO. Worthy and Learned Sir,

SOme kind friend have lately imparted to me your Synchronisms of the Apocalyps prin∣ted, and some other written passages on Daniel's times and other parts of Scripture. The world must needs give good entertainment to your painful and learned labours, who

have undertaken paths troden by few, with much care of sure footing, especially in your Synchronisms: Yet see how it falls out (as in this kind it cannot be avoided) in all things you shall not find assent. For my part I know well quàm sit mihi curta supellex; yet partly that I may be better instructed my self, partly to give you occasion of further clear∣ing the Truth, I have sent here included some Positions, with Arguments confirming them, contrary to some of your Tenets; desiring your favourable interpretation of my meaning, and your Answer at your best leisure: and assuring you that I do this not contradicendi studio, sed amore veritatis indagandae, and minding (if you encourage me thereto) to shew here∣after my Reasons of some dissent in other matters, I commend you and your studies to God's blessing, and rest

From Christs-parish in London, Iune 5. 1629.

Your very loving Friend, Tho. Hayn.

I. POSIT. DAniel shews not the Roman Monarchie's persecution of the Church, and the Fall of the same Monarchy.

Argum. 1. If the Romans persecution of the saints and the Fall of the Romans were not revealed till Christ revealed them to Iohn in the Apocalyps, then Daniel revealed them not. But the Romans persecution of the Saints and their Fall were not revealed till Christ revealed them to Iohn in the Apocalyps. Ergò Daniel revealed them not.

The Major Proposition is evident. The Minor is thus proved.

The Romans persecution of the Saints and their Fall are revealed in the little Book, Apoc. 5. &c. by opening seven seals and blowing seven Trumpets, all concerning seven∣headed Rome: and none was able to open the Seals of this Book till Christ opened them to Iohn. Ergò the Romans persecution and Fall were revealed to none till Christ revealed them to Iohn.

The former part of the Antecedent is granted by the general consent of Interpreters on the Apocalyps. The latter part is clear in the Text, Apocal. 5. None was able to open the Book, none in heaven, or earth, or under the earth. Now if Daniel had shewed these persecutions, Paul, who delivered to his hearers all the counsel of God, could have opened these also: But Apocal. 5. denies that he could, or that any man else could.

Argum. 2. The persecutions of Christ's eternal Kingdom mentioned in Dan. 2. 44. & chap. 7. 26, 27. and frequently in the New Testament, are not prophesied f in Daniel. But the persecutions brought by the Romans on the Church are against Christ's eternal Kingdom, to be preached over the world after Christ. Ergò the persecutions brought by the Romans on the Church or eternal Kingdom of Christ are not spoken of in Dani∣el.

The Minor Proposition is clear. The Major is confirmed by all speeches of that eternal Kingdom in Daniel. The Stone which became a Mountain is not battered, nor the Mountain any way assailed, chap. 2. The eternal Kingdom breaks the former Kingdoms; but it self is not broken, Chap. 2. 44. When the four Beasts chap. 7. are destroyed, then comes the Son of man in the clouds, and receives the eternal Kingdom, which Iohn Baptist, Christ himself, and the Apostles preached. There also is no persecution of this Kingdom mentioned, Chap. 7. 13, 14. nor Verse 27, &c. The Battel against the Saints, Verse 21. and the consuming of them, Verse 25. concerns the Saints before the setting up of Christ's Kingdom over all the world; as the endeavour to alter* 1.5 Times and‖ 1.6 Laws plainly shews. Antiochus Epiphanes was the man that attempted this.

II. POSIT. The fourth Beast, Dan. 7. is not able sufficiently to express the Roman Empire; and therefore it expresseth it not.

Argum. That which is but sufficiently expressed by all the four Beasts, or the chief parts of all four, cannot be sufficiently expressed by one of the four alone, namely the fourth.

But the Roman Empire is but sufficiently expressed by all the four Beasts, Dan. 7. or the chief parts of them. Ergò the Roman Empire cannot be sufficiently expressed by the fourth Beast alone.

The Major is evident. The Minor is thus confirmed.

If the Roman Empire, Apoc. 13. be resembled by a Beast which is composed of all Da∣niel's four Beasts, Dan. 7. or the chief parts of the four Beasts, then it is but sufficiently ex∣pressed by them all. But the Roman Empire, Apoc. 13. is resembled by a Beast which is composed of all Daniel's four Beasts, or their chief parts. Ergò the Roman Empire, &c.

The Major is proved thus.

Either the Major is true, or else the Composition taken from the three former Beasts and their chief parts is needless. But it is not needless, for God hath nothing needless in his Word. Ergò the Major is true.

The Minor is proved thus.

That the Roman Empire is expressed by a Beast composed of all Daniel's four Beasts, Dan. 7. or the chief parts of them all, is plain thus.

3. It is like a Leopard.	It hath 7 heads.	3. Beast. The Leopard	1.
1. It hath a Lion's mouth.	So had the four Beasts in Dan.	1. The Lion	1.
2. A Bear's pawes.		2. The Bear	1.
4. The 10 horns of the 4. Beast.		4. The Last Beast	4.
			In all 7 heads.

It blasphemes, hath large authority, wars against the Saints, overcomes and prospers. Therefore it is composed and is extracted out of the 4 Beasts, Dan. 7.

EPISTLE VI.

Mr. Med's Answer to Mr. Hayn's First Letter about several passages in Daniel and the Revelation.

SIR,

THE last week I could not get any time to answer your Letter, and therefore I thought good to make use of your indulgence, that I should answer at my best leisure. And though I have not now that leisure I expected, yet I will not frustrate you any longer. What passages of mine you should have seen upon Daniel's times, I cannot imagine; for I remember not to have done any thing directly upon that Pro∣phecy, but only occasionally in some Discourses upon other places of Scripture: whe∣ther any body hath extracted those parcels from their body, I cannot tell, but wish they had not, lest I may have wrong by being mistaken.

For your Two Positions about the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel, your Grounds do as much mistake as contradict my Tenets. And therefore I shall either answer or decline your Arguments by setting down my own opinion in these following Theses.

• 1. The Roman Empire to be the Fourth Kingdom of Daniel, was believed by the Church of Israel both before and in our Saviour's time; received by the Disciples of the Apostles, and the whole Christian Church for the first 400 years, without any known contradiction. And I confess, having so good ground in Scripture, it is with me tantùm non Articulus fidei, little less than an Article of faith.
• 2. I acknowledge also the subject of the Apocalyptical Visions to be Fata Imperii Ro∣mani post primum Christi adventum usque ad secundum supersuturi, The Fates of the Roman Empire, which after the first coming of Christ was still to continue in being even till the se∣cond. And this I affirm, the Roman Kingdom was revealed unto Daniel, but not ac∣cording to that distinct succession of things and specification of the Fates thereof (which was first made known unto S. Iohn,) but only in general and in imagine con∣fusa, not to be explicated but by Christ himself. I say, the Roman Kingdom was re∣vealed to Daniel in general, but the order of the times thereof, and the series rerum ge∣rundarum or course of things to be acted therein, not until the Revelation unto S. Iohn.
• 3. Nor is it strange or unwonted, that a thing may be revealed in general, and yet most of the particulars concerning the same to be unknown and sealed. The calling of the Gentiles, or the Kingdom of Christ among the Gentiles, by way of surrogation to the Iews, was revealed unto S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles; but the particular Fates and States of that Kingdom were never known till Christ revealed them to S. Iohn in the Apocalyptical Visions. The like I say of the Fourth or Roman Kingdom; the general revelation whereof could not but be before the opening of the sealed Book in the Apocalyps, since it had then been so long a time in the world, as it was grown past the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and had fulfilled what it was to fulfil upon Daniel's people.
• ...

• 4. As for the Persecutions of the Church, I deny the argument either of the Seals or Trumpets to be the Roman persecutions of Christ's Kingdom, or that any of them have reference to persecutions save the Fifth Seal only; or that any thing contained in them was made known to Daniel, save the Catastrophe only represented in the last Trumpet,* 1.7 which the Angelus tonitruum proclaims there to be Consummatio Myste∣rii Dei, prout annunciavit servis suis Prophetis, The finishing of the Mystery of God, as he hath declared to his servants the Prophets; and therefore cannot be denied to have been both foretold and expected for the general, although not for the Manner, Time, and Order in serie rerum gerundarum, till now.
• 5. Howsoever my Tenet here be, yet your Assertion, That the Romans persecution was revealed to none till Christ revealed it to Iohn, cannot stand, unless you deny the coming of the man of sin (who is a limb of that Kingdom) to be any part of the Churche's afflictions: For this was revealed unto S. Paul, both for the quality and the fall thereof, viz.* 1.8 That Christ should destroy it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which I make no doubt but S. Paul learned out of the seventh of Daniel, where that ruffling Horn also is not destroyed until the Son of man comes in the clouds of heaven, to re∣ceive that Universal Kingdom which shall never suffer persecution.
• 6. But whereas you say, that the ruffling Horn of the Fourth Beast is Antiochus Epiphanes; I demonstrate the contrary by this one Argument.

The ruffling Horn reigns until the Ancient of days comes in fiery flames to destroy him, and to give judgment unto the Saints of the most High; and until the time comes that the Saints possessed the Kingdom, viz. until the Son of man comes in the clouds of heaven, to receive a Kingdom wherein all Nations, People and Languages should serve and obey him, Daniel 7. verses 9, 10, 11, 13, expounded, ver. 22, 26, &c. But Antiochus Epiphanes reigned not until this time, (for he died 160 years and more before the Birth of Christ, and almost 200 years before his Ascension; the least of which numbers is a longer space of time than was from the death of Alexander unto Antiochus.) Ergò Antiochus Epiphanes is not that ruffling Horn.

The changing of Times and Laws (whereby the power of this Horn is described) is an Oriental phrase to express potestatem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nor are Times here to be taken in so abstract a notion, but concretely for status rerum tempora varian••ium, or Res quibus variatur status temporum, as are mutationes Rerumpub. & regiminis rerum; Times, for things done in time, whereby the Times are altered: such as are the al∣terations of States and Governments: According to which notion, Dan. 2. 21. it is said of God, that he changeth times and seasons, he removeth Kings and setteth up Kings; and I Chron. 29. 30. that the Acts of David were written in the Books of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, the Seers, with all his reign, and his might, and the times that went over him, and over Israel, and over all the Kingdoms of the Countries. And whether the Pope (if, I say, he is that Horn) took not upon him a power of changing such Times as these, I shall not need to tell you. And yet take Times in your own Notion, and it would make a shift to fit him as well as Antiochus.

To your Second Position.

The proof of your Second Position, That the Fourth Beast, Dan. 7. is not able suffi∣ciently to express the Roman Empire, is in the mainest part Petitio principii, wherein that is taken for granted which is in question: For you take for granted, that the Type of the Roman Empire in the Apocalyps borrows his Ten horns from Daniel's fourth Beast, as a distinct Beast from it: But I say he borrows them not, they are his own proper and native horns; Daniel's Beast and he being one and the same Beast I grant that the Apocalyptical Beast for the shape of his body is beholding to Daniel's three first Beasts, but that he borroweth any from the fourth, I deny. Nor do Horns, more or fewer, distinguish the species of a Beast: For in the Apocalyps there is a Lamb with seven horns, and a Lamb with two horns, and yet for kind a Lamb still: So Daniel's He∣goat had first one horn, and afterward four horns, and yet the same Goat still, &c.

The correspondence in number of the several Heads of Daniel's four Beasts put together, with the seven heads of the Apocalyptical Beast, is but casual: Neither can it be proved that the Fourth of Daniel's Beasts had but one head, as is here to be supposed: (for the third Beast hath the four heads, and the other three but one a piece.) For the mentioning of the Head which bore the ten horns in the singular num∣ber, Verse 20. proves no more it had but one head, than the mentioning of mouth like∣wise in the singular number, Apoc. 13. ver. 2, 5, 6. proves the Apocalyptical Beast had bu•• one mouth. For indeed the Ten horns were all upon one head, as well in the Apo∣calyptical Beast (viz. upon the seventh or uppermost head) as in Daniel's Beast;

and the mouth of the Apocalyptical Beast was the mouth also of the seventh head, to act the state of which head S. Iohn saw him* 1.9 rise out of the Sea, &c.

And whereas you speak of an insufficient expression of the Roman Empire by Da∣niel's Fourth Beast; you may perceive by that I have said before, that it would well enough agree with my Principles to grant it; my Tenet being, That the Fourth Beast should not be so distinctly with all accoutrements revealed unto Daniel as it was unto S. Iohn, because the specification of the several States and Fates thereof was yet sealed and unrevealed. And the third Kingdom was not so distinctly revealed to Daniel in the Leopard, Chap. 7. as it was two years after to the same Daniel in the great He-goat, Chap. 8. &c. The dispensation of God in these Revelations is to be measured according to his pleasure and the use of the Church, &c.

But it is now three a clock, and I have no more time. I had much rather confer of these things by word of mouth, wherein perhaps I could give better satisfaction. Conference by writing is wont to multiply it self into so much paper, as takes away a great deal of my time, and gives me no leisure to perfect that whereby I might per∣haps prevent a great part of the Objections which now are made. Thus hoping you will accept this tumultuary Answer, I rest, commending your Studies and en∣deavours to the Divine Blessing.

Christ's Colledge, Iune 17. 1629.

Your loving Friend, Ioseph Mede.

EPISTLE VII.

Mr. Hayn's Second Letter to Mr. Mede, about several Pro∣phetical passages in Daniel and the Revelation.

To the First THESIS.

BEfore Christ's time all the East (as Tacitus saith,) expected a King to rule over all the world: whence could this be, but from the expectation of the Iews of the Kingdom which was to spread over all the world after the ruine of the fourth Beast in Daniel; and that they now saw the divided Kingdom of the Greeks after Antiochus Epiphanes his time decaying, and likely to be extinguished?

And in Christ's time the faithful, (the rest were blind guides not to be followed) belie∣ving Christ and the Apostles preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God, against which Hell gates should not prevail, must necessarily conceive that the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel was at the last cast, and therefore understand the Fourth Kingdom to be the parted Greeks lately expiring in Cleopatra, her Brother Ptolemy, or others, and not the Roman still flou∣rishing, and not likely yet to fall: For the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel was to fall before the setting up of the everlasting Kingdom of Christ. And if in Christ's time the faithful did conceive thus of the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel; then succeeding Ages to those Primitive times, so long as they retained a right judgment, were of the same mind.

The Iews in after-times went about to perswade that the Romans (calling them Edom also) were the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel, because they might be thought to hold aright that Messias was not yet come, who should be the Stone falling on the toes of the Fourth Kingdom. Eusebius and some others have fallen into this trap set by Iews. Seeing it is a course to harden Iews against the true Messias already come, we shall do well to avoid it.

If you demand,* 1.10 Why then did not Christ and the Apostles use this Argument to prove him the true Messias?

In effect they did.* 1.11 They preached that the Kingdom of God was at hand: the coming whereof implies the Fall of the Fourth Kingdom; and that was then ocular, and to be un∣derstood of the Successors of Antiochus falling, not of the Romans flourishing. And see∣ing that in the preaching of Christ's Kingdom it was to be taught, that his Kingdom was not of this world, (at which point the Iews stumbled) Christ's main Argument was, The works which I do, they testifie of me.

To the Second THESIS.

You affirm that the Roman Kingdom was revealed to Daniel in imagine confusa, but explicated to Iohn by specification of the Fates and the order rerum gerundarum.

This cannot stand good.

For the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel is more particularly and distinctly set down then any of the other Three. And of the other Three be not revealed in imagine confusa, but fully enough for the specification of their Fates and the order of their acts; then much more the Fourth Kingdom, which is far more amply in types and explication set out in Daniel.

Then secondly, It cannot be said to be set down in imagine confusa; for it is orderly and in special manner handled: First, for the Original; It rises out of the Sea. Then for the power; It is strong as iron, able to break in pieces and subdue all, Dan. 2. 40. It is fearful, very strong, and hath ten horns. It hath iron teeth, and nails of brass. In conclu∣sion, It hath one little horn, that pulls away three of the former ten; It hath ten Kings, and one unlike the rest; It in the end shall be partly strong as Iron, partly weak as Clay. For the stirs it should make, and the persecution brought on the Church thereby; It subdu∣ed and did break in pieces all things, as Iron bruiseth and breaketh all, Dan. 2. 40. It devours and breaks in pieces, and stamps the residue under feet, Dan. 7. 7. As the ten horns do mischief, so especially the little horn which made war with the Saints, and prevailed against them, and consumed them: It waxed great even to the host of hea∣ven, and cast some of the host and the stars to the ground, and stamped on them, Chap. 8. 10. It thought to alter times and laws, Chap. 7. 25. Then also (as you hold in your Explication of Dan. 11. ver. 36. and after) the Roman Kingdom is there prophes••ed of, that he should conquer Macedon, and every King and Nation should persecute, mock, and crucifie Christ, and persecute Christians till Constantine's times. Then the Pope should arise worshipping Daemonia, and countenancing single life, shall not regard any God, but magnify himself above all; In the Seat and Temple of God, should worship Mahuzzims with gold and with silver and precious stones, and distribute the earth among his Mahuz∣zims; deal with Saracens and Turks, enter into Palaestine, &c. Chap. 11. Then for the blasphemy of this Kingdom, mention is made of the mouth speaking presumptuous things, Chap. 7. 8. speaking against the most High, Verse 25. and speaking marvellous things against the God of Gods, Chap. 11. 36.—The Fall also of this Kingdom is plainly expressed, Chap. 2. 34, & 45. & Chap. 7. 11, & 26. by being broken in pieces, and blown as chaffe, by being destroyed and given to the fire, by perishing unto the end. Lastly, the time of this Fourth Kingdom's domineering, or at least of the chief vio∣lence of it, is expressed, A times, time, and half a time, answerable to the time of the woman's keeping from the Serpent, Apoc. 12. 14. Then the time of taking away the daily sacrifice continues 2300. days.

Thus it is evident how particularly Daniel hath laid open the Original, the Acts, the Sufferings, and Fall of the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel. And yet I have not brought all particulars. Hence it is manifest that this cannot be a general decyphering of the Roman Kingdom, but a particular description of some other Kingdom which fell before Christ's time.

Here now if you shall object* 1.12 that the Beast, Dan. 7. doth shew the very same kingdom that is set out Apoc. 13. because in Original, and Power, and Persecution, and Fall, and Time, it so much agrees with the same.

I answer,* 1.13 That God is unchangeable, and inflicts punishments alike on sinners alike, and expresses after-matters by words used in narrations of former matters of like nature; which much helps our weakness for understanding of these depths. And therefore the Apo∣calyps is as it were made up with the Allusions, Metaphors, and Formulae loquendi of the Books of the Old Testament: yet do not almost all the Visions of the Apocalyps (as one unjustly judges) handle imprimis Res Iudaeorum, but Res Christianorum in the words of former Prophets: So we may express a matter that Tully never dreamed of in Tullie's Phrases and Metaphors.

Then these Beasts as they agree in many things, so they differ in many; in Heads, Mouths, Paws, in one little Horn, &c. but especially that the Beast, Dan. 7. is destroyed before the setting up of Christ's Kingdom over all the earth.

To the Third THESIS.

I deny not but that a matter may be revealed in general, and yet the particulars sealed. So all the Persecutions of the Church are told in this, I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed: the particulars then sealed are opened in the whole Bible. But you see above, that the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel is particularly described, and therefore that description cannot be a general revealing of the Roman Empire: Especially seeing we

are told that the Lamb slain was the revealer of them, and none before. We have also general Prophecies of the Romans persecuting Christ and his Church: as that Psal. 2. Why do the heathen rage? and that Dan. 9. Messiah shall be slain, and Ierusalem ruinated: But the Roman Kingdom is there in no shape or form pictured. Some other Prophecies in general Terms there may be of the Roman Empire, the particulars whereof (as you well say) are shewed to Iohn; so that Daniel's Fourth Kingdom particularly described cannot belong to them. Daniel's Book begins with Babel's wasting the City Ie∣rusalem, and ends with the utter overthrow of the City and Temple by the Romans. After Ierusalem's overthrow in Domitian's time, Christ reveals to Iohn what should befal to the Church to the end of the world: and here the Romans are fully and plainly painted out to us••—Here you object,

But the Roman power had been long in the world,* 1.14 and was now past the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and had fulfilled what it was to fulfil on Daniel's people.

I answer,* 1.15 God in his Book deigns not to meddle with the actions of Kingdoms, other∣wise than as they persecute his people or favour them, or are instruments to punish them, or are punished for persecuting them. The Babylonians and Nebuchadnezzar did worthy deeds before the first Captivity of Iudah, which God passes over, and begins the count of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from the first Captivity. Cyrus and Darius were of good years when they overthrew Babel, and had not spent their former years idlely: their reign also is counted by God but from the overthrow of Babel and rule over the Iews. So what the Romans first did in Italy, afterward against Neighbour-nations, and then in divers parts more remote, God passes over, and only foretells what they were to do against the Iews falling from God, and how to kill the Messiah, Dan. 9. And then in Apocal•• what they were to do against his Church, or suffer for afflicting his Church.

Nor had the Romans fulfilled what they were to fulfil on the Iews, Daniel's people, before the revelation to Iohn: For ever since the overthrow of Ierusalem, the Iews have been scattered and oppressed by the power and laws of Rome in divers parts of Europe and elsewhere.

To the Fourth THESIS.

I wrote (or else it was lapsus pennae) that the opening of seven Seals, and blowing seven Trumpets, were concerning Seven-headed Rome; that is, as either it persecuted the Saints, or was plagued for persecuting them: which I know you will grant. The perse∣cution of the Saints of God is plain in other parts of the Revelation. Now seeing Daniel in all speeches of the everlasting Kingdom never mentions any persecutors of it, and their carriages and falls, but the persecutions of Daniel's people the Iews, and not the Christian Church; it seems evident to me, that he meddles not with the Roman Empire's doings after the destruction of Ierusalem, or the Pope's doings long after.

The consummatio Mysterii Dei, prout annunciavit servis suis Prophetis, The finish∣ing of the Mystery of God, as he hath shewn to his servants the Prophets, proves not that the Roman matters were foretold to the ancient Prophets. The words Apocal. 10. 7. are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which construction intimates the glad tidings of the Gospel since Christ, brought to the present Prophets or Preachers of the times from Christ: so the speech of God's Servants the Prophets is understood Rev. 22. 9.

To the Fifth THESIS.

The Romans persecuting the Christian Church was revealed to none till Christ revealed them to Iohn, namely, so as that the Romans were plainly decyphered, and by evident marks distinguished to be the Nation spoken of. The coming of false Prophets was foretold Matt. 24. the Man of Sin and his consuming, 2 Thess. 2. but there was nothing to shew of what People and Nation and City he should be. What knowledge soever Paul had of these things concerning Rome's persecution of the Church, he may well be said to have it by Re∣velation from Christ (Gal. 1. 12.) the opener of this little Book. There is no circum∣stance of the ruffling Horn Dan. 7. which could teach Paul that the Romans were the Fourth Beast, Daniel 7. for any thing that I know.

Coming in the Clouds, Dan. 7. is not to the last Iudgement at Doomsday but Christ's coming to take the Kingdom which he preached to be at hand, of all power being given to him. The phrase of coming in the Clouds is borrowed from the Cloud in the Wilder∣ness, and God's presence in the Cloud on the Tabernacle often; intimating God's defence and direction of his Church. See Isa. 4. 5. most pertinent to this sense. The heathen have the like phrase. Iliad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. God is present to Diomedes.

—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Virg. 7. AEn. Pater omnipotens—radiis ardentem lucis & auro Ipse manu quatiens oftendit ab aethere nubem:

When Iupiter came to assist AEneas now to settle in Italy.

It is not said of the Vniversal Kingdom in Daniel, that it should never suffer persecuti∣on; but that it never should be destroyed: because 'tis built on the Rock Christ, no power shall prevail against it. That it should never be destroyed, implies that it should be impugned: But how in these later Times, Iohn in the Apocalyps shews from Christ.

To the Sixth THESIS.

I answer to the Assumption, That Antiochus Epiphanes, whom God suffered much to prevail against the Iews, reigned till God came to destroy him by his own hand, as unre∣sistible as fire: For destruction by fire in Scripture is an high Metaphor, and expresseth often unresistible destruction. After Epiphanes's death, (who was the last hot persecutor) God gave often victory to the Iews against the Greeks; which verifies that in the Greeks which was typed in the Feet, part of Iron to break the Iews, part of Clay, not able to harm others or defend themselves. And so much the weaker were those Feet, because the Iron and Clay could not be mixt together to strengthen each other. God now shewed himself favourable to the Iews, and gave judgment or defence to them, partly by their own valour, partly by the Romans interposing themselves as friends. Now the Throne of the Ancient of days was set, and the Iews had defence (till Christ's time) from the weak Greeks.

And now the Romans having an inch given them, take an ell, and usurp authority over the Iews; and with them kill Christ the Messiah. But Christ overcame death, and had all power in heaven and in earth given him, Matth. 28. This his Kingdom we acknowledge in our prayers, and the Church celebrates, Apocal. 5. by the voice of all such as were made Priests and Kings to reign on the earth, even such as were gathered out of all nations, tongues and kindreds.

That which you add about Times put for Things done in time, is very true for the signi∣fication of the Phrase when it comes alone in divers places: But here changing of Times and Laws go together. Antiochus Epiphanes his dealings wonderfully agree to this. 1 Mac. 1. 42. He would make every one leave his Laws. He forbids burnt-offering and sacrifice, Vers 45. He commands the Books of the Law to be burnt, Vers. 56, 57. He slew the Iews for circumcising their children, Vers. 60. He puts down their Laws, 2 Macc. 4. 10. & 6. 1, 2. He uses threats and cruelty, then flattery, to make them for∣sake the Law, 2 Macc. 7. All these stirrs grew from the Greeks attempting to make them leave their Laws, 1 Macc. 6. 59. Then Epiphanes his attempt to alter Times is clear in his command to put down the Sabbaths and Feasts, and his making them to keep Bacchus Feasts, 2 Macc. 6. 7.

To the Seventh THESIS.

The Fourth Beast, Dan. 7. and the First Beast, Revel. 13. are not one and the same: They differ much in shape of body, and in their acts, and in their falls and plagues. Be∣sides, that in the Apocal. is made as it were of all the four in Daniel, and is so described as if it came in stead, and was comparable to them all; as indeed it was.

Horns, more or less distinguish not a Beast. That infirms not what I said. By the way only I here observe, That the Beast with seven horns was a Lamb indeed, that is Christ. The Beast Apocal. 13. with two horns, had these two horns like a Lamb's, but in truth he might be a Wolf.

Seeing it is not said that Daniel's Fourth Beast had four heads, (therein I mistook in my former writing) it is to be presumed he had but one, as Beasts usually have no more; except in Vision, for expression of some special matter, more heads be attributed to them. The Third Beast, Dan. 7. had four heads. The number of which four heads, with the three heads of the other three Beasts•• fits so well with Iohn's Beast, besides the resemblance to the Lion, Bear, Leopard, that I believe it cannot be casual, especially seeing it is in God's Book.

Concerning that you say of Mouth put singularly, I answer, that the Beast Apocal. 13. had seven heads with names of blasphemy: This will imply that each had a mouth, and that a blasphemous mouth, which is more. Besides, the very nomination of head implies a mouth, and seven heads, seven mouths. And whereas there is mention of a mouth gi∣ven the Beast Vers. 5. methinks that should intimate the extremity of blasphemy proceed∣ing from the seventh head beyond all the rest.

Whereas you say the third Kingdom in Daniel was not so distinctly revealed Chap. 7. as afterwards chap. 8. That is true. And further I add, That in Visions and Prophecies God hath spoken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and revealed things to come by parts; so that several Visions or Prophecies laid together make up the whole. In each of Daniel's Visions something is passed over to be supplied by the rest. In the second Chapter there is nothing to type A∣lexander's four chief Chaptains, nor is it told what people should be trode on by the Iron legs. In Chap. 7. the Exposition of the three former kingdoms is very brief, the Ex∣position of the fourth very large. The weakness of Antiochus his Successors is unexpressed. In Chap. 8. nine of the horns coming out of Alexander's Captains are passed over, and the little Horn fully set out. The Kingdom of Christ over all Nations is not spoken of at all. These things thus passed over, are supplied by the rest. So is it in the Revelation: The afflicting of God's Church is diversly expressed, and the afflicters thereof, and the afflicted by them. So that no one Vision, but the several Visions laid together, do give us a perfect and whole delineation of what was to come from that time to the end of the World.

EPISTLE VIII.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Mr. Hayn's Second Letter, about several passages in Daniel and the Revelation.

SIR,

I Received yours at the Commencement: wherein I found, if I should answer to every part, I should have as many Questions to dispute as I sent you Theses: The experience of which multiplications in that kind makes me so backward in Collations by writing, So that I can with much more patience endure to be contradicted, than be drawn to make Reply. But all this time, the truth is, I had no leisure, nor yet have, and am presently also to go into the Countrey, where I shall stay some weeks, and have no opportunity to write. That I might not therefore in the mean time seem too much too neglect you, I have caused a Scholar of yours to write out something I had by me in a Paper long ago written, wherein you may further see my Opinion, and some part of the grounds thereof.

When I return, and have more leisure, I shall answer to what I find Principal in your Replies; but not to what is Circumstantial: for so the business would grow too te∣dious for my pen. In the mean time I would desire you to believe that I have read the most that hath or can be said for that Opinion, either by the chief Patrons thereof, Broughton and Iunius, or their followers, Polanus, Piscator, D. Willet; and that whilst I was yet free, and first began with these kind of studies; and yet found no∣thing that could in the least measure perswade me to be of their mind: And I see now that the modern Writers, and even some of their Scholars, return to the ancient opinion, and forsake their Masters in this point. This I speak, not to boast of my read∣ing in this controversie, but to shorten your Discourses which you may send hereaf∣ter; you shall need but touch, and spare the labour of so much enlargement. But a word or two to your Reply.

Whereas you say, The ground of the expectation of the coming of Christ when be came, was the Fall or expiration of the Fourth Kingdom; I utterly deny it. The ground was the near expiration of Daniel's 70 weeks, concurring with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Fourth Kingdom, the Roman; during which his Kingdom was to be first revealed, and at the end of which consummated. Besides, I acknowledge no place, in this account of Kingdoms, for the Greeks after Antiochus Epiphanes, where the Holy Ghost* 1.16 expresly placeth the end of that Kingdom; much less will admit Cleopatra to prolong it, and and that too after the Romans had subdued Iudaea.

You mistake my Answer, That the Roman or Fourth Kingdom was revealed to Daniel in imagine confusa. For I meant it neither absolutely, as if it had no distinction in its description, nor in comparison with the former Three, than which in that place it is more particular and distinct. But I meant it was in imagine confusa, in respect of those distinct. States and times thereof which were revealed unto S. Iohn, and not unto Daniel: that it was confused in comparison of that which was more particu∣lar of the same subject: As is Daniel's description of the second and third Beast in

the seventh Chapter, compared with that more particular description of the same in the eighth and eleventh Chapters.

Whereas you say, The Iews since Christ brought in this opinion of the Roman to be the Fourth Kingdom, that so they might the better maintain their expectation of Messiah yet to come, because that Kingdom was yet in being; I say, it was affirmed by who∣soever first affirmed it without all ground, authority, or probability; the contrary also being easie to be proved, viz. That the Iews were of this opinion before our Saviour came; as appears in Ionathan Ben Vziel, the Chaldee Paraphrast, and by the fourth Book of Esdras, which, whatsoever the authority thereof be, is sufficient to prove this, being written by a Iew, (for it is, saith Picus, the first of their seventy Books of Cabbal••) and before our Saviour's coming, as appears by many passages of Messiah expected, and yet to appear within four hundred years after that supposed time of Esdras. Certainly he that wrote it meant no hurt to Christians; as will easily appear to him that that reads it, and finds the Name Iesus, and so often mention of the Son of God. Which I note, in case you should rather think it written after Christ. If it were, it was certainly by a Christian. The ancient mention thereof is by Cle∣mens Alexandrinus Anno 200. though I know some body affirms the first mention thereof is by S. Ambrose, two hundred years after; sed fallitur. Yet I take not the Book to be Canonical Scripture.

As for the Christian Doctors, it is well known that both Iustin Martyr (within 30 years of S. Iohn's death) and Irenaeus were of this opinion, and knew no other amongst Christians; and yet they both lived and conversed with the Apostles imme∣diate Disciples, and the latter of them brought up at Polycarpus's feet, who was S. Iohn's Disciple, and could relate to Irenaeus (as himself saith) what S. Iohn was wont to do and speak. Therefore Eusebius was not worth the naming, as caught with this trap; seeing it cannot be proved that ever any Christian before him or after him, till after S. Hierome's time, held the contrary; and then too was soon checked and not heard of again till the last Seculum.

But as for the opinion you would perswade to, it was first broached by Porphyrie, an enemy of Christ, to the end he might prove the Prophecy of Daniel counterfeit, and written about the time of the Maccabes, soon after the death of Antiochus Epi∣phanes, and so prophesied nothing but ab eventu, as meaning by the Fourth Kingdom the Seleucidae, &c. not the Roman. See S. Hierome upon those Chapters of Daniel 7. & 11. and you will admire the Expositions and Evasions of Porphyrie should be the same al∣most, yea in circumstances, with those of Iunius, &c. But S. Hierome in his time knew no Christian that had been of that opinion. Let any man shew as much for what you af∣firm of the Iews, as insinuators of this opinion in praejudicium fidei Christianae.

The Purport of the Four Kingdoms in DANIEL: or The A. B. C. of Prophecie.

THE FOUR KINGDOMS in Daniel are twice revealed: First, to Nebuchad∣nezzar, in a glorious Image of Four sundry Metals; secondly, to Daniel himself, in a Vision of Four diverse Beasts arising out of the Sea. The intent of both is by that succession of Kingdoms to point out the time of the Kingdom of Christ, which no other Kingdom should succeed or destroy.

Nebuchadnezzar's Image Daniel 2.

Nebuchadnezzar's Image points out Two States of the Kingdom of Christ. The First to be while those times of the Kingdoms of the Gentiles yet lasted, typified by a Stone hewen out of a Mountain without hands, the Monarchical Statue yet standing upon his feet. The Second not to be until the utter destruction and dissipation of the Image, when the Stone having smote it upon the feet, should grow into a great Mountain, which should fill the whole earth. The First may be called, for distinction sake, Regnum Lapidis, the Kingdom of the Stone; which is the State of Christ's Kingdom which hitherto hath been: The other, Regnum Montis, the Kingdom of the Mountain, (that is, of the Stone grown in∣to a Mountain, &c.) which is the State of his Kingdom which hereafter shall be. The Intervallum between these two, from the time the Stone was first hewen out (that is, the Kingdom of Christ was first advanced) until the time it becomes a

Mountain (that is, when the* 1.17 Mystery of God shall be finished) is the Subject of the Apocalyptical Visions.

Note here, first, That the Stone is expounded by Daniel to be that lasting Kingdom which the God of Heaven should set up. Secondly, That the Stone was hewen out of the Mountain before it smote the Image upon the feet, and consequently be∣fore the Image was dissipated; and therefore that the Kingdom typified by the Stone, while it remained a Stone, must needs be within the times of those Monarchies, that is, before the last of them (viz. the Roman) should expire: Wherefore Daniel in∣terprets, Ver. 44. That in the dayes of these Kingdoms (not after them, but while some of them were yet in being) the God of heaven should set up a Kingdom which should never be destroyed, nor left (as they were) to another people; but should break in pieces and consume all those Kingdoms, and it self should stand for ever. And all this he speaks as the Interpretation of the Stone; Forasmuch (saith he) as thou sawest that a Stone was cut out of a Mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold. Here make the full point; For these words belong not to that which follows (as our Bibles by mis-distinguishing seem to refer them,) but to that which went before of their Interpretation. But the Stone's becoming a Mountain he expounds not, but leaves to be gathered by what he had al∣ready expounded.

Daniel's Vision of Four Beasts, Dan. 7.

The same Kingdoms of the Gentiles are typified here which were in the former of Nebuchadnezzar's Image; namely, the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman. Only Nebuchadnezzar's Image pointed out both States of Christ's Kingdom, first Lapidis, then Montis: But Daniel's Vision of Four Beasts omits the first, (which was to be while the Fourth Beast yet lived) and designs the last only, when that ruffling Horn's time being finished, and the Beast destroyed, The Ancient of daies gives the Son of man a Kingdom, wherein all nations, tongues and people should serve and obey him. Dan. 7. 13.

The Reason: Nebuchadnezzar, a Gentile, was a Type of the Gentiles, who were to have their part in both estates of Christ's Kingdom; wherefore both are shewn him. Daniel, a Iew, was a Type of the Iews, who••e nation should have no share in the first, but only in the last, and therefore the last is only shewn him.

This Vniversal Kingdom of the Son of man revealed in the clouds of heaven, which Daniel here saw, and which the Angel expounds to be the Kingdom of the Saints of the most High,* 1.18 is the same with that voiced in the Apocalyps, upon the sound of the seventh Trumpet, All the Kingdoms of the World are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. Compare them.

Whence it will follow, That those finishing times of the Fourth Beast, called A Time, Times, and half a Time, during which that wicked Horn should domineer and ruffle it among his ten Kings, are the self-same Time which the Angel in S. Iohn forewarn th•• should be no longer, as soon as the seventh Angel began to sound, Chap. 10. 6.

The self-same Times, whose finishing the same Angel swears unto Daniel (in the same form and gesture he doth to S. Iohn) should be the period of those wondrous afflictions of the Church, and of the scattering of the power of the holy people, Dan. 12. 7.

And consequently, those very Times of the Gentiles whereof our Saviour speaks, Luke 21. 24. that the treading down of Ierusalem and dispersion of the Iews should last until the Times of the Gentiles were finished: even the same Times whereof* 1.19 Tobit harped, Chap. ult. That notwithstanding Iudah should again after a while return and build a second Temple, yet should not the Vniversal restitution be, nor Israel return from all places of their Captivity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Lastly, the same Times with S. Iohn's Apocalyptical Times of the renewed Beast's blasphemous reign, and profanation of the Temple and City of God forty two months, or 1260 days: Forasmuch as the same Kingdom of our Lord Christ is the immediate and common consequent to them all.

Compare them.

When Daniel's times are done, the Son of man comes in the clouds of heaven, to receive the Empire of all the Kingdoms of the world, Dan. 7. 14.

When S. Lukes times of the Gentiles are finished,* 1.20 then shall be Signs in the Sun and Moon; the Son of man comes also in the clouds of heaven, ver. 27. the redemption of Israel, ver. 28. and the Kingdom of God is at hand, ver. 31.

When S. Iohn's Apocalyptical Beasts forty two months reign with the Witnesses

1260 days mourning, determine; the Ark of the Covenant is seen in heaven, and all the Kingdoms of the world become the Kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ, Apocal. 11. 15. ad finem.

An APPENDIX.

The First coming of Christ was to be while the Fourth Kingdom was yet in being; his Second, when it should end. The hewing of the Stone out of the mountain, (which is the rearing of the Kingdom of Christ) was before it smote the Image upon the feet, and upon the destruction thereof became so great a Mountain as filled the whole earth. Therefore the hewing out of this Stone was while this Image was yet in being.

Daniel himself interprets the Stone to be the Kingdom of Christ, (not Christ him∣self) and saies that the God of heaven should set it up in the days of those Kings, or Kingdoms, that is, adhuc currente horum Regum periodo, vel diebus Tetrarchiae hujus nondum expletis, whilest the daies of those Kingdoms of the Gentiles yet lasted, or before they expired; namely, whilst the last of those Kingdoms was still current and in being. He that shall here expound [in the daies] to mean [after the days] shall give me leave not to believe him, unless also he can perswade me, that the Stone which smote the Image was hewed out of the mountain after the Image was dashed in pieces and vanished.

The Iews in our Saviour's time expected the Messiah's coming before the times of the Fourth Kingdom expired. For they looked it should be destroyed by him after he was come, and then the Kingdom restored to Israel. According to that of Dan. 7. when the Beast should be slain and his body destroyed, the Kingdom should be given to the people of the Saints of the most High. Only they thought not the distance between the first coming of Christ and his destruction of the Fourth Beast to be so long. Whence was that question of the Apostles to our Saviour at his Ascension, Wilt thou now restore the Kingdom to Israel.* 1.21

But I am gone much further than ever I intended, and therefore will here make an end. I make question whether you can read my scribling: If you can, I hope you will excuse my hast. And so I commend you to the divine protection, and am

Your loving Friend, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Colledge, Iuly 22.

EPISTLE IX.

Mr. Hayn's Third Letter to Mr. Mede, about several passages in Daniel and the Revelation.

SIR,

I Confess that conference by writing multiplies words, by giving more scope to delibe∣ration; and may justly make you backward to Collations in this kind: But the dis∣quisition and finding of truth countervails all; than which I seek nothing more by this my pains. To that part of your answer received Iuly 22. I have inclosed a Reply; and expect the rest of your Answer formerly intended, when you should return to Cambridge: And now to this present Reply as your occasions will permit. Such Writings as I have seen of yours testifie to me both your plentiful reading, and diligent observation of matters most re∣markable therein; as also (I am perswaded) in this Argument: Yet cannot all that yet you have said drive me from my hold. I reverence the Learned on both sides, and will ever give them all duerespect; and will not be found to stand single in any opinion. But the persons of men shall not sway me against the native light of the Sacred Text, which I know makes for me. If Alsted and some others have lest their Masters in some of these points; I think we shall find others, (as Glassius) of equal judgment to Alsted, to run this way. But 'tis to be considered herein, not so much Qui dicunt pro au•• contra, as Quid dicunt. And therefore I will not put into the scales mens Authority, but their Reasons: And hope that after your perusal of this present Reply, you will be more inclinable to a

different judgment from some of your former Tenets. And thus leaving you to the protecti∣on and direction of the God of Truth, I rest,

Your very loving Friend, Tho. Hayne.

Octob. 8. 1629. from Christ's Hospital, London.

THE ground of the expectation of the coming of Christ and his Kingdom, was (say you) the near expiration of Daniel's Seventy weeks.

The expectation of Simeon, Anna, and others, of the Magi,* 1.22 and them of the East, was seventy years before the end of Daniel's Seventy weeks, according to your opinion. For you hold that the Seventy weeks end at Ierusalem's overthrow, which was after Christ's Birth seventy years, Therefore it could not be any mark for the looking for of Christ. 2. At the end of the Seventy weeks, according to your judgment, the City and Sanctuary was to be destroyed, sacrifice ended, and desolation brought on the Iews: Therefore the Seventy weeks (according to your Tenet) is a mark of other matters; not of Christ's or the Saints Kingdom,* 1.23 but rather of Vespasian's, as Iosephus saith, which ensued just upon the end of the Seventy weeks.

But in truth Daniel's Seventy weeks end at Christ's death: and seeing Christ was expected to be King of the Iews, all that truly kept account of the Seventy weeks, might rightly conceive that Christ about thirty years before the expiration of the Seventy weeks should be born; and so about thirty years old (which are years fit for publick charge) should enter upon that Kingdom. Of this reason I forbore to write formerly, because I saw that we should differ about the beginning and end of Daniel's Seventy weeks, which would bring on a new controversie between us.

That Christ's Kingdom was (as you affirm) to be revealed in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Fourth Kingdom, I see no Text that proves it; nor that Christ's Kingdom should be consummated at the end of the Roman Kingdom. At the end of the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel it was to begin, Chap. 7. And that it was perfected in Christ Iesus is evident; for he overcame the Devil, Death, Hell, and all; and teaches that all power is given him in heaven and earth, that all things bow to him, and that he led captivity captive. Further, I have good ground for to say, that the extirpation of the Fourth Kingdom was one s••re mark of Christ's coming, and his Kingdom: for that only is the mark of the same, Chap. 2. and 7. where that Kingdom is mentioned.

You will not admit the Greeks any Rule after Antiochus Epiph. death, because the Holy Ghost ends their Kingdom in him.

I say the Holy Ghost ends the domineering violence and persecution of the Saints in him; but there were to be clayie feet after him. Stories shew that many Kings of the Greeks ruled after him; and in the end Cleopatra, a woman (as Iosephus saith) of chief Nobility in those times:* 1.24 even Caesar at first umpired between her and her brother, in matters of difference between them. She had the revenue of Iericho and Arabia, and other parts; she killed all her kindred that might stand in her way•• and desired Antonie to do the like by them of chief ble••d in Syria,* 1.25 that she in right of the Greeks might have all. She, with the rest after Epiphanes, were sufficient to express the clayie legs. And that Rule is sufficient, and all that I stand for.

Besides, the Stone as cut out (not as growing to a Mountain) is to fall on the toes: So that if by the legs the Romans be understood, Christ was not to come in their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but at their fall. Evident it is that Christ's Kingdom took place (as frequent mention of it in the New Testament shews) at his first coming, and so began at the beginning of the Roman persecutions, not at the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of them; they were abundant and manifold after∣ward. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of their Empire hath nothing to do here.

You hold still that the Roman Kingdom was revealed to Daniel, but not according to the distinct Fates and Times, as to Iohn. I shewed that the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel was revealed to him most distinctly, for the original, proceeding, strength acts, persecution, sufferings, fall: All the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are revealed to Iohn about the Roman Kingdom. Now if they should both speak of the Roman Kingdom but in these points; 〈…〉〈…〉 it be true in Iohn, that this Book was opened by none (as you limit it, according 〈…〉〈…〉 distinct Fates) before by Christ? Therefore the limitation propounded by you cannot hold.

I say not that the Iews after the Apostles times brought in or invented the opinion, That the Romans were Daniel's Fourth Kingdom, but that they endeavoured to perswade it; whoever were the brochers of it, Ionathan Ben Uziel, or any other, surely some of their stamp. And the rather they then did and now do perswade to it, because some Christians by assenting to them give them advantage therein.

If Porphyrie, an enemy to Christians, overcome by the evidence of truth, confessed it; that is a greater confirmation of the truth. The Devil confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God; though the Devil be a liar commonly, yet now he spake that which was most true. Besides, in S. Ierome it appears; that Porphyrie was not alone in that opinion: but that divers others held the same. And in the eleventh chapter S. Ierome goes along with Porphyrie in most things; but addeth this, That Antichrist and his doings were there typed. And in points in which S. Ierome crosseth Porphyrie, his argu∣ments are sometimes but his own bare assertion, sometimes weak. If you please to set the best edge on them that may be,* 1.26 we will try them. And Porphyrie had Suctorius his Author.

To the writing in a different hand.

You hold Christ's Kingdom to be double; First, Regnum Lapidis, while the times of the Four Kingdoms lasted.

I say, it cannot be in the time of the three former Kingdoms; for it was preached by Christ and the Apostles to be at hand in the time of the Romans: Antiochus Epiphanes his time, whom you make the last of the Greeks, being past well-near, or full hundreds of years before. Besides, I object, That if Christ's Kingdom be set up in the Fourth King∣dom's time, it must be set up in the three formers time also. For it confounded the gold, silver, brass, iron, as well as fell on the clayie legs. Again, if you make the S••one to con∣tinue a Stone from Christ's time till ours, and some years after (God knows how long) to smite the feet of the Image; you will make the legs and feet of the Image above 1600 years long, three times and more as long as all the body.

The Second Kingdom of Christ you hold to be Regnum montis, that shall fill the whole earth, to arise when the Image shall be utterly destroyed. 1. I say, This division of Christ's Kingdom is no where in Scripture plainly expressed, though this Kingdom be most fre∣quently handled. If such a thing had been, it would in one place or other, in the vari∣ous handling of it, have been plainly taught. 2. The Stone spreads it self over the whole earth presently; Their sound is gone into all lands: There were at Pentecost devout men of all nations under heaven, who (the Spirit enabling them extraordinarily) might carry the Gospel into all parts.

The Mysterie you speak of, I conceive not: I am sure of this, That the Stone, Ch. 2. which became a Mountain, is the same with Christ and his Kingdom, Ch. 7. Nor do I con∣ceive how Nebuchadnezzar is a Type of the Gentiles, or Daniel of the Iews: But I am sure that the Iews in good measure had part in Regno Lapidis, as you call it: For the Apostles and many other Christians were Iews, and Paul is told that (not many Thousands only, as some Translations have it, but) many myriads of Iews believed, Act. 21. 20. Therefore you hold amiss, that the Iews had not part in Regno Lapidis.

The Vniversal Kingdom of Christ (say you) is the same in Daniel and the Apoca∣lyps. This is most true. Further, I say this was begun by Christ, when he saith, All power is given to me, &c. go teach and baptize all nations: and so Christ wills that out of all nations subjects should be gathered to him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. * 1.27 And if in nations where the Gospel was preached many assented not, Christ told us that also, Many be called, few chosen.

So then that which you hold will follow, doth not follow, seeing that the ground-work of it is not sound; especially seeing the Vniversal Kingdom of a Thousand years (by Iustin Martyr held, but then contradicted, as he saith; and had he seen what the length of time since hath given us to see, he would, I am perswaded, have been of another mind) and the Arguments for it, though brought in scores,* 1.28 will prove but light, if they come to examination.

To the Appendix.

The First coming of Christ (say you) was while the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel was yet in being; because the Stone was hewen out of the mountain before it smote the Image on the feet.

But I say, the whole Image was standing in the Vision while the Stone was cut out. So by the same reason, the first coming of Christ, and the raising of his Kingdom, should be during the times of the Kingdoms of the whole Image; for the Stone, as it fell on the feet, so it brake all to pieces, the iron, brass, clay, silver, gold. The truth is, that Christ's coming and Kingdom was at the end of the Image, and ruin of the four Beasts; yet did the Stone, that is Christ (so Iust. Mart. and others take it) as he was God, de∣stroy them all by his Instruments; that is, Babel by the Medes and Persians, and those by the Greeks; the Greeks by their own discords, and by judgment given to the Saints in the Maccabees times, and the Romans interposing as friends and associates, not as chief parties.

And for any sound reason that I know we have to the contrary, we may say, that the Stone was cut out of the mountain after the ruine of the whole Image, in the fulfilling of the Vision, though not in Daniel's sight of it. For you will grant, that it was cut out after the fall of the three former kingdoms, and yet did break the gold, silver and brass, by his instruments, and so might also break the iron and clay, though it rose after the fall of the Fourth Kingdom. The reason is alike of both; for as it is said to fall on the toes of the one, so also it is said to break the rest.

In the days of those kings,* 1.29 or kingdoms, Dan. 2. This is the great argument against me.

To it I answer,* 1.30 That if the words be taken in their strict force, they intimate the days of Babel, Persians, and Greeks also (and not of the Fourth Kingdom only:) which you will not grant. And if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie after the daies of some of those Kingdoms, (as you cannot but grant) why not of the rest also? Besides, you know the Hebrew particles be exceeding various in their signification; and hardly any particle more than this. Again, the force of it must be sometimes (after:) See Exod. 2. 11. and v. 23. especially, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after many days, or in process of time: But (in many daies the king died) cannot stand good. Let it not then seem strange that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signifie [after.]

The Iews expected aright, in the time of Christ's preaching, the Kingdom promised in Daniel, because the 70 weeks were within two or three years at an end, and the Greeks ruinated; but their error was, that they expected that Christ should have a Terrene king∣dom: And if any conceived that Christ in his own person should overthrow outwardly the Fourth Kingdom, therein they erred: For Christ tells them plainly, that his Kingdom is not of this world, (which Solomon found a map of vanity;) that the Kingdom of God is within them: A Kingdom far beyond all Promises in phrases of an outward King∣dom. If they had known as much as we, (thanks be to God,) doubtless they would have thought the time long, that Christ should then be come, and 1629. years after, t••e Beast not yet destroyed, nor the Kingdom restored; and that the Fourth Beast should have thrice as much time as the other three Beasts, according to your Tenet.

Not the Pharisees only (Luke 17. 20.) but the Apostles (Acts 1. 6.) enquire about the restoring of the Kingdom to Israel. This was because they saw the fourth Beast slain and destroyed; namely, the Greeks; for the Romans now flourished. It may be, that the not conceiving how the Saints could have a kingdom, and the Romans not be subdued, might make some of them stagger, and be in doubt whether the Romans were not the Fourth. Christ's answers laid together might have made them see the Spiritual Kingdom, and lay hold of that, and not expect a Terrene.

Octob. 8. 1629.

EPISTLE X.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Mr. Hayn's Third Letter, about several passages in Daniel and the Revelation.

SIR,

I Received yours not till yesterday: whereby I perceive you have more confidence to convince me by this kind of discoursing, than I have you: For I confess freely, I find you so well setled in your opinion, that I have no hope to alter you: and yet nevertheless am as strongly perswaded of the truth of my own Tenet, notwithstand∣ing all you have said, as ever I was before we began; and for all this, am as willing to embrace Truth, where I see evidence for it, as most men; so far as I can judge of my self by experience of my alteration in some points formerly embraced. Thus much I answer to the close of your Letter, where you say, you hope that by the perusal of your Reply I will be more inclinable to a different judgment from my former Tenets.

Mr. Hayn, though I can reasonably well perswade my self of many things I be∣lieve; yet had I never so much confidence in me, as to be able to perswade another of a contrary judgment, if he were once studied and setled therein; which made me so unwilling at the first to enter the Lists with you in this kind, where I could ex∣pect no other fruit but the loss of much time and pains to no purpose. The wit of man is able, where it is perswaded, to find shifts and answers until the day of Doom; as

appears in so differing opinions held amongst Christians, with so much and so end∣less pertinacity on both sides. It is sufficient therefore for a man to propound his Opinion with the strongest evidence and arguments he can, and so leave it. Truth will be justified of her children. But of these reciprocations of discourse in writing, wherein you place so much benefit for discovery of Truth, I have often heard and seen Truth lost thereby, but seldom or never ••ound.

I find by your last Reply, that you and I differ so far, and in so many Principles needful for the discovery of the truth of this Question, that all the time I have for my private studies would be wholly taken up in attending this dispute, if I should go on still therewith. I have had some experience once before, that it is a tenacious piece where it hath taken hold. I would not be entangled again; and therefore de∣sire, with your good leave, to give it over, till opportunity of meeting together, where I should be able to talk with far more ease than I can write. I profess unto you, I contemn not your discourses, but do diligently and apud conscientiam meam weigh your arguments, howsoever it comes to pass I am not perswaded by them. But I can∣not find time for such a Collation; and besides, am unwilling to put all in writing which I would utter in a private and a personal discourse. I will say a word or two to your last, but without expectation you should reply again.

• 1. The opinion of the 70 weeks expiration is not mine, but Scaliger's and divers other learned mens, and amongst the rest Iunius's, who otherwise for the Monar∣chies is yours. For my self, howsoever in the 70 weeks I have yet followed Scali∣ger, yet I had a private way to make the 62 weeks to point out our Saviour's Bap∣tism. Howsoever, for the Iews expectation of Messiah, it was enough to know in what age he was to come, though not precisely the year.
• 2. I shall never believe but all those places of the Son of man's coming and appear∣ing in the clouds of heaven, mentioned in the Gospels and in the Apocalypse, ch. 1. 7. are the same with that coming of the Son of man in the clouds prophesied by Daniel at the extinction of the Fourth Beast, Ch. 7. and that the Holy Ghost in the New Testament hath reference thither, both for words and meaning. If this be so, you know what follows.
• 3. I say not, the Greeks ruled not after Antiochus Epiphanes, but that the Holy Ghost accounts that Kingdom no longer in the Monarchichal reckoning, and so fol∣lows the story of their Kings no further than Epiphanes; from thenceforth the Ro∣man, having now conquered Greece, was to take place.
• 4. I deny not, but firmly believe, that Christ's Kingdom took place at his First coming. But I utterly deny that to be the Kingdom our Saviour prophesies of Luk. 21. 31. and answerably in the other Gospels; or that whereof S. Paul speaks 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Iesus Christ who shall judge the quick and dead, at his appearing and his kingdom; or that foretold in the Apocalyps* 1.31 to be when the seventh Trumpet shall sound, and the like places.
• 5. Unless it can be shewn me, That the six Seals, seven Trumpets, seven Vials, the treading down of the Temple, two Witnesses, their slaughter and Resurrection, the red Dragon's persecution, &c. were in specie revealed to Daniel; I will still hold those Fates of the Roman Kingdom were sealed, and not revealed to Daniel, though the Roman Monarchy were revealed to him.
• 6. The ancient Iews did, but the latter Iews hold not the Roman to be the Fourth Kingdom, but the Mahumetan and the Roman to be a continuation of the third.
• 7. What I alleged of Porphyrie for yours, was to shew the injustice of your dis∣paraging mine, as being held by Iews, who yet when they first held it, were the on∣ly people of God, and Custodes oraculorum Dei: If Porphyrie might see a Truth, why not much more they?
• 8. I never meant to say, That the Kingdom of Christ should appear whilst all the Monarchies were yet standing, but before the times of that succession of Monarchies should expire: Which is true, if it appeared only in the last Monarchy. The con∣founding of the Gold, Silver, Brass and Iron, in the destruction of the Image, is ei∣ther the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 typi (for the parts of the Image could not succeed in time, as the Kingdoms signified by them could, and so all must be broken together:) or because the second kingdom possessed the first, the third the second, the fourth the third; the last is represented as containing all the rest, &c.
• 9. The Duration of the Four Kingdoms holds no proportion with the parts of the Image typifying them, and therefore the continuance of the Fourth Kingdom makes the legs of the Image neither longer nor shorter.
• ...

• 10. I wonder you should say, there is no Second Kingdom of Christ (which I had rather call the Second State of his Kingdom) mentioned in Scripture. Consider the places I point to in the fourth Paragraph, and add to them Luke 17. 20, &c. where our Saviour being asked of the Pharisees concerning the Kingdom of God, tells them, that he must first be rejected of that Nation, and that the coming thereof should be as in the days of Noah, &c.
• 11. The Mystery you say you conceive not (in the piece written with another hand) is that Mystery which the Apostle saies was not known till the preaching of the Gospel; namely, That the Iews should be rejected, and the Gentiles surrogated in their stead. Nor did I say (as you mistake) that the Iews had no part in the First state of Christ's kingdom, but that their Nation had not; by which I meant nothing else, but that their Nation was rejected. Doth not our Saviour expresly say, that he should be rejected of that Nation, Luk. 17. 25? It mattereth not though many of their Nation received him, seeing the Body of their Nation acknowledged him not. This is plain enough: I shall not need put you in mind of S. Paul's discourse of the casting off of the Iews, though then there were so many particular Iews believing in him, as I believe never were since.
• 12. I believe not that ever the Gospel of Christ was preached all over the world; no more than I believe that Augustus Caesar taxed the whole world, because it is said he taxed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For in the style of those times the Roman Empire was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as appears in the Greek Historians; and the Latin call it Imperium orbis terrarum.* 1.32
• 13. Daniel himself interpreteth the Stone to be a Kingdom which the God of hea∣ven should set up in the days of those Kingdoms: and therefore it cannot be the King∣dom of Christ as God coeternal with his Father; but the Kingdom of Christ as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which began not before he was incarnate. In the days of these Kingdoms (saith he) (that is, whilst some of them were yet in being) the God of heaven shall set up a Kingdom which should never be destroyed, nor left (as the former should) to another people; but should break in pieces, and consume all those Kingdoms, and it self should s••and for ever: Forasmuch (saith he) as thou sawest a Stone was cut out of a mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold. Here make the full point; for these words belong not to that which follows, (as our mis-distinction in the verses seems to refer them) but to that which went before of their interpretation. See the same reference of [Forasmuch] in the 40 and 41 verses.
• 14. I will not now dispute of the Preposition•••• though I had enough to say against you; but I say, that the words [In the daies of those Kings] are much more likely to be construed by Ellipsis particulae partitivae, usual in the Hebrew and Chaldee, qu••si, In the daies of some one of those Kings. viz. the last of them. So Iephtah is said to have been buried* 1.33 in the cities of Gilead; that is, in some one of them, &c.

There be some other passages not so principal, though I dissent from you in them, which I omit, as I desire to do this whole Disputation. That I had reserved to have answered in your former Reply, was to that of the Ruffling Horn, which by the ex∣press* 1.34 words of the Angel was to last until the time came the Saints should possess the Kingdom, that is, until the Son of man came in the clouds of heaven to take a Kingdom; (for this is the Angel's exposition of that part of the Vision) and therefore it could not be Antiochus Epiphanes. Your Answer to this seemed very unsufficient; I desire you to weigh it better: and I make an end.

Yours, I. M.

October 13.

EPISTLE IX.

Mr. Hayn's Fourth Letter to Mr. Mede, about several pas∣sages in Daniel and the Revelation.

• 1. SCaliger's or Iunius his Opinion prevail not so much as should their Reasons. God had told the Iews plainly the year, and by types the time of the year, when Messias should work their redemption: So that it was not enough to know in what age it should be.
• ...

• 2. The coming of the Son of man is to his Kingdom on earth, on which the Scripture runs abundantly, Dan. 2. & 7. Apoc. 1. 7. Luke 17. 20. and was to be before that generation passed, Matth. 24. 34. And within that space of time he came on Ierusalem, as the Floud on the old world. There shall be a Second coming of Christ, namely, to Iudgment: And then he shall give up his Kingdom here to the Father. Yet shall this Kingdom here and that in Heaven be one and the same, consist of the same men or subjects, and have the same bent to the honour of God.
• 3. The Greeks Rule after Antiochus Epiphanes was sufficient to express the clayie legs; that is enough for me; and the clayie legs are part of the Fourth Monarchy. The Ro∣mans more the Iews friends full many scores of years after Epiphanes his time: Their war against God's people is that for which God paints them out as Beasts. And though the Ro∣mans conquered Macedon long before Christ's coming, yet both Iulius Caesar and Antonie let Cleopatra hold her due of what Rule she had, and were but sticklers, not opposites, at first.
• 4. If Christ's Kingdom took place at his first coming; the same is one, and but one, and that everlasting.
• 5. The seven Trumpets, seven Vials, two Witnesses, &c. shew a new matter, not parti∣culars of the Fourth Kingdom particularized before in Daniel.
• 6. The late Iews (God enlighten them) shift abundantly; and the ancient both before and after their desertion did but groap in darkness.
• 7. Yet both the late and old Iews, and Porphyrie too, saw some truth; who can deny it?
• 8. The Text saith, In the days of those Kingdoms, say you; as if it were in all of them; and the Stone confounds all. Why should we allow 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 typi?
• 9. You deny the duration of the Fourth Kingdom to hold proportion with the parts of the Image: I affirm it; my reason is, If the Three former do, then the Fourth also.
• 10.

  I know there is a Second coming of Christ, that at the day of Iudgment: But the Kingdom once begun is one, for it is everlasting. If there were two Kingdoms, the one must end, the other begin.

  Though there be degrees in the progress of Christ's Kingdom, in regard of the world's in∣disposition to submit to it; yet de jure all is Christ's at his Ascension.

• 11. The Mystery which now you speak of I acknowledge, and bless God for it; namely, of the calling of the Gentiles. The Iews Rejection also is plain in the time of the Gospel, yet was a remnant of their Nation saved. And what more were the elect out of other Nati∣ons •• few to the many.
• 12. Though de facto the Gospel was not preached to all the world then, yet see mentem Legislatoris, the mind of the Law-giver, Go preach to all Nations.
• 13. Christ is the Stone: what is said of him in many things, is and may be said of them of his Kingdom; He bruises with a rod of von, Ps. 2. so do his servants, Rev. 2. 27. He the Stone, and his kingdom and people here, do the same thing.
• 14. For •• the Proposition, the authority I brought was sound and good. That about Iephtah is (though I use not to be sudden in this kind) ill translated. I wish time would have given me leave to have conferred with Books and men about it. I pray you think of it. Were it not better, Gideon was buried by the cities of Gilead; namely, the men of them all much honouring him, joyned in solemnizing his burial?
• 15. Not the ruffling Horn (as you call it) but the body of the Beast, Dan. 7. 11. continued till the Son of man came. Now the Body of the Beast hornless may express the same, or be correspondent to the clayie legs; and thus the answer is home in this particu∣lar also. Much more I could have said, but must here make an end, and leave you to God, whom I pray to keep us in his truth.

Octob. 16. 1629.

EPISTLE XII.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Mr. Hayn's Fourth Letter, about seve∣ral passages in Daniel and the Revelation.

NOW I have obtained a Release, that you might not think I shook off this Col∣lation out of Pride or Contempt, but to avoid too great a diversion from other Meditations, I will add this more than I meant to have done; the rather because I discovered by your last somewhat more of your Opinion in one principal particular than I knew before; and also because I find you presume of another piece as solid and well-grounded, because in my last I made no Answer to it, though I intimated I had sufficient, if need were, to say against it. My end is, that you might see I maintain not an Opinion out of mere pertinacy, but that I have Reasons sufficient to perswade my self, though you never met with a man (whatsoever you supposed of me) of less confidence to perswade others than when you met with me. I have a conceit that some opinions be in a sort Fatal to some men, and therefore I can with much patience endure a man to be contrary-minded, and have little or no edge to contend with one I think perswaded, unless it were in something that merely concerned him in state of salvation. But I come to the matter.

1. You seem to grant me, That the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven, &c. mentioned in Daniel, and that coming of his in the Clouds of heaven in the Gospel, Matth. 24. 30. & ch. 26. 64. Mark 13. 26. & ch. 14. 62. Luke 21. 27. and in the Apo∣calyps chap. 1. 7. are one and the same. But you apply them all to Christ's coming to the destruction of Ierusalem, because our Saviour saith in that Prophecy of his, That that generation should not pass till all things,* 1.35 then prophesied, should be fulfilled. I an∣swer, first, While you endeavour in this manner to establish a ground for the First coming of Christ, you bereave the Church of those principal passages of Scripture whereon she hath always grounded her faith of the Second coming. Secondly, You ground all this upon the ambiguity of the word Generation, whereas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not only aetas, but gens, natio, progenies, and so ought to be here taken; viz. Gens Iudae∣orum non in••eribit, usque dum omnia haec implentur, The nation of the Iews should not pe∣rish, till all these things were fulfilled. For so signifies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Hebrew notion, as you may see even in the verse following, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. By virtue of which Amen, verse 34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Verily I say unto you, the Iewish Nation, even to the wonder and astonishment of all who consider it, remains a distinct people in so long and tedious a Captivity, and after so many wonderful changes as have befallen the Na∣tions where they live. According to that of Ieremy, Chap. 31. 35, 36. (whither this passage seems to have reference) Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the Sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the Moon and of the Stars for a light by night, which di∣videth the Sea when the waves thereof roar: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. S. Chrysostome among the ancients, and Flacius Illyricus (a man well skill'd in the style of Scripture) among the moderns, and those who follow them, might have admonish∣ed others to take the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this acception, rather than by turning it aetas or seculum, to put this Prophecy in little ease, and the whole harmony of Scripture out of frame, by I know not what confused interpretation. S. Chrysostome applies it to Gens Christiana or fidelium, which he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Generatio quae∣rentium Dominum. Others have other accommodations, but still under this notion I speak of. I prefer, as I said, Gens Iudaeorum; for what Reasons, nihil nunc attinet dicere. No man can deny but this is one of the native notions of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yea and so taken in the Gospels: as in the foregoing Chapter, Matth. 23. 36. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, upon this nation. So Beza renders it twice in the parallel place, Luke 11. 50, 51. and seven times in this Gospel. Again, Luke 17. 25. The Son of man must be first rejected 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Beza, à gente ista. The LXX. renders by this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 populus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 familia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 progeni∣es, patria. See Gen. 25. 13. & ch. 43. 7. Num. 10. 30, &c. I suppose here is enough ••or the signification of a word. So then your Argument thence is nothing.

3. Besides, to interpret this coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven, and his kingdom then, of his coming to the destruction of Ierusalem, is contrary to the con∣text

of our Saviour's Prophecy: For the coming of Christ to destroy Ierusalem was the beginning and cause of that great and long Tribulation of that people: but the coming and appearing of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven, is expresly said should be after it, Immediately after the days of that Tribulation, &c. Matth. 24. 29. Mark 13. 24. For this great Tribulation, such as never Nation suffered, is not to be confined to their calamity at the destruction of Ierusalem, but extends to the whole time of their captivity and dispersion from that time unto this present not yet ended: wherefore S. Luke, who is wont to be an Expositor of our Saviour's words, puts in stead of those words of great tribulation, these of parallel sense to them, There shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people, Luke 21. 23. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations, and Ierusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, v. 24. And as the other Evangelists say, After that tribulation ended; so he, After, or when these times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, then shall be signs in the Sun and Moon, and then they shall see the Son of man coming in a cloud, &c. For the Copulative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 verse 25. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] is to be taken after the Hebrew manner ordinativè, for tum, deinde, which you know is frequent in Scripture, Then shall be signs.

And I make no question but these Times of the Gentiles, with which the Iews Tribu∣lation shall end, are either the Times of the Four Monarchies in general, (that is, the Times of that prophesied Dominion of the Gentiles) or, which is all one in event, those last Times of the Fourth Kingdom of A Time, Times, and half a Time, at the fulfilling whereof Daniel prophesies of the same appearing and coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven, which S. Luke doth here. For if the immediate conse∣quent be the same, how can the Times which immediately precede but be the same Times also? This is my opinion, which I intimated once before; but you rejected it as groundless then, and I know your Tenet cannot admit it now: Quisque abundet suo sensu: therefore I'le contend no more about it.

2. But let the Kingdom of the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, whereof Daniel speaks, be as you would have it; That Kingdom of his first coming, whether beginning at his Ascension, or manifesting it self at the Destruction of Ierusalem, (for one of them it must be, but) let it be which it will; I say, for all this, there is yet sufficient left to overthrow your Tenet of the Fourth Kingdom. For that Kingdom at the Son of mans coming in the clouds of heaven shewn to Daniel, is expounded by Daniel in his repetition to be the Kingdom of the Saints of the most High. If this be not evident by the context, I utterly despair ever to understand prophecy by any light of the letter: I must take it therefore for granted, whether you grant it me or not, That that Kingdom at the Son of mans coming in the clouds of heaven, in the Vision, is that which Daniel in his repetition, and the Angel calls the Kingdom of the Saints of the most High, in his interpretation; and therefore being the same, must begin at the same time, which you say was at our Saviour's first coming, namely from the time of his Ascension. This therefore forelaid, I argue thus.

The ruffling Horn persecutes the Saints until the time came that the Saints possessed the Kingdom, Chap. 7. v. 22.

But Antiochus Epiphanes persecuted not until the Saints possessed the Kingdom, which was at the Son of mans coming in the clouds of heaven. Ergo.

For if he persecuted till then, he with his Time, Times, and half a Time, must conti∣nue till Christ's Ascension at the nearest; but he was dead two hundred years before. It will not serve your turn here, to fly to the Kingdom of Christ as he is God; for the Kingdom here spoken of is the Kingdom of the Son of man, and a Kingdom which begins in time. Nor mattereth it how the Greek Kingdom after Antiochus may seem to befit the Clayie legs, unless you make the little Horn to be those Clayie legs. But you must shew how the little Horn, if it be Epiphanes, lived and persecuted until the time came that the Saints possessed the kingdom. Will you expound [until the time came] until some two hundred years before the time came? I know not how you can evade here, unless, as Porphyrie did, you will make the Kingdom of the Saints here mention∣ed to be the Kingdom of the Maccabees, and so the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, (whereof it is an exposition) to be Iudas Maccabaeus, or Ioannes Hircanus, or some other of those Hasmoneans. If you answer thus, you must not think it strange if I am loth to be perswaded to your opinion, who reading that Prophecy, cannot be perswaded but the little Horn is the last limme of the Fourth Beast, whose part once acted, the Beast's glass is run, and his time of destruction come. Or who can believe but he is to be destroyed at that time of Iudgment, when the Son of man shall appear

in the clouds of heaven? Though you say you see no evidence for it, yet I cannot be perswaded but this Scripture was it out of which S. Paul learned to consute the Thessa∣lonians causeless fear of the day of Christ's coming to Iudgment to be near at hand: when he tells them,* 1.36 that that day should not come, until the man of sin were first revealed, and had acted his part; forasmuch as Christ was to abolish him by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of his coming: For so Daniel had taught him, that the wicked Horn's reign should conclude the Fourth Kingdom, and the Son of man should abolish him at his coming in the clouds of heaven; and therefore could not that coming of his be until the wicked Horn should be revealed, and reign the time appointed him. This I am sure, that this Prophecy of Daniel was the Womb whence the Iewish Doctors derived that Term of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dies judicii & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 magnus dies judicii, because that coming of Messiah is thrice so described in this place of Daniel; verse 10, 22, 26. whence even at this day they look not for Messiah until Magnus dies judicii, the great day of Iudgment. Our Saviour and his Apostles received this term of Dies Iudicii from them, and ap∣prove it by using it. But it is far more frequent in the Chaldee Paraphrase and other writings of theirs, than in the New Testament. Nor can I believe but our Saviour and his Apostles, using this phrase, meant to approve the ground of Scripture whence they deduced it: Especially our Saviour so often expressing his Second coming by these words of Daniel, coming in the clouds of heaven: which the Elders and Priests hear∣ing our Saviour apply to himself when they arraigned him, they rent their cloaths as at Blasphemy: whence it appears they took it for no small and ordinary Character of po∣wer, not appliable to Iudas Maccabaeus or his successors.

I know the same Phrases may be used to express like matters of diverse and sundry times; but here is not only Identity of phrases, but, together with the same phrases, the same frame of things with their circumstances, and those such as are not appliable to many times. And though I am not of the same mind with Theocritus Iustus, (his name is* 1.37 Daniel Lawenus) to draw all the Apocalyps to the Iews, upon no other ground but communion of phrases; yet I know nevertheless, that to compare Scripture with Scripture is none of the least helps to understand Scripture.

3. I have dwelt all this while upon the Second Vision of Kingdoms, I come now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to say somewhat of the First, Dan. 2. v. 44.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And in the days of these Kings or Kingdoms; that is, say I, du∣ring the days of those Kingdoms, while the days of this Dominion of the Gentiles yet lasted, before these days of their dominion ended. I lay the Emphasis upon days. But here you stumble, and make inference as if I had said, or the Prophet either, In or during all the days of those Kingdoms, or during the days of all those Kingdoms, Babylonian, Persian, and Greek, as well as Roman. I cannot but marvel to see you make so strange of an expression not only frequent in Scripture, but common and usu∣al in every language. If I should say, such or such a thing was done in the days of the Saxon, or in the days of the British Kings; would you infer or understand me, as if I meant in all the days of those Kings, or in the days of all those Kings, or some of them only? If I should say such a thing was done in the days of Popery, must I needs mean all the days of Popery, or some part of them only, and so no more but while those days were yet in being? It is said, Ruth 1. 1. It came to pass in THE DAYS when the Iudges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. I hope this famine was but in some part of those days, or in the days of some of those udges, not all of them. It is an expression Elliptical, if you will, but yet most ordinary. Iudg. 15. 20. Samson judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years: but the Philistines days were forty years: so he judged but in the latter part of them. 2 Sam. 21. 1. There was a famine in the days of David 3 years. Vide Ezra 4. 7. Esay 7. 1. Ier. 23. 6. So Matth. 2. 1. In the days of Herod the King, Iesus was born in Bethlehem; that is, in the latter end, or about the last two years of his reign. So [In the days of those Kingdoms of the Gentiles] is, during them and in the latter part of them, as the nature of the thing spoken of sufficiently argues, which was to destroy the last Kingdom, which had de∣stroyed and sw•••• owed the former three: I mean the second swallowed or possessed the first, the third the second, the fourth the third; and so in a sense, by the destructi∣on of the fourth, the Stone destroyeth all the rest as contained therein: For the Stone smites neither the Golden part, nor the Silver, nor the Brass immediately, but only the feet of Iron and Clay; and yet by that blow was the Brass, the Silver and the Gold de∣stroyed also, inasmuch as they all came by succession to the Iron. I added besides in my last, that the dissipation of the Gold, Silver and Brass, together with the Iron, might be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 typi (not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as you change it,) because the parts of the

Image in the Type could not succeed one another in time as the Kingdoms signified by them did; and so the Image appeared to be dissipated all at once in Vision, though the Kingdoms were not so, save only in the sense before named.

I added one thing more, which came then to mind when I saw you urge so hard upon all the four Kings; That Kings might be taken Elliptically also, as well as days, (though that of days be undefinite rather) viz. In the days of those Kingdoms, that is, some one of them. I gave for an example of such an Ellipsis that of Iephtah, Iudg. 12. 7. And Iephtah was buried in the Cities of Gilead, that is one of them. Here you ••ol∣licite the interpretation as not right, you would have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Cities of Gilead to be, By the inhabita••ts of the Cities of Gilead: But besides that you cannot shew any where in Scripture 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••ou••ed, the verses following would check such an interpreta∣tion, where three more Iudges are named, with the time of their rule and places of their burial, as Iephtah was; which is sufficient, I think, to perswade that Iephtah's place of burial was named likewise, and not meant the persons who buried him. But why should you labour to win this one place from me, who quoted it not as if there were no more, but as that which was most present to my memory? For the thing it self, it is a ruled case amongst the Grammarians, that you may not think I devised it for an Evasion. I have observed many Examples thereof, which I know not now where to find; only there comes one to mind like that of Iephtah, 2 Chron. 35. 24. where it is said, that Iosiah was buried 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Sepulchres of his fathers, which we translate [one of the Sepulchres.] But in the mean time, till your own ob∣servation shall furnish you with more Examples, I will exscribe such as my Grammari∣an affords me.* 1.38 Psal. 1. 3. Erit sicut arbor plantata 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad rivos aqu ••rum, h. e. juxta Aben Ezram, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad aliquem rivorum aquae. Ion. 1. 5. Et Ionas descendit ad latera Navis, h. e. ad unum è lateribus. Zach. 9. 9. Et super pullum natum asinarum, h. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pullo ex una asinarum. Yea and with a nume∣ral word, 1 Sam. 18. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 per duas affinitate conjunges te me∣cum hodie, h. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 per alteram è duabus. Et sic Targum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hujus generis sunt, Latrones exprobraverunt ei, Matth. 27. 44. i. alteruter è latronibus, ut exponitu••, Luc. 23. 39. Item scriptum est in Prophetis, Ioan. 6. 45. h. e. in aliquo Prophetarum. I suppose these will be sufficient to induce you to let Iephtah's bones rest in one of the Cities of Gilead.

Thus much of my Interpretation, now of yours. You would have, In the days of those Kingdoms, to be expounded, After the days of them; and because I answered it not, but only rejected it in my last, you suppose the authority you brought therefore was sound and good. I now answer therefore, and say first, That besides that it is con∣trary to the native property of the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so to be interpreted, (it being decur∣tate of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 inter) so the Examples you bring are far enough from proving it. Let us examine them. The first is, Exod. 2. 11. And it came to pass 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in those days when Moses was grown, &c. I say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [Days] here are the days of the AEgyp∣tian bondage and servitude. What shall we do with [After] here? The next is in the same Chap. verse 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, when those days of AEgyptian ser∣vitude had now continued long, and were not yet ended, &c. You see here is no need of any After, and you cannot deny but it may be thus expounded. If it may, I will never make an Anomaly of signification, where the natural and usual will serve turn. Secondly, Could it be shewed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes signified [After,] yet in this place the nature of the thing spoken of will not admit that signification. The Stone hewen out of the mountain is interpreted by Daniel to be a Kingdom which should be∣gin in time, that is, the Kingdom of Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not that he hath a•• coeternal with his Father, which hath no beginning. This Kingdom of Christ should smite the Fourth Kingdom, and at length destroy it; therefore this Kingdom must needs be whilst the Fourth Monarchy was yet in being, and not begin after it: For how can that which comes after smite that which before had ceased to be? or how can that which was not till after, destroy that which was destroyed before it self was? There∣fore the nature of the Subject will not admit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be here taken for [After,] but re∣quires it should be maintained in its proper and natural signification.

4. That I may therefore gather all this Controversie into a short summe, I find your Tenet to stand charged with three not tolerable Inconveniences of interpretation. The one in the first Vision, where you interpret, In the days of those Kingdoms, to be After the days of them: where the matter spoken of will no ways bear it, though the Preposition would. The second in the second Vision, where you will be forced to in∣terpret, until the time came the Saints possessed the Kingdom, until some 200 years be∣fore

that time. A third is, That you are forced, for making good your Exposition of the Kingdoms, to deprive the Church of those principal passages of Scripture where∣on she hath always grounded her faith of the Second coming of Christ. If I found mine charged with any one such, I should begin to misdoubt the truth thereof. I might add a fourth, That besides all these, you forsake that Exposition and Application of these Kingdoms which the Church hath universally followed from her infancy. And who can easily be perswaded that the Doctors of the Church immediately following the Apostles, and while some of the Apostles disciples were yet living, should be ignorant of the meaning of so main a Prophecy, whereupon depended the demonstration of the verity of Christ's coming; and that too whilst those disputes were still hot between the Iews and Christians? The Fathers are to be considered here not in respect of grea∣ter learning or infallibility of Spirit than ours, but as* 1.39 Testes & Custodes doctrinae pri∣mitus acceptae; because it cannot be presumed they could be ignorant of it, being so near, or would change it, being so pious and good.

Now the inducements which should perswade an Opinion burthened with such in∣conveniences had need be very powerful. But when I examine every thing, I find the main and only pillar which you suppose will bear up your building against all as∣saults whatsoever, to be but a weak one, namely, That nothing was revealed to Daniel which was contained in S. Iohn's sealed Book; because none could open that Book but Christ, and he opened it not till his Revelation shewed to Iohn. That there is a flaw in this illation is apparent, because there are two main and principal matters of the argu∣ment of that Book which cannot be denied to have been revealed before, namely of Antichrist•• persecution, and of the Second coming of Christ to judgment: the first where∣of was revealed to S. Paul (though out of another Book;) the other is plentifully re∣vealed throughout the New Testament, before S. Iohn saw his Visions. I answered therefore before, and answer still, That the Subject matter of the Apocalyptical Book is not that which was never in no sort revealed before, but never in that order, form and particularity of Fates, Acts and Circumstances, wherein it was revealed then. The subject of that Prophetical history is the Roman Empire, together with the Church or Kingdom of Christ contained therein: the one is equally the subject thereof as well as the other. Now it is not denied but the Church or Kingdom of Christ was revealed before, both for the Being, Quality, Fate, and Pre∣vailing, not to the Apostles only, but to Daniel also: why not then the Roman Em∣pire? In the same sense wherein that which concerned the one was revealed before, or remained sealed till now, in that sense was that revealed or sealed till now which concerned the other. Here you brought a Catalogue of divers particulars concern∣ing the Fourth Monarchy revealed to Daniel; but to what purpose I cannot devise, unless you could prove there were no other particulars of Succession, Fates and Acts, which were still to remain sealed until the Lamb should reveal them to S. Iohn. For I affirmed not, that no particulars of the Roman Kingdom were revealed to Daniel; but that not those which were now first revealed to S. Iohn: As, namely, none of the Acts and Fates of this Fourth Kingdom were particularized to Daniel; but those of the latter end of it only, when the Horn was to rule the rest, which concerned the former part of his time, were represented to him only in general & in imagine confusa; the more ample and large decyphering thereof being deferred till Christ himself should come and unfold all unto S. Iohn, when also Daniel's most particular part was yet to be revealed much more particularly in the Metropolis, quality of Blasphemy, degrees and manner of destruction. That which I have said of the Roman Empire, partly revealed and partly sealed, must be accommodated also to the history of the Church or King∣dom of Christ, the other part of the subject of this Apocalyptical Book; which though it were in some degree revealed before, yet never in such order and specification of Fates and Circumstances as now. The consideration of the one will easily clear the scruple you make concerning the other. And for conclusion, you must remember that I yield you all this time your sense of the sealing and unsealing the Apocalyptical Book, which you know some interpret to a far other purpose.

I have a little time, and paper enough left: I will look over your Papers, and answer such particulars more as I think need answering.

• 1. I know not what it is you contend for about the Two States of Christ's Kingdom. If you grant the Kingdom of Christ at his Second coming shall be of a different state from that of his First, you grant as much as serves my turn; and the Kingdom is nei∣ther more nor less eternal, because some State thereof is not eternal. An infant when it comes to be adultus is the same numero still; but the stature is not the same, but di∣verse.
• ...

• 2. You affirm the duration of the Fourth Kingdom holds proportion with the legs, because the three former do with their parts. If they do, tell me how your Third Kingdom of Alexander and his progeny, which lasted but 18 years, holds proportion with the belly of the Image: I think it will be but a girt belly. The Persian Monar∣chy, represented by breast and arms, lasted about 200 years, that is, ten or eleven times as long as your Third Kingdom did. If this proportion holds in this Image, the breast and arms must be ten or eleven times as long as the belly. And if you read belly and thighs, the proportion will be a great deal worse: For I suppose you make your Fourth Kingdom 280 years long: the same proportion therefore which 280 hath to 18, your legs must have to the belly and thighs, that is, quindecupla.
• 3. Whatsoever time of Messiah's appearing Almighty God pointed out by Daniel's 70 weeks, yet I believe not that any Iew before the Event could infallibly design the time without some latitude; because they could not know infallibly where to pitch the head of their account, until the Event discovered it: yet in some latitude they might. I think we have as good skill in that computation as the Iews could have, and yet you see we yet vary about it after so many hundred years. And if your self in this diffe∣rence follow Mr. Broughton's way, you may as soon perswade me there is no Sun in heaven, as make me believe it. And though it mattereth not much what I think or think not, yet in this I dare say that all the Learned men of note in Christendom are of my mind. And for my part, I cannot but think it a prodigium that any man should think otherwise, and I suppose your self are so far of my judgment.
• 4. If you make the Fourth Beast hornless before his destruction, you will make Da∣niel both at odds with himself and the Angel his interpreter. If the Horn continue un∣til the Ancient of days comes to give Iudgment to the Saints of the most High, and until the time came that the Saints possessed the Kingdom, verse 22. or if he continue until the Iudgment sit, and they take away his dominion, and the Kingdom be given to the people of the Saints of the most High, verse 26, 27. how was he Hornless when the Ancient of days sat in Iudgment to destroy him, and give his body to the burning flame? This I should have taken notice of in another place, but I then forgat it; yet I said there that which was sufficient to overthrow it. I would not have such an Evasion in my Opi∣nion.
• 5. Though all the Four Kingdoms have respect to the Iews, as those who were all that time to be in bondage under them: yet it doth not follow that the beginning of each Kingdom should be counted from the time they were first possessed of Palaestine, but from the time the Caput regni should be given unto the people which were next to succeed. Nor is that Observation solid, That those Kingdoms were called Beasts, for the beastly usage of God's people: the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies naturally Ani∣mal. And you will not, I know, say so of the quatuor Animalia, in the* 1.40 Apocalyps, though we translate them also four Beasts. The congregation of Israel, as we translate it, Ps. 68. 10. is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Coetus & Caterva, that notion may be applied to Kingdoms and States also: So the type is so much the more concise, by reason of the ambiguity of the word in those languages. But whether it be this or that, I affirm nothing, nor is it much to the purpose either way.

And thus I think I have not left any thing of moment unanswered. I had no other end in all this, but to let you see I have sufficient grounds to be perswaded of my Te∣net, and to be averse from yours. Whether others can be perswaded by them or not, that I know not; nor do I arrogate so much ability to my self, as to perswade others what I am perswaded of my self. There is more goes to perswasion than Reasons or Demonstrations, and that is not in my power. I desire not you should make any Re∣ply, but the contrary; for I am now resolved to answer no more, whatsoever you should send. You know as much of my Opinion, and my grounds for the same, as I would desire of any mans; and I think I perfectly understand yours, and where your chief strength lies. Why should then either of us both spend our time any further to no purpose? Thus desiring the Father of lights to guide us in the way of Truth, and to open our eyes to see where we see not, I rest and remain still

Your very loving Friend, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Colledge, Octob. 21.

EPISTLE XIII.

Dr. Twisse's First Letter to Mr. Mede.

Good Mr. Mede,

AMongst many fruits of my acquaintance with Dr. Meddus, this hath been one of the chiefest, that he hath brought me acquainted with your self, though not de facie, yet de meditationibus, and that in the opening of Mysteries. I was so happy as to light upon two Copies of your Clavis Apocalyptica, thereby to gratifie both my self and my friend: I was beholden to Dr. Meddus for the one, and to Mr. Briggs for the other. Since that I have seen divers Manuscriptpieces of yours, whereof I make precious accompt. Your distin∣ction of Fata Imperii, & Fata Ecclesiae, the one contained in the Seals, the other in * 1.41 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth exceedingly affect me, as a Key of great use for the opening of these Mysteries. Your interpretation of the Seals proceeds, in my judgment, with great evi∣dence of illustration. And in the last place, your Exposition of the Trumpets hath taken me quite off from the Vulgar opinion that formerly hath been so common. For all which I most heartily thank you. And did it become me to profess so much, who am nothing worth, I should be apt to say, you are as dear in my affection as to any friend you have. I beseech you go on to perfect the good work you have begun in the Revelation, and in other mysterious passages; for the clearing whereof I well perceive, by the blessing of God, you have attained to a very singular faculty. I seem to discern a providence of God in causing the opinion of a Thousand years Regnum Sanctorum to be blasted as an Error by the censure passed upon the Chiliasts, to take men off from fixing their thoughts too much on that in those days, when the accomplishment was so far removed; but with purpose to revive it in a more seasonable time, when Antichrist's kingdom should draw near to an end.

Concerning which I have something to propose, in searching after more particular satis∣faction. But I know not whether yet I may be so bold with you; and besides, I fear to di∣vert you from your so weighty and so profitable studies: yet they are such, as withall I have thought with my self of accommodating an Answer. But though my heart serve me not to communicate them to you at this time; yet surely I shall make them known to Doctor Meddus. A friend of mine also hath this day given into my hands certain Disputations upon divers mysterious points in Daniel and the Revelation. In one of them he disputes of this Thousand years Regnum Sanctorum with variety of Reasons pro & con; but incli∣ning rather to the contrary. A very ingenuous man he is, and a great student in Mr. Bright∣man. If I may have liberty to communicate these things unto you, and that it might be without offence to your more weighty studies, I would so use this liberty, as not to nourish my self in idleness, but withal to imploy my self in answering what soever I find therein to the contrary.

At this time give me leave to propose to your consideration, Whether that fear of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 almost of our Protestant profession may not be avoided; and the three days and an half, Rev. 11. not signify a space of time succeeding the continuance of those Witnesses, but intermixed with it. My Reason is this; The two Witnesses signifie all the Witnesses giving testimony to God's truth, not contemporating, but succeeding one another for many generations; against all which the Beast warred, and prevailed against some in one age, some in another. Every ones Testimony seems to be finished in his death. And as long as Antichrist reigneth, God hath his Witnesses in some place or other prophesying in sackcloth. But this I submit to your better judgment. I shall heartily desire God to bless your labours; and at this time, desiring to be commended unto your love, I rest,

Newbury, Nov. 2. 1629.

Yours in all truth of hearty affection, William Twisse.

I would intreat you to take into your consideration one thing more. S. Paul writes, Rom. 11. that the conversion of the Iews shall be by way of provocation from the Gentiles; Whether this provocation doth not imply some great Prosperity wherewith God shall bless his Christian Church; and what in this kind comparable to the ruine of Antichrist, and the consequents thereof?

EPISTLE XIV.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Dr. Twisse's First Letter, concerning the 1000. years Regnum Christi, as also of the Clades Testi∣um, and of the Iews Conversion.

Worthy Sir,

THat any man so learned and judicious as I have heard your self to be should con∣ceive any Meditations of mine worthy not only of approbation, but of so much affection, I must ascribe it (if they be but in any degree such as you make them) to God's goodness towards me, who hath in any sort enabled me to endeavour ought whereby I might not live in the world altogether unprofitably. I know and am con∣scious of mine own weakness and insufficiency in many points of knowledge which others have: yet if this one thing be my Talent, though but a single one, I have suf∣ficient wherefore continually to thank the Almighty, and to beseech him that my husbanding thereof may be, by his gracious instinct, such as may be some occasion of further light to others, in some manner of recompence of what I have and still daily do receive from others.

But whatsoever my Speculations be, this I am sure of, that I am not a little obliged to your self, for your so kind and affectionate entertainment of them, as rests not in them only, but extends even to the person of the Author, otherwise utterly unknown unto you. Wherefore, for my part, if I should not reciprocally answer you, I should shew my self of too unworthy a disposition.

As for my Interpretation of the Seals and Trumpets, where I leave others and take a way of mine own, I do it to maintain an Uniformity of notion in the Prophetical Schemes and Allegories throughout the Scripture; which I am perswaded were once no less familiar and usual to the Nations of the Orient, than our poetical Schemes and Pictures are to us.

And the only way for us to learn the meaning of them is, by finding out that Uni∣formity I speak of, by comparing the several applications of them together, and such other helps as remain unto us. But whether some of the Interpretations usually given of the Seals and Trumpets will abide this Touch-stone, your self, I know, can judge. Such voluntary Interpretations may delight the Fancy, and commend the Wit of their Author; but they will not satisfie him that cannot think any mans Wit a footing firm enough to rest his Faith upon.

FOR the Thousand years Regnum Christi, it was time for it to be silent under Regnum Antichristi; and the Reign of the Martyrs in the first Resurrection to be cried down, when Antichrist was blasphemously to advance them before-hand to a Reign derogatory to the glory of Christ their Lord, to be as compeers with him in the office of his Mediation, and pattakers of the honour and worship which was due to him alone.

I speak not here altogether at random: For after the opinion of the Chiliasts was cried down, (when the sentence of Damasus had once given it the deadly blow) they fell to expound this Reign of the Martyrs, in the twentieth of the Apocalyps, of the Ido∣latrous reign of them, which themselves had then devised, by occasion of those signs and wonders said then to be wrought by the power of the Martyrs upon such as touch∣ed their Reliques and approached their Sepulchres.

Two of the ancientest Commentators extant after the Chiliasts opinion became si∣lent, are Andreas Caesariensis and Aretas, in whom you shall find what I say, even toti∣dem verbis. The words of Andreas are these; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.42 &c. Quin reliquis quoque sanctis Martyribus, qui pro Christo mortem perpessi sunt, ne∣que mysticae Bestiae, qui Diabolus est, characterem, hoc est, imaginem Apostasiae ipsius, susceperunt, judicandipotestas data est, per qu••m Daemones, ut ob oculos videmus, judica∣re non desinunt, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] usque ad praesent is seculi consummationem cum Christo glorificati, à piis rursum Regibus fidelibusque Principibus adora••i [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] & divinâ denique vir∣tute contra omnem corporum morbum frandemque & vim Daemonum conspicuè donati••

Aretas almost in the same words: Ex quo igitur (inquit) neque capti sunt hi (scil. de∣collati isti) neque per impudentiam, neque per opera mala insigniti, meritò cum Christo & vixerunt & regnârunt, idque usque ad consummati••nem. Quemadmodum videmus cliam sub fidelibus Regibus atque Principibus, dum adorantur, contra omnem etiam cor∣poris infirmitatem ac Daemonum energiam ostendunt datam sibi à Deo gratiam. Nam quia (inquit) non adorârunt Bestiam, neque imaginem ejus; idcirco etiam vixerunt, id est, vivorum opera praestiterunt, miraculorum videlicet patrationem.

Yet even S. Augustine and Primasius applied this Prophecy of the Martyrs, (though not to the adoration of them, yet) to that preeminence of honour then given them in the Assemblies of Christians, and their power of working miracles after death. Vid. de Civil. Dei lib. 20. cap. 9. cum cap. 9. lib. 22.

And if with Mr. Brightman and others we begin the Thousand years from Constan∣tine, there is no place of Scripture for a Papist to urge for Saint-worship like unto this, because the time will fit so just; For it began much about that time, though the Pa∣pist had rather have it thought to be ab initio, which Andreas notwithstanding ex∣presly denies: Etenim (saith he) quae nunc per experientiam rcrúmque eventum viden∣tur Sanctorum miracula, meritorúmque praemia, quando Evangelistae Ioanni haec patefie∣bant adhuc fatura erant.

I shall be glad to see your Quaere's and Answers to them: But before I received yours, I had written to Doctor Meddus, that my thoughts would be diver••ed, and my time taken up about some other business between this and Christmas: whereupon he transcribed them not. My brains are so narrow, that I can tend and minde but one thing at once, whatsoever it be; and therefore I must desire my friends to bear with that imperfection, as also with my slowness, even when I go about any thing, especi∣ally to write and digest.

CONCERNING your Quaere of the Clades Testium, I cannot see how it can be referred to any other time than to about the end of their 1260 days mourning-pro∣phecy; because that which immediately follows their reviving, after 3 days and a halflying dead, is not appliable to any other time save that only: as namely, so great an Exaltation as is implied by* 1.43 ascending up to heaven in a cloud; such a great‖ 1.44 Earth∣quake or commotion as should be at the same hour, whereby the Throne of the Beast should be so much shaken; and lastly, the expiring at the same time of the* 1.45 second Woe, or sixth Trumpet. These are not appliable to any time save the times of the Beast••s declining and period, and consequently to the end of the 1260 days of the Witnesses wearing sackcloth; and should fall out when they were now putting off their sackcloth, and when some of them had done it already: For so the word is to be turn∣ed, * 1.46 When they were now about to finish their prophecy or days of sackcloth, &c. Be∣sides, it suits with the method of Divine Providence; God Almighty having ever used to usher in any great Exaltation of his Saints with some desperate Extremity and Calamity immediately foregoing it: Whence is that Theological proverb, Cùm duplicantur late∣res, tunc venit Moses. When was David in a more desperate distress, than when he was instantly to be exalted to the Throne of Iudah, namely, at the burning of Ziklag? what a streight were Moses and the children of Israel brought into a little before Pha∣raoh and his host were to be drowned in the Red sea? The most grievous, extreme and dangerous persecution that ever the Church felt, was then when Christianity was ready to be exalted unto the Throne of the Empire; I mean that of Diocleti∣an.

Moreover, there is a Sin whereof the whole body of the Reformation is notori∣ously guilty; which nevertheless is accountend no Sin, and yet such an one, as I know not whether God ever passed by without some visible and remarkable judgment. This seems to call for a scourge before Antichrist shall go down: And that may be, as far as I know, this feared Clades Testium. I will not name it, because it is invidious, and I am not willing to be drawn to say so much for the probability thereof in this case as perhaps I could.

But to speak somewhat more particularly of this Clades; I know not whether it should immediately precede the pouring out of the fifth Vial, or the fourth. If we were secure of the present dangers and fears, I should incline most to think it should precede the fifth Vial, in respect of that fall of* 1.47 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which instantly ensues the Witnesses reviving. Secondly, The time of three days and a half is the time during which the Witnesses should lie for dead, without appearance of life or motion; not the time wherein they should be dying or killing; for that may be much longer, and grow also by degrees, (as also the natural Body of man sometimes dies so, the feet

first, and so upward.) The three days and a half are not to be reckoned therefore (as seems to me) until all should be dead, and no motion of life any more appear. Thirdly, I conceive not this Clades to be such as should extinguish the persons or whole materials (as I may so speak) of the Reformed Churches, but the publick Fabrick of the Reformation, for joy whereof the Witnesses were about to finish their time of mourning. For that the party of men remaining of that dissolved building of Refor∣mation should be great, (though they lay as dead) may be gathered by the strength they should in so short a time, as after three years and a half, recover, to the no small terror of the Beast which slew them, &c. It would make somewhat perhaps for un∣derstanding the degree of this Clades, if we could certainly tell what were that * 1.48 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherein the Witnesses should lie for dead; and whether those of the * 1.49 nations, tongues and people, which should hinder the putting of them into graves, were friends or foes. They may seem to be friends: for if they had been once buried, there would have been but small hope of so soon a reviving again and standing upon their feet. You know what the Pharisees said, when they would have our Saviour made sure for rising again the third day.

By the way, because you use in your Letter the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I suppose your copy of my Specimina is misdistinguished: For I referred not that word to the Cala∣mity of the Witnesses, but to* 1.50 Gentium, idest, Idololatrarum in Ecclesiae atrio stabulan∣tium: So there should be a comma at 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

FOR your second Quaere, of the Provocation of the Iews by the Gentiles: Methinks that which was to be unto the Iew as a Provocation to Iealousie, is expressed by S. Paul to be that* 1.51 Salvation which was then come unto the Gentiles, and not any other thing yet to come; as also the same Apostle saith, he used to magnifie and inculcate so much his Title of Apostle of the Gentiles to the same end. And if the Prosperity of the Chri∣stian Religion would have done it, by comparing it with their misery; there hath been already sufficient in that respect to have moved them to jealousie ere this.

For my part, I incline to think that no such thing will provoke them; but that they shall be called by* 1.52 Vision and Voice from Heaven, as S. Paul was; and that that place of Zach. chap. 12. verse 10. They shall see him whom they have pierced, and that of Matth. 23. verse 39. Ye shall not see me henceforth, till you say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, seems to imply some such matter. They will never believe that Christ reigns at the right hand of God, until they see him. It must be an invin∣cible evidence which must convert them after so many hundred years settled obsti∣nacy. But this I speak of the body of the Nation; there may be some Praeludia of some particulars converted upon other motives, as a forerunner of the great and man Conversion.

I pray consider seriously that pattern of S. Paul's Conversion, so differing from all other mens that ever were, and how fitly his condition before it resembles that of the Iews in their bitter obstinacy against Christ and Christians. Why did Christ vouch∣safe so strange a call to that man above other men? was it not a pledge or pattern of something that should be vouchsafed his Nation? I know not whether S. Paul's mean∣ing, but I am sure his words, 1 Tim. 1. verse 16. may be applied to what I mean. But all this I write tumultuously and in some other distractions, and therefore I would not have you heed it further than to consider of it at your more quiet meditations. Nihil affirmo, sed propono.

I had thought, when I began, to propound something to your further meditations out of the seventh of Daniel: But you see I am grown past a Letter, and can scarce any longer make my Characters legible; and therefore here, with my best respect to your self, I end, desiring God to enlighten us daily more and more in the knowledge of his Truth: and so I remain

Yours to be commanded in all the duties of Friendship, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Colledge, Nov. 11. 1629.

EPISTLE XV.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Dr. Meddus, touching the Day of Iudgment.

Worthy Sir,

I Have now found some little time to make some kind of Answer to your Letter of the last week save one. You desire me to point out the particulars wherein I dif∣fer from that Lutheran: But this I cannot do without making a censure of the whole Discourse, which would ask me some labour, and besides I have not now the Book by me. But by the way, the Stationer which told me he had six of them, was deceived: Indeed he had six Books, which he thought to be the same, but, four of them were Discourses of Law, by some error sorted together with them.

You secondly desire me to point out the places of the Old and New Testament ap∣pliable to my Tenet of the Day of Iudgment: Where I understand not well whether you mean of the Regnum to be then, or of the acception of the word [Day] for a long space of time, even of a thousand years. But I suppose you mean the former, to which therefore I will say something, the rather because I know you will communicate it to Doctor Twisse, to whom I had intended some such thing in my Letter I sent by you to him: but time would not suffer me to write it then, having spent both it and my paper in other discourses before I was aware. That which I have to say is this.

The Description of the Great Day of Iudgment, Dan. 7.

THE Mother-Text of Scripture whence the Church of the Iews grounded the name and expectation of the Great Day of Iudgment, with the circumstances thereto belonging, and whereunto almost all the descriptions and expressions thereof in the New Testament have reference, is that Vision in the seventh of Daniel, of a Session of Iudgment when the Fourth Beast came to be destroyed: Where this great Assises is represented after the manner of the great Synedrion or Consistory of Israel; wherein the Pater Iudicii had his Assessores, sitting upon Seats placed Semicircle-wise before him, from his right hand to his left. I beheld (saith Daniel, verse 9.) till the * 1.53 Thrones or Seats were pitched down, (namely, for the Senators to sit upon; not thrown down, as we of late have it:) and the Ancient of days (Pater consistorii) did sit. &c. And, subaudi I beheld, till the Iudgment was set, (that is, the whole Sanhe∣drim) and the books were opened, &c.

Here we see both the form of Iudgment delineated, and the name of Iudgment ex∣pressed; which is afterwards yet twice more repeated: First, in the amplification of the tyranny of the wicked Horn, verse 21, 22. which is said continued till the Ancient of days came, and IVDGMENT was given to the Saints of the most High; i. Pote∣stas judicandi ipsis facta. And the third time in the Angel's interpretation, verse 26. But the IVDGMENT shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion to consume and destroy it to the end. Where observe also that cases of Dominion, of Blasphemy and Apo∣stasie, and the like, belonged to the jurisdiction of the great Sanhedrim.

From this description it came that the Iews gave it the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Day of Iudgment and the Day of the Great Iudgment; whence in the Epistle of S. Iude, verse 6. it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Iudgment of the Great Day.

From the same description they learned that the destruction then to be should be by fire, because it is said verse 9. His throne was a fiery flame, and his wheels burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth before him: and verse 11. The Beast was slain, and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame.

From the same fountain are derived those expressions in the Gospel, where this Day is intimated or described; The Son of man shall come in the clouds of heaven. The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his holy Angels: Forasmuch as it is said here, * 1.54 Thousand thousands ministred unto him, &c. and that Daniel saw‖ 1.55 One like the Son of man coming with the clouds of Heaven, and he came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him, (or placed him) near him, &c.

Hence S. Paul learned that the Saints should judge the world,* 1.56 because it is said, that many Thrones were set, and verse 22. by way of Exposition, that Iudgment was given to the Saints of the most High.

Hence the same Apostle learned to confute the false fear of the Thessalonians,* 1.57 that the day of Christs second coming was then at hand; Because that day could not be till the Man of Sin were first come, and should have reigned his time appointed: Forasmuch as Daniel had foretold it should be so, and that his destruction should be at the Son of mans appearing in the clouds; whose appearing therefore was not to be till then. This is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in S. Paul; whom the Lord (saith he) shall destroy at the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of his coming. Daniel's wicked Horn, or Beast acting in the wicked Horn, is S. Paul's Man of Sin, as the Church from her Infanc••e inter∣preted it.

But to go on: While this Iudgment sits, and when it had destroyed the Fourth Beast, the Son of man which comes in the clouds receives dominion, and glory, and a Kingdom, that all people, nations and languages should serve and obey him, verse 14. which Kingdom is thrice explained afterwards to be the Kingdom of the Saints of the most High, verse 18. These four Beasts (saith the Angel) are four Kingdoms which shall arise. But (viz. when they have finished their course) the Saints of the most High shall take the Kingdom, &c. Again, verse 22. The wicked Horn prevailed, until the time came that the Saints possessed the Kingdom. Again, verse 27. When the fourth Beast, reigning in the wicked Horn, was destroyed, the Kingdom and dominion, and the great∣ness of the Kingdom under the whole heaven, is given to the people of the Saints of the most High, &c.

These Grounds being laid, I argue as followeth:

The Kingdom of the Son of man and of the Saints of the most High in Daniel begins when the Great Iudgment sits.

The Kingdom in the Apocalyps, wherein the Saints reign with Christ a thousand years, is the same with the Kingdom of the Son of man and Saints of the most High in Daniel. Ergo, It also begins at the Great Iudgment.

That the Kingdom in Daniel and that of a 1000 years in the Apocalyps are one and the same Kingdom, appears thus:

First, Because they begin ab eodem termino, namely, at the destruction of the Fourth Beast: That in Daniel, when the Beast (then ruling in the wicked Horn) was slain, and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame, Dan. 7. vers. 11, 22, 27. That in the Apocalyps, when the Beast and the false Prophet (the wicked Horn in Daniel) were taken, and both cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone, Apoc. 19. ver. 20, 21, &c.

Secondly, Because S. Iohn begins the Regnum of a thousand years from the same Session of Iudgement described in Daniel; as appears by his parallel expression bor∣rowed from thence.

Daniel sayes, Chap. 7.

S. Iohn says, Chap. 20.

V. 9. I beheld till the Thrones were pitched down—and the Iudgment (i. Iudges) sat.

V. 4. I saw Thrones, and they sat upon them.

22. And Iudgment was given to the Saints of the most High.

And Iudgment was given unto them.

And the Saints possessed the Kingdom; viz, with the Son of Man who came in the clouds.

And the Saints lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Now if this be sufficiently proved, That the thousand years begin with the Day of Iudgment; it will appear further out of the Apocalyps, that the Iudgment is not con∣summate till they be ended: For Gog and Magog's destruction and the universal Resurrection is not till then: Therefore the whole thousand years is included in the Day of Iudgment.

Consectarium de Interpretatione aliorum Scripturae locorum huc pertinentium.

Hence it will follow, That whatsoever Scripture speaks of a Kingdom of Christ to be at his second appearing or at the destruction of Antichrist, it must needs be the same which Daniel saw should be at that time, and so consequently be the Kingdom of a thousand years which the Apocalyps includes between the beginning and consum∣mation of the Great Iudgment.

Ergo, That in Luke 17. from verse 20. to the end.

And that in Luke 19. from the 11. verse to the 15. inclusively.

And that in Luke 21. verse 31. When ye see these things come to pass, know that the Kingdom of God is at hand. See what went before, viz. The Son of man's coming in a cloud with power and great glory; borrowed from Daniel.

And that in 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Iesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.

By these we may understand the rest; taking this for a sure ground, That this ex∣pression of [The Son of man's coming in the clouds of heaven] so often inculcated in the New Testament, is taken from and hath reference to the Prophecie of Daniel, being no where else found in the Old Testament. As our Saviour also calls himself so frequently [The Son of man,] because Daniel so called him in that Vision of the Great Iudgment, and that we might look for the accomplishment of what is there pro∣phesied of in him. It was not in vain, that when our Saviour quoted the Prophecie of Daniel, he added, He that readeth him, let him understand. Certainly the great mystery of Christ is chiefly and most distinctly revealed in that Book; which God the Father of lights so enable us with his Spirit, that we may understand to his glory and our own comfort. Amen.

I pray compare this with the Paper I sent you of the Four Monarchies, which I called* 1.58 The A. B. C. of Prophecie; and with the latter end of my Specimina de mille annis; and with my Interpretation of Praeconium Tubae VII. You shall find the grounds of all this in them.

I have no copy of this I now send: I would desire you when you are weary with reading it, to send me it again, that I may get it transcribed, to save me a labour ano∣ther time, when some other friend shall make a Quaere to like purpose. I find ever and anon inconvenience for want of such a provision. I will send you it again pre∣sently. Before Christmass will be time enough. I desire to be remembred to Master Doctor Twisse; to whose Letter I shall make some Answer when I get some leisure; now I have none.

Yours, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Colledge, Novemb. 25. 1629.

EPISTLE XVI.

Dr. Twisse his Second Letter to Mr. Mede.

Worthy Sir,

I Pray forgive me this once in interrupting your more momentous meditations, Thank∣fulness urgeth me to express that your Letter is a Iewel unto me; making me partaker of such fruits, and giving me interest in such affections. I profess you have strange conceits, I mean for the worthiness of them; they possess me with admiration: especially that touch∣ing the manner of the Iews Conversion. Those passages of Scripture, and the reference of them which you make, I do consider with Reverence; and the particular relation S. Paul makes of himself, as first tasting of that Grace, in reference to the like which were to succeed: had he made mention of the miraculous operation in his Conversion, as he doth of God's Long-suffering and Patience, the Congruity had been absolute. Yet I seem to discern something whereby that may be argued also to be implied, for otherwise in likelihood he was not the first.

Yet to object, (for your Ingenuity I perceive gives me leave,) S. Paul was a particu∣lar person, and then travelling on the way: The Conversion we speak of is of a Nation, and that wonderfully dispersed in the world; the like manner of Christ's appearing unto whom for their Conversion is hard to conceive. And besides, I seem to conceive evi∣dence from 2 Cor. 3. 15, 16. that their Conversion shall be wrought from amongst them∣selves by reading Moses and the Prophets: for it is the veil laid before their Hearts which hinders them from discerning the end of the Law, which is Christ; which veil shall be taken away, and being taken away they shall be turned unto Christ. Yet I confess the Text saith not, when the veil is taken away, they shall be turned to the Lord; but ra∣ther, when they shall be turned to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Yet again so it is said, Luk. 7. 47. that many sins were forgiven her, for she loved much; yet by the scope of the Parable there proposed, the formal truth appears to be this, She loved much, for many

sins were forgiven her. So here it may be argued, that the taking away of their veil is the cause of their turning to the Lord: for the position of the veil is that which hinders them from discerning him; therefore the removing of the veil is the making may for the discerning of him by that in Moses. Yet I seem to see how this may be answered; The veil hinders from discerning him in the Law of Moses: but if God be pleased to manifest his Son by sight, the veil can no way hinder that. And why may not the like miraculous fa∣vour be shewed to them as well as to S. Paul; their obstinacy being greater, and sealed with greater blasphemies than his was? May it not be said that therefore this Apparition was made to S. Paul, that he might have Apostolical authority independent on men, as well as the rest of the Apostles? And cannot the spirit of illumination clear all, and that from Moses, as well as it did in the heart of the Gentiles, who had not so much as Moses to direct them?

As for Provocation; how can Salvation on the Gentiles part be it unto the Iews, seeing the Iews (such is their blindness) cannot acknowledge any such condition of the Gentiles? Yet I confess the judgment of flesh and bloud may teach them, that the Gentiles becoming Christians are turned to the worship of the God of Abraham, as appears by their embracing of the Old Testament as the Word of God: yet this hitherunto hath no∣thing moved them; yet a time may come it may, and the Prosperity of our Church also. And it is said, that they shall obtain mercy by the mercy shewed unto us, Rom. 11. 31.

As for the black time to be expected; if so, it seems to be wondrous great, if not greater than all that went before. For the time hath been, the strong man hath so far possessed the House of God in peace, that scarce here and there a Witness hath been found openly to con∣test against him in this or that particular: And the days of the persecution of the Wal∣den••es were wonderfull heavy times: And we have seen many black days for many years. And if it be so, as I doubt it is too probable, and most congruous to God's course indeed in the exaltation of his Church, I doubt it will concern our England most: yet God grant we may be of the number of those that suffer, that within three days and a half we may be raised and reign with Christ at his coming.

But will you not make us acquainted with that Sin you intimate that cries for vengeance? we are loth to adventure our conjectures, but we dare promise to joyn in mourning for it. But I heartily thank you for all, and particularly for that Speculation of the untimely ad∣vancing of the Martyrs to a Reign derogatory to the Mediation of our Lord; a bitter fruit of too irregular animosity against the Chiliasts, and of very ponderous consideration in this case. I have done, with some sorrow for putting out of your mind better thoughts: I assure you the place you are pleased to afford me in your good affections I esteem as a part of the best happiness I enjoy in friends, and heartily wish I may not be unworthy of it. I heartily commend your self and your precious studies to the Blessing of God, and rest,

Yours in all true Affection, Will. Twisse.

Newbury, Nov. 16. 1629.

EPISTLE XVII.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Doctor Twisse his Second Letter, concern∣ing the two Wars of the Beast against the Witnesses, as also of the manner of the Iews Conversion.

SIR,

I Owe an answer to your Letter, though I can scarce find time to attend it. Some I have now gotten, and therefore desire you to vouchsafe to read and accept these few lines.

The Apocalyps mentions two Wars of the Beast: one to be in medio Testium luctu, during the time of the Witnesses mourning-prophecy; another when the Witnesses began to make an end of mourning. The first, while the Court of the Temple was wholly troden down and prophaned by the Gentiles: the latter, when it began to be purged, and so the cause of the Witnesses mourning to be removed. In these two Wars we may observe in the description these differences. First, The interme∣dium

bellum is said to be against the whole Body of the Saints, Chap. 13. ver. 7. And it was given unto him to make war with the Saints, and overcome them: But the Bellum novissimum or last War is against the Prophets or Witnesses only: The Beast which as∣cends out of the bottomless pit shall make war with the Witnesses, and overcome and kill them, Chap. 11. v. 7. This difference is remarkable and to be considered for the better understanding of this last War, and how it differs from that formerly against the Waldenses, &c. Secondly, In the former his prevailing and success is absolute, so that all kindreds, tongues and nations submit unto him, and worship him, Ch. 13. v. 7, 8. But in the latter some of the people* 1.59 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c] and of the kindreds and tongues and nations shall be an obstacle to the perfecting and securing his victory, as not suffering him when he shall have slain the Witnesses to bury them and make them sure, in hope to recover them. Thirdly, The first prevailed many ages; this latter but three days and an half. Adde, if you well, (though it be included in the for∣mer) the first advanced his Dominion to that height it came to; this latter shall oc∣casion his utter ruine and downfal.

These differences I thought good to propound to your consideration, to intimate that the seantling of this last War cannot be well taken from that against the Wal∣denses and Albegenses, &c. as being to be of another kind; namely, an exterminati∣on of the Reformed Pastors out of their places and Churches, and not a general ex∣termination of the Body of the Reformed people, which are too many to be dealt with according to former violence, and shall remain to terrifie the Beast, and revenge the Clades of their Prophets before almost they shall have done rejoycing over them.

FOR my conceit of the manner of the Iews Conversion; though it often solicits me to give credence to it, as best becoming the greatest work that ever God yet did for that people, for whom in former times he shewed so many wonders: yet I will ingeniously confess, the grounds I have hitherto found seem not to my self sufficient to build a firm assent upon; but only by a kind of concinnity induce to a pleasing, but a wavering, conjecture. And therefore it were to little purpose to contend much for that wherein my self have no sufficient confidence. I use to object to my self, That the appearing of Christ in heaven belongs to the time of his Second coming: But the Iews must be converted before then, lest they all should perish amongst the enemies of his Kingdom, whereof they would be the principal. I salve it with a supposition of some latitude in that appearance, as being first to be ushered with some preparation or praeludium towards the Iewish Nation, before his great and universal Appearing to the whole world to judgement. So Cestius Gallus, the President of Syria, compassed Ierusalem with an Army, by way of anticipation, three years before the final and fatal siege by Vespasian, to be for a warning to the believing Iews, to flee into the mountains of Arabia, according to our Saviour's sign given them, Luk, 21. ver. 20.

For strengthening of such a supposition, methinks I discern in S. Malthew, (the He∣brew Evangelist) Chap. 24. v. 30. two such Appearances intimated: The one in the words, Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and all the Tribes of the earth shall mourn, (out of Zach. 12. v. 10, 11, 12.) The other in the words following, And they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, (out of Dan. 7.) But here I find a rub, which I cannot yet get over: For this appearing of the sign of the Son of man in heaven, as well as his coming in the clouds with great glory, is said to be* 1.60 immediately after the tribulation of those days; that is, (as I am wont to expound it) soon after the long tribulation of the Iewish Nation shall be ended: But their tribulation shall not end till they be converted: Ergo their Conversion must needs precede the sign of the Son of man in heaven there mentioned. Here I stick.

But your Objections I think I could answer thus. As first, to that of the Iews Conversion to be wrought by the taking away the veil from their hearts, 2 Cor. 3. I could answer, That that is the Internal cause of their Conversion, or, if you will, the act of the Spirit of God illuminating and converting them; as he that takes away the film from the eyes of him that sees not, or the hood from him that is hood∣winkt, does by that act make him see: But I speak of the External cause or means of the Iews Conversion, such as in the ordinary administration of God is the preaching of the Word; but extraordinarily may be by Miracle, as was in the Conversion of Paul, who nevertheless had the Mosaical veil taken from his heart, as well as the rest of his Nation when they are converted shall have.

But by the way, because you mention that place Luk. 7. 47. give me leave to add, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in Scripture not only* 1.61 Quia or quoniam, but also the redditive

thereto, which is* 1.62 Ideo, propterea; because namely the Hebrew particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers, signifies both: as appears Psal. 116. v. 10. compared with 2 Cor. 4. 13. ubi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Hebraeo à Paulo exponitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Gen. 22. 17. item Eccles. 8. 6. See our English. In both which places 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is both the causal Quoniam, and the redditive thereto Ideo. Now the Scripture is wont to extend the Greek words it useth unto the full notion of the Hebrew or Chaldee to which they answer, (as may be proved by many Ex∣amples) though in the Greeks use they signified not so. This Dialect is called Lin∣gua Hellenistica, (spoken by the Hellenists or Greekish Iews which lived dispersed under the Greek Empire) whose property is to accommodate verba Graeca notioni Orientis: But no such ground can be shewn (I think) for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quando, to signifie the redditive tunc.

To your other Objection, How such a Vision could be manifested to the Iews dis∣persed in several parts of the world; I could answer, That a Vision or Apparition in Heaven may be seen to the greatest part of the world at the same time (as Stars and Comets are:) how else shall the Appearing of our Saviour in the clouds of Hea∣ven,* 1.63 at his coming to Iudgment, be seen at once to so many Nations of the world?

But here is one thing more considerable from the miraculous Conversion of S. Paul, upon supposal that that of the Iews may be like it; viz. That though many were present with S. Paul at that time, yet none saw the apparition of Christ, nor heard him speak, but Paul alone, for whose sake he appeared. The rest saw indeed a strange light, and heard the voice of Paul replying and answering, but they heard not the voice, nor saw any that spake unto him; which there∣fore made them astonished. Compare Acts 9. 7. (where it is said, They heard Paul's voice) with Acts 22. 9. (where it is said, They heard not the voice of him that spake unto him.) And take heed here of some of our English Bibles, which have put in a [not] where it should not be, as they have done the like in other places. Fie upon such careless Printers. But to the matter; What if the like be at the Iews Con∣version, to wit, that they alone shall see and hear the voice of Christ, but none of the Gentiles amongst whom they dwell, though perhaps some strange light for a testi∣mony may at that instant surprise the whole world, to the astonishment of the Nati∣ons therein? Consider that of Matt. 24. 27. and the places of the other Evange∣lists answering thereto.

And what if the Iews upon such an apparition may have, as S. Paul had, an Ananias too, or (as they expect) an Elias, to instruct them? So you know the ancient Chri∣stian Church believed, from Mal. 4. 5. Mat. 17. 11. Ecclus. 48. 10. For though the Fathers as well as the Iews might erre concerning the person and circumstances of this Elias, yet it follows not presently but the substance of the opinion might be true. But I will not discover all my roving Speculations, unless I had better ground for them; lest perhaps I should make you more than wonder at me. Howsoever it be, I suppose it is no sin to conceive magnificè and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of so great a work of God towards a people for whom he hath formerly shewed so many wonders; especially this being to be the greatest work of mercy and wonder that ever he did for them; far be∣yond the bringing them forth of AEgypt and leading them in the wilderness, &c. Consider it.

Besides, it may be there is a precedent already extant: Sure I am, when I had entertained this conceit into my meditation, I was led by I know not what providence (as I was searching some other matter) to find an History of the greatest multitude of Iews that ever, I think, were converted since the Apostles times, to have been convinced by such a miraculous apparition in every respect as I had apprehended.

The Story (if it be true) happened about some 570 years after Christ,* 1.64 in the daies of Iustinus the Greek Emperor, (though Bigneus puts it a hundred years be∣fore) in the kingdom of the Omerites (some write Homerites) in Arabia Felix: where the Iews in those parts (being a strong party) had challenged to a publick Disputation a Christian City and Kingdom in that Tract, upon condition that if they could not convince the Christians by strength of Reason and Scripture, they would become Christians; if they could, they required the Christians should turn Iews.

The Disputation was performed for three days together sub dio, in a full assembly of the King, his Peers and people, between Gregentius Bishop of Tephra, and Her∣banus champion for the Iews who were there assembled with him. The third day Herbanus required to end the controversie, that if Iesus of Nazareth were indeed liv∣ing and reigning in Heaven, and if those who worshipped him had any power with him, that he would upon their prayers manifest himself from Heaven, and they would

then believe in him. Thereupon all the multitude of Iews cried out in derision, Ostende nobis Christum tuum. Vae! quia fiemus Christiani, &c.

The conclusion was, that Christ Iesus, after a dreadful Thunder and Lightning, appeared from Heaven with beams of glory, walking upon a purple cloud, with a Sword in his hand, and a Diadem of inestimable beauty upon his head, and over the Assembly uttered a voice, Appareo vobis in oculis vestris ego crucifixus à Patribus ve∣stris. Which having spoken, the cloud took him presently out of their sight. The Christians shouted, Domine, miserere; the Iews were all stricken blind, and received not their sight till they were all baptized.

This Story (whereof I tell you but the brief) hath been long unknown to these Western parts, and was brought in our time from the Eastern among divers other Greek Manuscripts, and published in Greek and Latin by Nicolaus Gulonius in octavo, under the name of Gregentii Archiepiscopi Tephrensis Disputatio cum Herbano Iudaeo. The beginning is imperfect: In the end is the Story I have related. I have seen and used that Book, but could not be owner of it. But the Latin translation is inserted into the Bibliotheca Patrum of the edition of Colen, in the fifth Tome, pag. 919. which if you read, I could wish you would joyn with it the Story of the Martyrium Omeritarum published by Baronius out of a Vatican Manuscript, in his sixth Seculum about the middle. It is worthy your reading, and supposed to have happened a little before this Conversion of the Iews I speak of: which Baronius nevertheless then knew not of, as being published after he had written that Tome. The Persecu∣tion was raised by Dunaan a Iew, who had gotten the Kingdom of the Omerites, and meant to extinguish the Christian City and Dition of Nargan, which was subject, as many other small Reguli were, to that Kingdom, &c.

If this Story be true, it makes much for a probability of such a conjecture for the future. If it be counterfeit, at least it argues that some, many ages ago, thought such a mean not unlikely: For Poets themselves are wont to feign Verisimilia. So howsoever, I am not the first that thought of such a matter.

That which you say of S. Paul's miraculous Conversion, that by it he had Aposto∣lical authority immediate and independent, as having his Mission from Heaven, and not from Men; I acknowledge it. But that this should be the only end of his so be∣ing converted, I suppose it is not necessary. For it might have pleased God to have converted him by an ordinary mean, and yet have given him a Mission for his Apostle∣ship by an immediate and extraordinary way. The immediateness of Apostolical Mission depended not upon such a miraculous Conversion, though it pleased God at one and the same time, by one and the same miraculous manifestation, both to con∣vert him to the Faith of Christ, and send him to be an Apostle to the Gentiles.

But it is now time to give over. I have been tedious and troublesome, I know, and perhaps not well busied in spending so many words and paper about a wavering and uncertain Speculation. But because in my first Letter I had unawares discovered my fancy, I was somewhat solicitous till I had more fully explained my self, lest I might seem to believe much upon very little reason, or be supposed to be more confident in this conceit than I am. But he that seeks for that which is yet to find, must be poring as well where it is not as where it is. God Almighty, the Father of Lights, direct us in the search of his Truth, and give us grace, when we find it, to use it to his Glory and our own Salvation. To whose protection I commend your self, not forgetting my best respect, who am

Your assured Friend, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Colledge, Decemb. 2. 1629.

I shall bid you farewel for this year, and write shorter Letters the next, that so I may hold out. I have made a saltus in my Meditations by these Discourses of the Great Day. I am not come to it yet: I have much to think of, and bring to more perfection, which is preceding to it; The Witnesses, Dragon, Beast, &c.

EPISTLE XVIII.

Mr. Mason's Letter to Mr. Mede, touching the Millenaries.

Good Mr. Mede,

I Think my self much indebted unto you, that you do so freely communicate unto me your learned Writings. I wish I had been more conversant in studies of this nature, that I might in some sort be able to talk with you in your own language. But you have had the happiness to follow these studies with good leisure and much opportunity; and I (to say nothing of other wants) have been hindred both with businesses of my place and weakness of my body, that I have scarce had time to think on any thing but what hath been ne∣cessary for my present imployment; and so it happeneth to me in my studies as to poor men in getting of their living, we have nothing but from hand to mouth. The consciousness of these wants maketh me to write so seldom and so slightly: Else, if I had any thing in my thoughts that might be fit for your reading, I would be as free in communicating my stu∣dies with you as you are in imparting yours unto me; especially in this business, wherein you have travelled with such success. I only now can say, that I wish I may see the full finishing of your intended Work, and so do others abroad also: but yet I had rather stay your leisure, till you have concocted all according to your mind, than to hasten you for∣ward before the time. Dr. Potter hath read your former Papers which you committed to Mr. D. and by occasion thereof hath proceeded to read others of the same Argument; which when I understood, I desired him to peruse two Writings of Dr. Gerhard of the same Argument, both purposely intended against the Millenaries: the one is in the second part of his Disputationes Theologicae, Disp. 3. de novis Fanaticis; the other in the ninth Tome of his Common Places, Loc. de Consummatione seculi, cap. 7. p. 442, &c. Vpon the reading of those Treatises he sent a Letter expressing his mind and judgment concerning them, which I received this evening: And because I know you desire to hear the opinion of Learned men, I have sent down inclosed herein so much of his Letter as concerneth that business. Which I did the rather also, because I suppose this may give you oc••••sion to answer such grounds as Gerhard hath laid to the contrary. Perhaps, if you consider him well, you may find a tacit Answer to that which you object against S. Hierome, for laying an imputation on the Mellenaries, as if they dreamed of Earthly Pleasures in this Kingdom of our Lord; for he saith that (as Dr. Gerhard thinks) of the Cerin∣thians and Iews, not of the ancient Fathers; how truly, I leave it to your consideration and judgment. In the Margin of your Notes on Iustin Martyr I noted a place to the same purpose in Lactantius: It is in black lead, and may easily be wiped out, if it be nothing to your purpose. Dr. Potter signified in a former Letter, that he had a purpose to write to you; perhaps he is not yet ready for that which he meaneth to say: but if he send his Letter this way, I will take care to send it down by your Carrier. In the mean while, and ever, I commend you and your studies to the Blessing of the Almighty; and so for this time I leave you.

Your ever assured Friend, Henry Mason.

S. Andrew's Undershaft Decemb. 10. 1629.

EPISTLE XIX.

Dr. Potter his Letter to Mr. Mason, touching the Millenaries.

Good Mr. Mason.

I Have read those two large and learned Discourses of Gerhard against the Millenaries, and find him (as his wo••t is) to be very diligent both in recounting the Opinions of other men and in the establishing of his own. By him I see, the conceit is ancient among our later Writers, and favoured by many ignorant and fanatical spirits; which I confess

casts much envy upon the Conjecture. But yet methinks, First, the consent of so many great and worthy Lights of the ancient Primitive Church doth more honour and counte∣nance the opinion, than it can be disgraced or obscured by these late blind abettors. Se∣condly, The Anabaptists and their fellows are confident, where Mr. Mede doth but mo∣destly conjecture; and that, Thirdly, upon other and better grounds than their dreaming doting heads ever thought of. Lastly, The Devil himself may sometime speak truth, and so may his disciples, with an ill intention, or at hazard;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

I suppose no Learned man or Christian can deny that the Nation of the Iews shall be once hereafter called by God's mercy to the Faith, and that their general Conversion will bring with it a great and glorious alteration in the Church; and therefore that Kingdom of our Lord upon earth, howsoever in some circumstances it may not answer our hopes, (which may be ungrounded and deceived) yet for substance it seems an indisputable Truth. But Prophecies are Mysteries till their accomplishment; let us therefore leave them to God and to Posterity:—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I have received Philostrates and Origen, &c.

C. P.

EPISTLE XX.

Mr. Mede's Second Letter to Dr. Meddus, containing four grounds why the First Resurrection, Rev. 20. is to be taken literally; with some other Observations concerning the difference between the State of the New Ierusalem and the State of the Nati∣ons walking in the light thereof: as also concerning the time of the Regnum Christi.

Worthy Sir,

I Sent the fourth sheet I promised to the Bury-Carrier yesterday, with a note there∣in, promising to make some Answer to your Quaere to day, to be delivered to the Carrier as he passed through Newmarket, but some 4 or 5 miles from the place where I am. When I had thus done, some hour or two after I received a transcript of ano∣ther of yours dated August 14, of the conformation of the taking of Wesel—But to the Quaere, which I must answer but briefly, till I have a better and more free occasion to enlarge upon particulars. The full resolving thereof depends upon so large an ex∣plication of the Oeconomy of God in the restitution of Mankind as cannot be com∣prised in a Letter. And I am somewhat unwilling to discover what I think, unless I could do it fully; which made me abstain in my Specimina from any explication of that First Resurrection, save to name it only.

But howsoever when at first I perceived that Millennium to be a State of the Church consequent to the times of the Beast, I was a verse from the proper acception of that Resurrection, taking it for a rising of the Church from a dead estate; as being loth to admit too many Paradoxes at once: yet afterward more ••etiously considering and weighing all things, I found no ground or footing for any sense but the Literal.

For first, I cannot be perswaded to forsake the proper and usual importment of Scripture-language, where neither the insinuation of the Text it selfe, nor manifest tokens of Allegory, nor the necessity and nature of the things spoken of (which will bear no other sense) do warrant it. For to do so, were to lose all footing of Divine testimony, and in stead of Scripture to believe mine own imaginations. Now the 20^th of the Apocalyps, of all the Narrations of that Book, seems to be the most plain and simple, most free of Allegory and of the involution of Prophetical figures; only here and there sprinkled with such Metaphors as the use of speech makes equipollent to vulgar expressions, or the former Narrations in that Book had made to be as words personal or proper names are in the plainest histories; as Old Serpent, Beast, &c. How can a man then in so plain and simple a narration take a passage of so plain and ordi∣narily-expressed words (as those about the First Resurrection are) in any other sense than the usual and Literal?

Secondly, Howsoever the word Resurrection by it self might seem ambiguous, yet [unspec 2] in a sentence composed in this manner [viz. Of the dead, those which were beheaded for the witness of Iesus, &c. lived again when the thousand years began; but the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were ended] it would be a most harsh and violent interpretation to say that [Dead,] and consequently [Living again from the dead] should not utrobique be taken in the same meaning: For such a speech in ordinary construction implies, That some of the dead lived again in the beginning of the thou∣sand years, in that sense the rest should live again at the end of the thousand years; and è contrà, In what manner the rest of the dead should live again at the end of the thousand years, in that manner those who were beheaded for Iesus lived again in the beginning of the thousand years; which living again of those some is called the First Resurrection.

Thirdly, Though the ancient Iews (whilest they were yet the Church of God) [unspec 3] had no distinct knowledge of such an order in the Resurrection as First and Second, but only of the Resurrection in gross and general, to be in die Iudicii magni; yet they looked for such a Resurrection, wherein those that rose again should reign some time* 1.65 upon earth, as appeareth, Wisd. 3. from the first to the eighth verse inclusivè; where it is expressely said, That the Souls of the Righteous which were de∣parted should in the time of their visitation shine, and that they should judge the nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord should reign for ever. See the place and consider it. This opinion is here and there also dispersed in the Chaldee Para∣phrase and in the Talmud, as of ancient Tradition; and is the opinion of the Iews at this day, who as they look not for the Kingdom of their Messiah until Dies Iu∣dicii magni,* 1.66 so they expect that their forefathers (at least such as were just and holy) should rise at the beginning of the same, and reign in the land of Israel with their off-spring under Messiah. I can hardly believe that all this smoke of Tradition could arise but from some fire of Truth anciently made known unto them. Besides, why should the holy Ghost in this point speak so like them, unless he would induce us mutatis mutandis to mean with them? In fine, the Second and Universal Resurrection with the State of the Saints after it, now so clearly revealed in Christianity, seems to have been less known to the ancient Church of the Iews than the First and the State to accom∣pany it.

Lastly, This was the Opinion of the whole Orthodox Christian Church in the Age [unspec 4] immediately following the death of S. Iohn, (when yet Polycarp. and many of the Apostles Disciples were living) as* 1.67 Iustin Martyr expresly affirmeth; whose pas∣sage to that purpose, when I return again to Cambridge, I will send you, illustrated with some* 1.68 Notes, and the reading in one place restored from a corruption crept thereinto by fraud or otherwise. A testimony absolute, without all comparison, to perswade such as rely upon Authority and Antiquity. It is to be admired, that an Opinion once so generally received in the Church should ever have been cried down and buried. But those Times which extinguished this brought other Alterations into the Church besides this; Et quidem sic fieri oportuit.

I will say something more, observed perhaps by few of those which have know∣ledge enough of the rest; namely, That this Opinion of the First Resurrection was the true ground and mother of prayers for the dead, so anciently received in the Church, which were then conceived after this manner. Vt partem haberent in Resur∣rectione prima. See Tertullian, who first mentions them. The reason was, because this having part in Resurrectione prima was not to be common to all, but to be a pri∣viledge of some, namely, of Martyrs, and Confessors equipollent to them, if God so would accept them. Moreover, the belief of this Prerogative of Martyrs in Resur∣rectione prima was that which made the Christians of those times so joyously desirous of Martyrdom. These things will perhaps seem strange, but they will be found true, if duly examined.

Thus I have discovered my opinion of the thing which I suppose the Scripture hath revealed shall be:* 1.69 But de modo how it shall be I would willingly abstain from determining. We must be content to be ignorant of the manner of things, which for the matter we are bound to believe. Too much adventuring here, without a sure guide, may be dangerous, and breed intolerable fancies, as it did among some in those ancient times; which occasioned, as may seem, the death and burial of the main Opinion it self so generally at first believed.

Yet thus much I conceive the Text seems to imply, That these Saints of the First Resurrection should reign here on earth in the New Ierusalem in a state of beatitude and

glory, partaking of Divine presence and Vision of Christ their King; as it were in an Heaven upon earth, or new Paradise immutable, unchangeable, &c.

Secondly, That, for the better understanding of this Mysterie, we must distinguish between the State of the New Ierusalem and State of the Nations which shall walk in the light thereof; they shall not be both one, but much differing. Therefore what is spoken particularly of the New Ierusalem, must not be applied to the whole Church which then shall be: New Ierusalem is not the whole Church, but the Metropolis thereof and of the New world. The State of the Nations which shall walk in her light though happy and glorious, yet shall be changeable, as appears by the commotio•• of the Nations seduced at the end of the Thousand years. But the State of those wh•• dwell in the New Ierusalem shall be extra omnem mutationis aleam; Blessed are thos•• who have part in the First Resurrection, for on them the Second Death hath no power.

I differ therefore from Piscator, and agree with Alstedius, That the Saints of th•• First Resurrection should reign on Earth during the Millennium, and not in Heaven.

I differ from both, in that I make this State of the Church to belong to Secundus Adventus Christi or Dies Iudicii Magni, when Christ shall appear in the clouds of Heaven to destroy all the professed enemies of his Church and Kingdom, and deli∣ver the creature from that bondage of corruption brought upon it for the sin of man: Whereas they make it to precede the Day of Iudgment and Second coming. Though this Notion may seem to make but little alteration of the thing believed; yet it is of no small moment to facilitate the understanding of Scripture, and puts upon the thing it self another nature than is conceived by those who apprehend it otherwise. In a word, Ours conceive this State to be ante Diem Iudicii: Others (though wrong∣fully) suppose the ancient Chiliasts to have held it to be post Diem Iudicii. But the truth is, it is neither before nor after, but ipsa Dies Iudicii, ipsum tempus Secundae apparitionis Christi. And it is to be remembred here, that the Iews, who gave this time the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Day of Iudgment, and from whom our Saviour and his Apostles took it, never understood thereby but a Time of many years continu∣ance, yea some (mirabile dictu) of a thousand years: and the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Day of Iudgment is more frequent in their Writings than in the New Testament it self. It is mentioned I know not how many times in the Chaldee Paraphrase of that little Book of Ecclesiastes. The word [Day]* 1.70 is in the Hebrew notion used ordinari∣ly for tempus, yea longissimum: as in the Prophets, for the seventy years Captivi∣ty; for the time of their great and long Captivity; for the time of their pilgrimage in the wilderness, Psal. 95. according to the LXX. and S. Pauls translation Hebr. 3. The day of temptation in the wilderness, when your Fathers tempted me, and proved me, and saw my works forty years. See the thirteenth verse of that chapter, where a Day includes every Day. So should Day be taken in the Lord's Prayer, for the time of this our life. Compare it with S. Luke, whose words are, Give us every day our daily bread. See the longest day of all days, in the last words of S. Peter's last Epistle, in the Greek and Latin; (for our English obscures it with a general ex∣pression) It is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dies aeternitatis.

There came forth that year I conceived my Specimina of that Millennium, a Dis∣course by a Lutheran with this Title, Vero-similia historico-Prophetica de Rebus in no∣vissimo die eventuris, pio studio cujusdam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He con∣ceals his name; it is a little, but elaborate, Discourse. He hath the same notion of Dies novissimus which I had of Dies Iudicii. I found with no little admiration a great part of my private Speculations of this matter in that Tractate. Spying it in the Ca∣talogue, and guessing what it meant by the Title. I laid for it at London: There came but two. I got them both, one for a friend, another for my self. I have used means for more Copies, but they cannot, say the Merchants, be heard of. Mine is now lent away; when I can recover it, I will send it you. Thus I take my leave, lest I seal too late. God keep us.

Dalham-Hall, Aug. 18.

Yours, Ioseph Mede.

Post-script.

Now I have done, I repent me of so tumultuary and confused a Discourse of so great a Mysterie, wherein so much is wanting to give it light and evidence. I must desire you therefore to keep it to your self, and to pardon the fault you have been an occasion of in putting me upon it.

EPISTLE XXI.

Dr. Meddus his Letter to Mr. Mede, touching Dr. Twisse's Answers to nine Quaere's about Regnum Sanctorum.

Worthy Sir, and my dear Friend,

THis hath been unto me no pleasant time, being much weakened by this months bleed∣ing and a pain in my right arm. I have done with the Lutheran; though doing all with my own hand, I have been longer about it than Dr. Twisse was, having the help of divers hands. I now send it back with many thanks. You may remember in the beginning of November I sent you a Letter from Dr. Twisse, when I wrote he had besides some * 1.71 Quaere's to have proposed unto you concerning the thousand years Regnum Sanctorum; but he durst not be so bold, yet left it free unto me to do as I thought good: But then pro∣pounding other things, and being loth especially to hinder you in the going forward as with another part of the Revelation, so with the clearing of 2 Pet. c. 3. And besides, your in∣hibition was then a command unto me, to make no more demands till after these late Ho∣ly-days. But now, in hope of your favourable bearing with me, I shall adventure to make his Quaere's and Answers known unto you: yet with this caution, that neither they, nor your judgment or censure of the Lutheran Book, (which I once desired) may retard your other meditations; nor to give answer thereunto but at your best leisure and conveni∣ency. Now to the Quaere's and Answers.

Quaere 1. As concerning the persons to be raised, which are expressed Rev. 20. 4. to be only Martyrs, and Piscator will have it proceed only of such: Now this is very strange, considering that undoubtedly some never suffering Martyrdom have been as great in the fa∣vour of God as any Martyrs; as Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, and the Virgin Mary.

Answ. This may be helped two waies. First, by such an interpretation of Martyrdom as may be extended much further then to the suffering of death for the testimony of Christ, Secondly, by comparing this of Rev. 20. 4. with other places, as namely with Rev. 5. 10. & 11. 18. where the same grace is extended to them that fear God's Name, to small and great.

Object. But then here followeth a contrary inconvenience, that so it shall be extended unto all.

Answ. Yet is it not said, To all that fear God's Name.

Quaere 2. Concerning the Communion between the Saints raised from their graves, and the people then living and remaining on the earth, called the nations that are saved, that is, from the fire, whereby the earth and the works thereof shall be burned, 2 Pet. 3. 10. Alstedius will have the Saints raised to be Doctors of the Church, taking no notice of any distinction of male and female; though of both Sexes there have been both Saints and Martyrs. Rev. 21. 24. it is said, that the nations shall walk in the light of New Ierusalem; and if the Saints shall reign over the Nations, there must be a Communion, such as is between Governors and persons governed. And this Government shall be un∣doubtedly in reference to the Worship of God. Now consider,

• ...

  1. What Communion can such Bodies as ours have with glorified bodies, considering that when Moses came down from the Mount, his countenance did so shine that the Is∣raelites could not endure to look him in the face?

  Answ. First, this glorious lustre may be qualified so far as to be without offence.

  Secondly, The world being restored, why may not the mortal Bodies of men be some∣thing altered also? Surely God can proportion it.

• ...

  2. Whether shall the Bodies of the Saints raised be covered or naked? It seems very in∣congruous they should be naked; neither can we devise in any congruity a glorified Body should be covered: What raiment were any fit covering for such? Neither is it congruous their glory should be covered, as Moses's face was with a Veil.

  Answ. As Angels appeared, their faces shining like lightning, and their raiment whitè as snow, (which aspect, terrible at the first, by familiar conversation might prove not terrible;) so Light may be as a garment to the Saints raised.

• ...

  3. Whether Christ and the Saints raised shall eat and drink. One Mr.—a Mi∣nister in Lincolnshire, maintains they shall, (as I have heard from a noble person) and for his opinion alledgeth that of our Saviour, I will not from henceforth drink

• ...

  of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God, Mar. 14. 25. Add to this Luk. 14. 15. One sitting at table with Christ said, Blessed is he that eateth bread in the Kingdom of God. This he meant (as did all the Iews) of the Kingdom of the Messias on earth; which opinion our Saviour doth no where correct. Otherwise what use will they have of the Restauration of the world? Yet this is very hard to concoct, 1. That Christ and his Saints all glorified should come from Heaven, to eat and drink on earth; which comes near to the vile opinion of Ce∣rinthus, that for a 1000 years God's Saints should live on earth in carnal pleasures. 2. In this case it seems their Bodies should be exposed to excrements, which is not to be endured in Bodies glorified.

  Answ. 1. No more than our Saviour's was after his Resurrection; or Angels, who some∣times did eat with the Patriarchs.

  Answ. 2. If so, yet not for necessity, much less for satisfaction to the flesh; but for other reasons, as Christ did eat with his Apostles after his Resurrection.

  Quaere 3. Then there will be no place for such desires, as to be dissolved and to be with Christ, Philip. 1. 23. and to be removed out of the body, and to dwell with the Lord, 2 Cor. 5. 8. For then to be dissolved will be to be absent from the Lord, and to dwell in the body will be to be present with the Lord.

  Ans. 1. Though death will not then be comfortable in this respect, yet it may in other respects, as it brings freedom from seducing, which afterwards shall be incident to Gog and Magog.

  Ans. 2. As Methuselah lived above 900 years a little before the Floud; so in the Re∣stauration of the world why may not men live a 1000 years? I speak not of the Saints raised, but of those that shall walk in the light of new Ierusalem.* 1.72

  Quaere 4. Christ's Kingdom shall have no end, Luk. 1. 33. Dan. 7. 14. But this Kingdom of Christ shall last but a 1000 years, and then Gog and Magog shall prevail so far, as not only to invade all the Nations that walk in the light of new Ierusalem, but even to besiege the beloved City, that is, new Ierusalem it self, Rev. 20.

  Ans. 1. But not prevail over new Ierusalem, but be forthwith consumed with fire: and then Christ's Kingdom continuing still shall be translated from earth to Heaven.

  Ans. 2. Christ's Kingdom shall succeed other kingdoms, but no kingdom shall succeed this; and in that respect it is said to be everlasting: But Christ must resign his Kingdom to his Father, that God may be all in all. 1. Cor. 15.

  Quaere 5. Christ's coming is not till the restoring of all things, Acts 3. 21. But the restoring of all things followeth after the consumption of Gog and Magog, Rev. 20. 11. and Rev. 21. 1. Ergò Christ's coming shall not be till after Gog and Magog's ruine; Ergò not a 1000 years before.

  Ans. It is said, that before his face that sate upon the throne, heaven and earth fled away, &c. But it is not said, that then it began to fly away, to wit, after the de∣struction of Gog and Magog.

  Quaere 6. 'Tis very strange that Gog and Magog should adventure to besiege new Ie∣rusalem; the Devil and his Angels might as well adventure to besiege Heaven.

  Answ. True, if Gog and Magog knew the condition of new Ierusalem so well as the Devil and his Angels know the condition of Heaven.

  Quaere 7. Shall all that oppose Christ's truth be consumed with fire at that day? Consider, Paul opposed the Gospel for a while, yet was a chosen vessel of God; and many that do not oppose, may yet be reprobates.

  Ans. 1. Yet at that day all such to whom the Lord coming in a flaming fire shall render vengeance for not obeying the Gospel of Christ Iesus, 2 Thess. 1. 8. shall be none of God's Elect.

  Ans. 2. But some of God's Elect perhaps may be converted that very day.

  Quaere 8. What shall become of Infants found alive at that day, not only of God's chil∣dren, but of others also?

  Ans. 1. If consumed in the same fire with their ungodly parents, this will be no more strange than that which fell out in the conflagration of Sodom and Gomorrah.

  Ans. 2. Yet they may be of the number of those that escape, if so it please God; and hereunto, to wit, that it should so please God, I should rather incline.

  Quaere 9. From heaven we look for a Saviour that shall transform our vile bodies, and make them like unto his glorius body, Phil. 3. ult. Ergò at Christ's coming all the Saints that remain alive shall be so transformed.

  Ans. So they shall before that Day of Iudgment ends; for it continueth a 1000 years.

• ...

  Quaere 10. They that then are found alive shall be caught up in the air? and ever be with the Lord;* 1.73 I mean the godly: But if there shall be a 1000 years reign on earth, what need they be caught up in the air, and how ever be with the Lord from thenceforth, if they and their posterity after them continue for the space of a 1000 years subject to mortality?

These were his Ten Quaere's, and Answers unto Nine of them; with which Contemplations (he wrote) his heart serv'd him not to acquaint you, or to intreat your judgment in the way of correction or confirmation and addition, but left it unto me. The Father of lights illuminate our hearts with all saving light to his Glory, the good of his people, and our own comforts in Christ Iesus. So I rest,

6. Ian. 1629.

Yours ever, Sam. Meddus.

EPISTLE XXII.

Mr. Mede's Answer to the Tenth Quaere, about the 1000 years Regnum Sanctorum.

SIR,

BY reason of this late indisposition I was not fit for any matter of study till yester∣day: howsoever, I considered than Dr. T. his Answers to the Objections, and applaud them, finding through them all a right and dexterous apprehension of the thing questioned, which many are very uncapable to conceive. But because he leaves the last unanswered, I suppose it was tacitely reserved to me for Tithe, himself having answered Nine. I will therefore, as well as I can, propound what I had before con∣ceived might be answered to such an Objection; wherein you shall also perceive in part wherein I differ from the Lutheran.

• 1. Therefore, It is not needful that the Resurrection of those which slept in Christ, and the Rapture of those which shall be left alive together with them into the Aire, should be at one and the same time: For the words* 1.74 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, first and then or afterwards, may admit a great distance of time, as 1 Cor. 15. 23. Every one (or, all mankind) shall rise in their order, Christ the first-fruits (that is, first,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after∣wards they that are Christ's, at his coming. Here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, afterwards, notes a distance of time of above a thousand and a half of years, as we find by experience. Suppose therefore this Rapture of the Saints into the Aire be to translate them to Heaven; yet it might be construed thus, The dead in Christ (that is, for Christ, namely, the Mar∣tyrs) shall rise first; afterwards, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (viz. a thousand years after) we which are alive and remain shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, and meet the Lord in the Aire, and so (from thenceforth) we shall ever be with the Lord. Thus Tertullian seems to understand it, who interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or as it is in ver. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of Martyrs; namely, such as die propter Christum, for Christ, by means of Christ, through Christ, for Christ's sake; taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as noting the cause or means of their death. So Piscator expounds the like speech, Apoc. 14. 13. Blessed are the dead which die 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id est, propter Dominum, for the Lord; Beza, qui Domini causâ moriuntur, which die for the Lord's sake.
• 2. If thus to restrain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seem not so fully to answer the Apostle's scope and intention, which seems to be a general consolation to all that die in the faith, a fruition of Christ: then may we give it the largest sense, and yet say, That it is not needful that the Resurrection of those which died in Christ should be all at once or altogether; but the Martyrs first, in the First resurrection; then (after an appointed time) the rest of the dead in the Last resurrection; afterward, when the Resurrection shall be thus compleat, those which remain alive at Christ's coming shall together with those which are risen be caught up into the clouds, to meet the Lord in the Aire, and from thenceforth be eternally with him. And so the reason why those which Christ found alive at his coming were not instantly translated should be in part, that they might not prevent the dead, but be consummate with them.
• ...

• ...

  3. Both these Interpretations suppose the Rapture of the Saints into the Clouds to be for their present translation into Heaven. But suppose that be not the meaning of it; for the words, if we weigh them well, seem to imply it to be for another end, name∣ly, To do honour unto their Lord and King at his return, and to attend upon him when he comes to judge the World: Those (saith the Text) which sleep in Iesus, will God bring with him; he saith not, carry away with him. Again, They and those which are alive shall be caught up together in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the Aire; to meet the Lord's coming hither to Iudgment; not to follow him returning hence, the Iudg∣ment being finished. Besides, it is to be noted, that although in the Hebrew notion the Aire be comprehended under the name of Heaven, yet would not the Apostle here use the word Heaven, but the word [Aire,] as it were to avoid the ambiguity, lest we might interpret it of our translation into Heaven.

  If this be the meaning, then are those words [We shall ever be with the Lord] thus to be interpreted; After this our gathering together unto Christ at his coming, (so the Apostle calls this Rapture, 2 Thess. 2. 1.) we shall from henceforth never lose his pre∣sence, but always enjoy it, partly on earth, during his reign of a 1000 years, and partly in Heaven, when we shall be translated thither. For it cannot be concluded, because the Text saith, the Saints after their rapture on high should thenceforth be ever with the Lord; Ergò, they shall from thenceforth be in Heaven; for no Heaven is here mentioned. If they must needs be with Christ there where they are to meet him, it would rather follow, they should be ever with him in the Aire, than in Heaven; which I suppose none will admit. And otherwise the Text will afford no more for Heaven than it will for Earth; nay, the words [he shall bring them with him] make most for the latter.

• 4. I will add this more, namely, what may be conceived to be the cause of this Rapture of the Saints on high to meet the Lord in the Clouds, rather than to wait his coming to the Earth. What if it be, that they may be preserved during the Confla∣gration of the earth and the works thereof, 2 Pet. 3. 10. that as Noah and his family were preserved from the Deluge by being lift up above the waters in the Ark; so should the Saints at the Conflagration be lift up in the Clouds unto their Ark, Christ, to be preserved there from the deluge of fire, wherein the wicked shall be consumed? There is a Tradition of the Iews founding this way, which they ascribe unto one Elias a Iew∣ish Doctor, whose is that* 1.75 Tradition of the duration of the World, and well known among Divines, Duo millia Inane, duo millia Lex, duo millia dies Messiae; viz. Sex mille annos duraturus est Mundus. He lived under the second Temple about the first times of the Greek Monarchy; so that it is no device of any latter Rabbies, but a Tra∣dition anciently received amongst them whilst they were yet the Church of God. I will transcribe it, because it hath something remarkable concerning the 1000 years: It sounds thus.

Traditio domûs Eliae. Iusti quos resuscitabit Deus non redigentur iterum in pulverem. (He means of the First and Particular Resurrection before the General, which the Iews acknowledge and talk much of. See Wisdom, chap. 3. ab initio ad finem v. 8.) Si quaeras autem, Mille annis istis quibus Deus Sanctus Benedictus renovaturus est mundum suum (de quibus dicitur, Et exaltabitur Dominus solus in die illo, Es. 2. 11.) quid justis futurum sit; sciendum, quòd Deus Sanctus Benedictus dabit illis alas quasi aquilarum, ut volent super facie aquarum: unde dicitur (Psal. 46. 3.) Propterea non timebimus cùm * 1.76 mutabitur terra. At fortè (inquies) erit ipsis dolori seu afflictioni. Sed occurrit illud (Esa. 40. 31.) Exspectantibus Dominum innovabuntur vires, efferentur alâ instar aquilarum. The Hebrew words are in Gemara Sanhedrin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Tradition of the house of Elias. The just whom God shall raise up (viz. in the First Resurrection) shall not be turned again to dust. Now if you ask, How it shall be with the just in those Thousand years wherein the Holy Blessed God shall renew his world, whereof it is said (Esa. 2. 11.) And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day; you must know, that the Holy Blessed God will give them the wings as it were of Eagles, to fly upon the face of the waters: whence it is said (Psal. 46. 3.) Therefore shall we not fear, when the Earth shall be changed. But perhaps you will say, it shall be a pain and affliction to them. Not at all, for it is said (Esa. 40. 31.) They that wait upon the Lord, shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings as Eagles.

I have no more left. Mr. Doctor may adde this to my Placita Iudaeorum. Thus with my best respects to your self and him, I rest,

Yours, &c. I. M.

Post-script.

Adde unto this that of our Saviour, Where the body is, there shall the Eagles be ga∣thered together.

EPISTLE XXIII.

Dr. Twisse his Third Letter to Mr. Mede, touching some obscure passages in Daniel.

Worthy Sir,

I Am sorry you are offended to have those your learned Discussions of that difficult place in Daniel, touching the LXX weeks, communicated. I confess I travell'd not a little for the gaining of them; first at Oxford, where I first discovered some track of them; then at London, by my good friend Dr. Meddus his means, first with Mr. Mason my good friend and ancient acquaintance, than with Mr. D. What account soever you make of them, I assure you I shall make never a whit the less reckoning of your learned pains. Good reason your account should proceed according to the exactness of your own judgment in these Studies; but to me truly they are rare notions: The rather, because I perceive your care is equal in maintaining congruity both with the Hebrew Text, and with the computation of years upon su••h grounds as the world affords. Yet as in the course of your contemplations you should light upon any further or fuller satisfaction, I should think my self very happy to have my desire satisfied in being made partaker of them; and of the opinion of that most re∣verend Prelate Dr. Usher, the Lord Primate of Armagh, concerning the same, which you gain'd of him by conference. Otherwise I shall bethink my self of a course to obtain it from himself, which I conceive to be very possible more ways than one.

I desired by Dr. Meddus to obtain your interpretation of three particulars in Daniel. Dan. 7. 12. As concerning the rest of the Beasts, they had their dominion taken away; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. Conradus Graserus, in his Historia Antichristi, seems to interpret it of the lasting of each of the three first nati∣onal Monarchies, after the death of each first Monarch; which in my judgment is as appli∣able to the fourth Beast as to the three first. The other is, Dan. 7. 8. touching the little Horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up: which Graserus applies to Mahomet, and his rending of three Provinces from the Roman Monarchy, namely, Sy∣ria, Egypt, and Africa. I had rather understand it of Antichrist, as Moulin doth. But whether it be of Provinces rent from the Empire by Antichrist, or by others about his rising and what they are, I am to seek. And of the reconciling of this with that Rev. 17. 12. where it is said, that the ten horns are ten kings, which receive power as kings one hour with the Beast. Good Sir, pardon my over-great boldness.

I have sent my Copy of your Paraphrase of the last of Peter, and your Discourse of that Fiery judgment, to be considered of as you think good, and according to your motion. When Peter saith, His beloved brother Paul in all his Epistles speaks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he addeth,* 1.77 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are some things 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though some few Copies read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Beza observeth; yet little reason that should carry it. Hemingius reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and for the perverting of those things, gives instance in the Millenaries. But if the embracing of that opinion from a Text of Scripture were the corrupting of it, were not Peter himself far more liable thereunto in this Epistle than Paul? I know some to the contrary have observed something in Paul against the opinion of the Thousand years Regnum San∣ctorum, as namely Piscator: I have heard of no writer that from Paul's Text hath pleaded for it. I looked you would have noted something concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which to my judgment seems a singular phrase.

I will observe carefully to retain your LXX Weeks by me without communicating them to any. As for Doctor Potter, he hath seen, upon my knowledge,* 1.78 your Specimina upon the Seals and Trumpets, as also your Generals, and, if I be not deceived, that of Regnum

Lapidis and Regnum Montis in Daniel. The rest I will communicate unto him very short∣ly; as Placita Iudaeorum, and your Notes upon Iustine, or what else soever you shall de∣sire, either to him or any other; and that in your own Name, that he may know your good affection towards him, by your desire to gratifie him in such special pieces of no vulgar con∣templation. I desire to commend your self and worthy studies to the blessing of God, and rest,

Newbury, March 5. 1629.

Your very loving Friend much obliged, W. Twisse.

EPISTLE XXIV.

Mr. Mede's Third Letter to Dr. Meddus, touching the expla∣nation of some obscure passages in Daniel, mentioned in the fore∣going Letter of Dr. Twisse.

SIR,

I Have nothing upon the seventh of Daniel but what you have seen in those two Discourses, viz.* 1.79 The purport of the four Kingdoms in Daniel; and secondly,‖ 1.80 The Description of the Great Day of Iudgment, Dan. 7. Both which I sent you written with my own hand, to be communicated to Dr. Twisse; and the latter being sent me back to take a Copy for my self, I returned it again unto you.

As for those three Chapters of the Apocalyps, I have not yet done a word; and see so much business now coming upon me, that I know not when I shall begin. For I can do nothing in those things but in silence, and security of not being distracted. In the mean time I must desire my friends to content themselves with those short Specimi∣na concerning those Chapters which they had at the beginning of my communication of my Meditations on these things. And it may be, if I had not communicated them to so many till they had been more full and perfect, I had been ere this time more for∣ward than I am.

Concerning your three Questions, I have chosen to make answer to them this Fe∣stival-week; not knowing after it be past when I shall have so much leisure again. And first I will begin with the two last.

Quaest. 1. If the Horn with eyes and mouth, speaking words against the most High, &c. in Daniel, or the fourth Beast ruling in that Horn, be the same with S. Iohn's Bestia no∣vissimi capitis; and consequently the ten Horns, amongst which that Horn ruled, the same Kingdoms which S. Iohn saw typed by the like number of Horns; as the Church from her infancy believed: how can S. Iohn, who saith,* 1.81 that his ten Kings receive their kingdoms at the same time or hour with his Beast, be reconciled with Daniel, who * 1.82 saith, the wicked Horn rose up after them?

Resp. I translate not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Dan. 7. 24. After them, but, Behind them, as the Greek doth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and take the meaning implied to be, that the ten Kings were not aware of the growing up of the little Horn, till it overtopped them. The learned in the Tongues know that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie as well* 1.83 Behind in place, as After in time; and the first as often and frequently every whit as the latter: So also Post in Latine is indifferently either Loci or Temporis.* 1.84 The translation cannot be ex∣cepted against,* 1.85 as either new or strained: The sense is obvious and most agreeable to the event;* 1.86 and so we shall not need seek any other way to avoid the appearance of contradiction.* 1.87 Otherwise it were not impossible to expound [After them] to be in order of number,* 1.88 and not in order of time, which we in English would express, And another shall rise up besides them, that is, besides the ten, and so make the eleventh. But we shall not need so harsh and unusual a way. Besides, it might be granted, that the little Horn, in respect of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and height of dominion, was after the ten Kings, though his beginning were at the same time when they began.

Quaest. 2. What were those three Kings which the little Horn is said to have displant∣ed, (Dan. 7. 8.) or, as the Angel interprets, (v. 24.) brought down or hum∣bled,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Vulgar turns humiliabit; the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ire∣naeus, deminorabit, vel (ut in alio exemplari) dehonorabit; Vatablus, opprimet; Iu∣nius, deprimet?

Resp. In my larger interpretations of the Trumpets (in Rev. 8) you have at the end of the second Trumpet a* 1.89 Table of Ten Kings or Kingdoms whereinto the Roman Empire was divided about Anno 456 and forward: The off-spring of which Nations, through many alterations, (partly by the inconstancy of humane things, partly occasioned by the further enlargement of the Christian Faith) are the body of most of the Kingdoms and States of Christendom at this day. Look upon the Table, and then I answer you thus.

The three Kings which Daniel saith the Antichristian Horn* 1.90 should depress and dis∣plant, to advance himself, were those whose Dominions extended into Italy, and so stood in his light.

First, That of the Greeks,* 1.91 whose Emperor Leo Isaurus, for the quarrel of Image-worship, ‖ 1.92 he excommunicated, and made his subjects of Italy revolt from their alle∣giance.

Secondly, That of the Longobards, (successors to the Ostrogoths) whose Kingdom he caused by the aid of the Franks to be wholly ruined and extirpated, thereby to get the Exarchate of Ravenna (which since the revolt from the Greeks the Longobards were seised on) for a Patrimony to S. Peter.

Thirdly, The last was the Kingdom of the Franks it self, continued in the Empire of Germany; whose Emperors from the days of Henry the fourth* 1.93 he excommunica∣ted, deposed and trampled under his feet, and never suffered to live in rest, till he made them not only to quit their interest in the Election of Popes and Investitures of Bishops but that remainder also of Iurisdiction in Italy, wherewith together with the Roman name he had once infeoffed* 1.94 their Predecessors.

These were the Kings by displanting or (as the Vulgar hath) humbling of whom the Pope got elbow-room by degrees, and advanced himself to that height of Tempo∣ral Majesty and absolute greatness, which made him so terrible in the world. See in the Table 3, 9, 10.

In the forementioned Letter to Mr. T. I. upon the same argument, there is this additional Observation.

[And here note, it is one thing for the Ten Kings to give their power and au∣thority unto the Beast capitis novissimi, (as S. Iohn speaks Rev. 17.) that is, volun∣tarily to subject themselves and yield homage to him as their Head and Principal, and another thing for the same Beast or Antichristian Horn to displant, depress or humble them. The first should be common to all the Ten, (as was revealed to S. Iohn:) the latter proper to Three of them, (as was shewed to Daniel.) For observe, that as in the History of our Saviour's Acts penned by the four Evangelists one relates that which another omits, and è contra; so is it in these Prophetical de∣scriptions of the Fourth Beast by Daniel and Iohn.]

Quest. 3. How those words in Dan. 7. ver. 12. are to be interpreted and applied, viz. As concerning the rest of the Beasts, they had their dominion taken away; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

Resp. Before I answer, it must be known and remembred, that for that [As concern∣ing] there is nothing in the Original but the Copulative Vau, which, as the sense re∣quires, is to be translated not only copulatively, but disjunctivè, adversativè, causa∣liter, ordinativè, and sometimes as a particle of similitude, and the like; it being of it self as a Materia prima. In the latter part of this sentence it is translated adversativè, viz. Yet, [Yet their lives, &c.] for which in the Original is nothing but the same Conjunction Vau.

This premised, I answer,

First, If Beasts here be meant of the* 1.95 three first Beasts, it is to be taken by way of a Parenthesis, implying a tacite answer to a question: For Daniel having spoken so largely of the destruction of the Fourth Beast, and nothing of the other, it might be asked, Yea, but what became of the former three? He answers, As concerning them

also, they had their dominion taken away; but their lives were prolonged for a time and a season; that is, they reigned their time, and then had their dominion taken away. And thus our Translators seem to have understood it, and accordingly to have sitted their translation, by turning Vau [As concerning.] This is an easie and smooth in∣terpretation, nor do I see any sufficient reason why it should not satisfie.

Secondly, But some of the Hebrew Commenters understand not Beasts here of the three Beasts forementioned, but of other Beasts, that is, other States and Kingdoms then reigning in the world, at what time the fourth Beast should be destroy••d; That these also, as well as the Fourth Beast and his limmes, should have their Kingdoms ta∣ken away, though not at the same instant, yet some time after. And so Vau shall not need be translated [As concerning,] but [Also;] Also the rest of the Reasts, &c As for the word Beasts to be taken here for other Kingdoms as well as the Four great ones, it needs make no scruple. For we shall find it so in the next Chapt. where it i•• said of the Medo-Persian Ram (verse 4.) that no Beasts might stand before him, that is, no S••ate or Kingdom was able to resist his power: So here may The rest of the Beasts be the States and Kingdoms contemporary with the fourth Beast. And this interpretation would sound well with the words of S. Iohn in the end of the 19. Chapter, where it being said that the Beast and False Prophet were cast into the fire (as Daniel saith of hi•• fourth Beast, chap. 7. v. 11.) it followeth, And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sate upon the horse, &c. as if he had meant to express this of Daniel, And the rest of the Beasts had their dominion taken away, &c. But the difficulty then will be, how the latter part of the words should be taken, viz. Yet (or And, or But) their lives were prolonged for a season and time. The Rabbins take it for some season and time after the fourth Beast was destroyed; and R. Solomen, at the time of the war of Gog and Magog, which they look for soon after then •• stitution, upon the destruction of the fourth Beast. But whether can this stand with S. Paul's assertion, that the fourth Beast terminating in the Man of sin shall be destroyed at the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or appearing of Christ's coming? How should any Beasts lives be prolonged for a season and time after that coming? Or should we expound this season and time of a thousand year after, when the last and final execution of Christ upon his enem••e is to be? But Daniel seems to joyn the appearance of Christ in the clouds to receive a Kingdom with this destruction of the rest of the Beasts together with the fourth Beast, and so not to admit of such a distance. Let others judge.

Thirdly, But I will not conceal that I have suspected there might possibly be a third Interpretation far••d ••••ering from them both, and which would make the Vision fully to agree with the Angel's interpretation: But the words then must be construed much otherwise than they use to be: viz. Daniel in the former verse mentioning pre∣cisely the Body of the Beast to be given to the flames, it should follow thus; And as the Body was burned and destroyed, so the rest of the Beast (viz. the t••n Horns and ruffling Horn) had their dominion (at the same time the Body was burned) taken away; and prolongation of life was given them for a season and time, viz. until I saw one like to the Son of man coming in the clouds, &c. that is, they reigned till the Son of man came in the clouds, &c. The reason why I thought of this Interpretation is, because the word which we tra••slate here plurally, is, as it is pointed in the Original, of the sin∣gular number, namely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whereas if it were the plural, it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for that, say the Chaldee Grammarians, is the difference between the singular and the plu∣ral Emphatick, that the one hath Scheva[••] in the penultima, the other hath Camets[••] And so we render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with Scheva in this Chapter singularly [Beast,] twice in the following verses of this Chapter; viz. verse 19, & 23. The reason which mo∣ved the Interpreters to translate it here plurally was, because the Affixes following are all plural, [their dominion, their lives.] But this may be because that remainder of the Beast under the Horns consisted of many Kingdoms, and in that respect the domini∣on and duration thereof is expressed with plural Affixes, as of many.

March 31.

Yours, Ioseph Mede.

Post-script.

My paper streightens me and my time; and I have been a 3. or 4. times troubled while I was writing this last way of Interpretation; which made me so blurr and blot, and scarce know what I did. I should else have expressed my self more plainly and fully.

EPISTLE XXV.

A more distinct and perspicuous expression of the last of those three ways to interpret that twelfth verse of Dan. 7.

I Confess my skill in the Chaldee is no more but Grammatical, yet thus much a little smattering in Grammar could teach me; and so made me seek in what sense it might be translated singularly, notwithstanding the plural Affixes following it, and what this rest or remainder of the Beast (if it be so turned) might be.

First, I observed that in the destruction of the Fourth Beast immediately before men∣tioned, the Body of the Beast was precisely and particularly named; whereby I began to conceive the Remainder here spoken of might be the Beast's Horns, that is, the eyed and mouthed Horn with that Decarchy of Horns subject to him, which the Holy Ghost would tell us was destroyed at the same time, and together with the Body of the Beast: And so the Text to be construed thus, The Body of the Beast was destroyed, and given to the burning flame; And the rest of the Beast also (viz. the Horns) had their dominion taken away, after that a continuance of life had been given them for a season and a time. Thus interpreted, it would answer to that part of the Angel's interpretation, verse 25. which saith, that the State of the Beast under the wicked Horn's dominion should last a time, and times, and half a time; whereunto otherwise there will be nothing an∣swering in the Vision.

Secondly, The Kingdom of the Son of man immediately following the expiration of this season and time in the Vision, would answer to that in the Interpretation, verse 22. The Horn prevailed against the Saints, until the Ancient of days came and the Saints possessed the Kingdom.

Thirdly, It is certain that the Session of Iudgment described in the Vision sate to de∣stroy the wicked Horn; for so saith the Angel, verse 26. But the Iudgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion: And Daniel himself in the Vision exspected to see that in special; for as soon as the Bench was set, and the Books were opened, verse 10. I beheld then, (saith he, verse 11.) because of the voice of the great words which the Horn spake, viz. he looked what would become of the Horn. Something then should seem to follow in special concerning it, else Daniel was frustrate of his looking: But what follows? I beheld until the Beast was slain; This is something, but general only: And his Body destroyed; This indeed is special, but not that which Daniel looked af∣ter: For how would these hang together, [I looked to see what would become of the Beast's horn, and, I saw his Body destroyed?] should it not seem rather to follow, to answer Daniel's looking, And the rest of the Beast also, that is, not the Body only or people of the Beast's dominion were destroyed, but the Horns also, with their Captain-horn who spake the big words, (that is, the State then domineering) had their domini∣on taken away after they had enjoyed it a season and a time?

Lastly, Those words of the Angel's interpretation, verse 26. The Iudgment shall sit, and take away his dominion, (that is, the Horn's dominion) seem to have reference to that passage in the Vision which saith in the same words, that the rest of the Beast had their dominion taken away. The reason of the plural Affixe's answering to a singular Antecedent being, because this rest of the Beast had in it a plurality of Kingdoms. ac∣cording to the rule of the Grammarians, That a singular Antecedent to be taken col∣lectively or distributively, may have a plural number answer to it. This was my ad∣venture.

I. M.

* 1.96

EPISTLE XXVI.

Mr. Burnet's Letter to Mr. Mede, touching the Provostship of Trinity Colledge near Dublin.

SIR,

I Am bold to write unto you, though a stranger, to certifie you that I hear Dr. Bedle, Provost of Trinity Colledge in Ireland, is chosen Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland, which is valued worth 600 l. per annum, appointed thereto by the King; howbeit some time will be ere he leave the Colledge: in the mean space I am bold to intreat your Answer, to know if you will accept the place of Provost if you be chosen thereto, as you were wrote to by my Lord. Primate formerly before Mr. Bedle went. I am now writing to my Lord Primate an An∣swer of Letters this day I received from him, and do certifie him of this accident; for it was but this week that the King granted it, and no Letter is yet gone over. I sent the Book you sent me long since to my Lord Primate. I dwell at the sign of the Golden fleece in Lombard-street, and shall expect your Answer next return; and so I commend you to God Almighty, resting

London, April 12.

Your loving Friend, Francis Burnet.

EPISTLE XXVII.

Dr. Ames his Letter to Mr. Mede, touching Lawenus his Censure of his Clavis Apocalyptica.

Good Mr. Mede.

I Shewed your Clavis to one much given unto those Studies, and desired his censure; which having at length received, I send herewith unto you, desiring from you to receive what you think fit to be opposed: You shall perceive his full meaning out of the printed Trea∣tise adjoyned. He seemeth to me to carry all to the Iews, upon no other grounds than com∣munion of Phrases. Thus with hearty salutations to you and Mr. Chappel, I rest

Franeker, Oct. 11.

Your loving Friend, W. Ames.

EPISTLE XXVIII.

A Second Letter from Dr. Ames, touching Mr. Mede's Defence.

SIR,

YOur Answer to Lawenus I have received, (that you be no longer in suspence) and like so well, that I shall long to see more of your Notions in that kind: yet methinks that Millenary state spoken of may well be understood of the Church raised from a

dead condition, and so continued for that space. We have here no News but of Silva-Du∣cis streightly and hopefully besieged by our Army; the Enemy (as it seemeth) not being in case to bring an Army into the field. Thus with salutations to your self, Mr. Chappel, &c. I rest

Franeker, May 27.

Your loving Friend, W. Ames.

EPISTLE XXIX.

Mr. Mede his Third Letter to Archbishop Usher, excusing his unwillingness to accept the Provostship of Trinity Colledge in Ire∣land: containing also an account of Lawenus his Animadver∣sions upon his Clavis, and his Answer; together with his Ex∣plication of Ezek. 4. 6, &c.

Right Reverend and my most Honoured Lord,

I Make no question but your Colledge is far better provided of a Provost than it would have been of me, who never could perswade my self I was fit to be the Head and Governour of the only Seminary of a Kingdom. And therefore though my name were the Second time brought upon the Stage, yet was it without consent or privity of mine. Indeed a Proposition was made unto me upon Mr. Bedle's pre••erment (and before the news thereof was sent to him) whether I would accept the place, in case I were again chosen thereto. Unto which because I answered not by a direct and cate∣gorical denial, but only alledged divers reasons, both from mine own unfitness in di∣vers respects, and other circumstances which might and did deter me therefrom, lea∣ving them who made the motion to infer the conclusion; it pleased some (to whom I am yet beholden for their affection) so to interpret it, as if in modesty only I had by such a kind of answer concealed my willingness: which as soon as I understood and that some (Sir Nathaniel Rich by name) endeavoured upon the motion of some others to procure me to be named by his Majesty, I presently took him off, and that so effe∣ctually as he stirred no more; though perhaps I was not a little blamed by some of my friends for so doing. But enough of this.

For my Clavis, I am afraid that Reverend Archbishop your Lordship nameth values it far more than it deserveth; though it may be something I have by God's goodness discovered toward the better understanding of that Book; which if I have, the praise be to God alone, to whom it is only due.

But I cannot imagine what those Additions thereto should be, which your Lordship saith you received out of the North of Ireland. I sent a Copy or two to Franeker to Doctor Ames; he sends one of them to Daniel Lawenus, an ancient Student in those parts in that Prophecy, (whose Apparatus to a bigger volume of many years study was printed the same year,) desiring his censure of it. He finding it not to sute with his Notions, wrote presently Stricturae in Clavem Apocalypticam, not knowing my name, but calling me Synchronista; and sometimes seemed to be very angry in his confutation of me, though he agreed with me in the mainest Paradox of all. He sends it to Do∣ctor Ames, as I suppose not intending me. But the Doctor dispatcheth it to me, toge∣ther with his printed Book, for my better understanding his meaning; desires to re∣ceive again from me what I thought fit to oppose by way of defence. Thus unwit∣tingly I made my self work, yet such as in the doing I at length found some benefit by, having my torpid thoughts revived and quickned, and the second time more able to wield any notions than they were at the beginning. But I should admire if your Lordship had seen a Copy of this. For besides that I sent into Friseland, I conceive not how any other should get abroad, having, as I thought, kept mine own Copy private in my study.

That touching the years of Israel and Iudah, I know not what it should be, unless that the 40. years of Iudah's sin, for which the* 1.97 Prophet lay so many days upon his right side, were the years of Manasses Idolatry, to which the Scripture particularly as∣cribes their captivity, 2 Kings 24. 3. & ch. 23. 26. Ier. 15. 4. Which I thought had been a novelty, and cried 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but since I find it to be the opinion of R. Kim∣chi, whom I suppose also the first author thereof.* 1.98 Salianus adds Hieronymus (not Iosephus) de Prado, & Funccius; but I never looked them. It was but a conjecture, which, had it been new, I conceived would not have been altogether unacceptable to your Lordship, whom yet far be it from me to teach or inform, but only to be better instructed or confirmed by your Lordship's profounder judgment.

Presently after my Clavis was printed, I drew, at the intreaty of some friends, Spe∣cimina Interpretationum Apocalypticarum ad amussim Clavis Apocalypticae; which finding beyond my expectation or merit to be accepted, I have since gone more largely through some part thereof, as The Description of the Theatrum Apocalypticum, chap. 4. The 6 Seals and 7 Trumpets unto the 11. Chapter: The rest is yet but Specimina, as it was in the beginning; the last Chapter whereof I once sent your Lordship, name∣ly de Millennio. But could I have gotten an orthographical Scribe, I would have sent your Lordship all ere this, both Specimina and the larger Expositions upon the first half. But I had no such of mine own, and those who have are not so kind as to lend them for any hire. And for my self, I should never get through that which is mine own, without everlasting mending, blurring, and pausing at every sentence to alter it. I am exceedingly sorry for the death of Buxtorf and Amama, especially the latter, as being but now in store, and one that had a natural genius to inlighten the Text of Scripture, and to find the notion of the Sacred language.

If Ireland will not spend the remainder of my Pamphlets, if your Lordship have op∣portunity to send them, I shall willingly entertain them again, their fellows being all gone.

Thus with my most humble Service remembred to your gracious Lordship, desiring the God of Heaven to bless and preserve your Grace, I rest, and am

Christ's Colledge, May 4. 1630.

Your Lordship's, most ready to be commanded, Ioseph Mede.

EPISTLE XXX.

My Lord of Armagh his Letter to Mr. Mede, commending his Comment on the Apocalyps and his learned Conjectures upon the Succession of the Babylonian Kings in Berosus, &c.

Worthy Sir,

I Received long since your most accurate Explication of the principal Chapters of the Re∣velation, together with your learned Conjectures upon the succession of the Babylonian Kings recorded in the fragments of Berosus and Megasthenes. I cannot sufficiently com∣mend either the one or the other; but acknowledge my self to have learned from you in both what otherwise would never have come into my mind. I am now in hand with a Treatise De Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Primordiis, setting down as much as may be found in the Manuscripts that remain of our Nation touching that Argument. I have entred also upon the Determination of the Controversies which concern the Chronologie of the Sacred Scrip∣ture: wherein I shall in many places need your help. I desire to hear from you of the state of things there: and so recommending all your godly studies and endeavours unto the bles∣sing of our good God, evermore rest

Armagh, August 10. 1632.

Your most assured loving Friend, Ia. Armachanus.

EPISTLE XXXI.

Mr. Mede's Answer to a Doubt touching some Variations between the Hebrew Text and the Hellenists, and some smaller corruption crept into the Hebrew copies.

I Have heard alledged; If any corruption had crept into the Hebrew Text at or be∣fore our Saviour's time, the holy Apostles and Penmen of the New Testament would have restored it, or somewhere intimated it. But what if they did so, and yet we had rather follow the Masorites than them?

Matt. 15. 9. out of Esay 29. 13.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

The Hebrew Text reads now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an emphatical word appears not. But the Lxx. and S. Matthew with them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d••c••ntium or edocta hominum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mes reverentis sed frustra ••orum.

i. Sed fuit cul••us eorum erga me mandatum homi∣num edoctum or edoctus

i. Frustrà verò reverentur me mandata ••••minum do∣centes: viz. referring Docentium to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fru∣strà reverentia eorum mei qui docent mandata homi∣num.

See 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same Prophet for frustrà, cap. 45. 9. ibid. versibus 18, 19. item cap. 49. 4.

The Masorites might have pointed it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as they do often elsewhere, Iod for Van; yea in the Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be pointed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Then it would be, Frustrà cultus eorum meimandata hominum docens, and never a letter altered but Iod into Van.

It is to be noted that the Prophet calls Idols and Idol-worship often in this book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. Vanity.

Acts 15. 17. out of Amos 9. 12.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

The Hebrew now reads marvellous differingly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

But the Lxx. read, and the Apostles ratifie it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vt passid••ant residuum Edom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vt requirant Deum (vel Dominum) reliqui homi∣num.

For the Lxx. often translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, more than 40. times, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 above an 100.

Heb. 8. 9. out of Ierem. 31. 32.

—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The Hebrew hath now in place of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a clean contrary sense, and inconsequent to what goes before. I know how it is wont to be salved.

But did not the Lxx, and the Apostle with them, read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which without any more ado is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and makes the sense co∣herent with what went before? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 differ not very much. See the same con∣struction of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same Prophet, chap. 14. 15.

But in these and other such, it may be said, the Apostles accommodated to the ca∣pacity of the times, and so followed the LXX as a known and received Translation, but not either to correct the then Hebrew reading by it, or prefer that of the Helle∣nists before it.

But what will they say, if sometimes the Apostles follow a reading differing both from the Septuagint and Hebrew, even where the LXX and Hebrew exactly agree together?

Matth. 27. 9, 10. out of Zach. 11. 13.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The words included in the parenthesis are a brief comprehension of what went be∣fore, and interlaced only for explication sake. So that the words quoted out of the Prophet directly are only these:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

But first, there are no such words in Ieremy; that which sounds like them is in Za∣chary.

Secondly, the Hebrew in Zachary, and the LXX agreeing with it, have something which S. Matthew hath not, and S. Matthew again something which neither of them have.

Hebr.

• ...〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

LXX.

• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Matth.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Here the Hebrew hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the LXX, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which S. Matthew hath not.

On the other side, S. Matthew hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which neither He∣brew nor LXX have: Besides, the Seventie's Greek here differs almost every word from S. Matthew's.

This difficult piece may, I think, be made easie after the manner following.

First, it may seem the Evangelist would inform us, that those latter chapters ascri∣bed to Zachary, (viz. the 9, 10, 11, &c.) are indeed the Prophecies of Ieremy, and that the Iews had not rightly attributed them. Certainly, if a man weighs the Con∣tents of some of them, they should in likelihood be of an elder date than the time of Zachary;* 1.99 namely, before the captivity: For the subjects of some of them were scarce in being after that time. And the Chapter out of which S. Matthew quotes, may seem to have somewhat much unsutable with Zacharie's time; as, a Prophecy of the destruction of the Temple, then when he was to encourage them to build it: and how doth the sixth verse of that Chapter suit with his time? There is no Scripture saith they are Zacharie's, but there is Scripture saith they are Ieremie's, as this of the Evangelist. As for there being joyned to the Prophecies of Zachary, that proves no more they are his, than the like adjoyning of Agur's Proverbs to Solomon's proves they are therefore Solomon's; or that all the Psalms are David's, because joyned in one Volume with David's Psalms. Hocprimum.

Secondly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here in S. Matthew is the first person singular, not the third plu∣ral, as we are wont to translate it: For it answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Hebrew. The same person and number must also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be, whether the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be paragogical, or an ancient slip of the Scribe. For the Syriack translates it dedi, and in the Hebrew it answer to to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. All this to be so the words following evince, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. How will it cohere else? They gave, &c. as the Lord commanded me. Must it not needs be, I gave? &c.

Thirdly, the Evangelist for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 would, as should seem, have us read— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is, adverbum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or, as S. Matthew more freely translates, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Esther, chap.

• 1. v. 8, 15, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 often in that Book. If it be considered how aukwardly those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 stand in that sentence, and how disturb'd they make the Syntax, it will breed suspicio mendi. And if one of the Apostles of our Lord play here the Cri∣tick, it is no sin to follow him, say the Masorites what they will.
• ...

• 2. Reg. 20. 12, &c. Esay, chap. 39. tot. are but two Copies of the same history, yet are there two or three differences, questionless from the hand of the Scribe; as

  	2 Reg. 20.	Esay 39
  Ver, 12.	〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉	〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉	Ver. 1.
  13.	〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉	〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉	2.
  12.	〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉	〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉	1.

  * 1.100

If it be apparent one letter is changed for another here, why may it not be in other places?

I durst shew no such conceits as these, but to so great an Antiquary as your Lordship, to whom the possibility of corruption by writing is so well known, or rather the impossibility of the contrary. Who knows what time will discover, cum Elias venerit?

EPISTLE XXXII.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Mr. Osbourn's Quaere's, touching some passages in Daniel and the Revelation.

Qu. 1. WHether Daniel and the Revelation are Prophecies transfused into one another, or that Daniel reaches no farther than the destruction of Ie∣rusalem.

Answ. I conceive Daniel to be Apocalypsis contracta, and the Apocalyps Daniel ex∣plicate, in that where both treat about the same subject; namely, what was revealed to Daniel concerning the Fourth Kingdom but summatim and in gross was shewed to S. Iohn particulatim, with the distinction and order of the several Fates and Circum∣stances which were to betide and accompany the same. And that therefore Daniel's Pro∣phecie is not terminated with the First, but reacheth to the Second coming of Christ; as appears by the description of that glorious coming, and the great Iudgment, Dan. 7. and his prophecie of the Resurrection, Chap. 12. This hath been the constant Tradition of the Church from the Apostles days to this last Seculum, and was of the Church of the Iews before and at our Saviour's time. And if the Apostles had ever taught the Church otherwise, it could never so timely, so wholly, so generally have been forgotten.

Quest. 2. How was the Book of Apocalyptical predictions sealed until the Lamb opened it, Apoc. 5. if Daniel and the other Prophets wrote any thing of them?

Answ. Whatsoever the meaning be of that sealing and unsealing the Apocalyptical Book, it cannot be so far urged, as to infer the Contents thereof were in no wise ••e∣vealed until that unsealing; that is, until S. Iohn saw his Revelation. For the contra∣ry is apparent; First, of the Day of Iudgment, and Resurrection at Christ's glorious coming in the clouds; which is the main But and scope of the Apocalyps, and yet was foretold by Daniel or some other of the Prophets: or else upon what Scripture did the Church of the Iews found their faith concerning both? Secondly, The Reign of Antichrist•• which should precede that glorious coming, is no small part of the argu∣ment of the Apocalyps; yet was that revealed before S. Iohn saw his Visions; if you will not grant to and by Daniel, yet you must by S. Paul, 2 Thess. 2. which was at least 40 years before the Apocalyps was given. But he that considers S. Paul well will find, that he borrowed that piece and the ground of his Demonstration from Daniel; of which more by and by.

In a word, The Fourth Kingdom and that tyrannical Dominion which should fore∣goe the Son of mans coming in the clouds of heaven, was revealed summatim & in ge∣nere before S. Iohn's Visions; but the series rerum gerendarum therein from the First to that Second and glorious appearing of Christ, particulatim & in specie, was never revealed or unsealed till then.

Quest. 3. All things go round: That which is, is that which was, and that which shall be: What therefore though the expressions in S. Iohn be the same with those in Daniel? yet may the times and things prophesied of not be the same.

Answ. 'Tis true, all things go round, and the course of Divine government runs in a circle or repetition of the lame things: So that the Fates and Sequels of things foretold in the Prophets may be again and again repeated, and the Prophecies of them as it were often fulfilled; namely, by way of Analogy, but not of Propriety. But whither tends this? I suppose to make the ruffling Horn in Daniel and S. Iohn's blas∣pheming Beast to be diverse, though the expression and description be the same. If this be it, I meet with it thus: The Vision of the Son of mans coming in the clouds of heaven, Dan. 7. is in propriety the Second and Glorious coming of Christ; as ap∣pears by that coming so often described from thence in the New Testament, and our Saviour's using of the title of the Son of man with reference* 1.101 thereto, as who, though now he appeared in humility, yet was the same which one day (as Daniel prophesied) should appear so gloriously. [Vid. Matth. 26. 64. Mark 14. 62, &c. Adhibe Iohn 12. 34, &c.]

But if this be so, then that Dominion which Daniel saw immediately to precede this coming, must be in propriety that Tyranny of the wicked one, which should pre∣cede that Second and Glorious coming of Christ. Ergo, not the Tyranny of Antio∣chus Epiphanes, but of Antichrist. And upon this ground did S. Paul build that De∣monstration of his, 2 Thess. 2. That the Day of the Lord could not be at hand; to wit, because the Kingdom of that wicked one (which Daniel had foretold he should abolish at the appearance of his coming) was not yet in the world.

Quest. 4. Whether Nebuchadnezzar's Image contained more Kingdoms than were then in the world, or whereof himself was Master.

Answ. More Kingdoms than were then in the world, I see no reason why it might not; nay why it should not: For it was a Vision of Kingdoms that were to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 afterward (verse. 29, & 45.) and the Kingdom of Christ one amongst them: Yet was Rome a Kingdom then as well as Macedon or Persia.

Contain more Kingdoms than were comprehended in the Provinces he was Master of, I am sure it did; namely, that of Macedon, no part of which, neither of the rest of Greece, was ever subject to the Babylonian Monarchy; nor any more, but some of their Colonies of the Asian shore to the Persian. Nor is this so strange, since the form and shape of the Image consists not in the identity of place and bounds of Do∣minion, (though for a great and the principallest part it were the same) but in the order of succession which each Kingdom was to have to that which went before it; namely one of them should subdue and inherit another, till a fifth Kingdom came, which should never be subdued or destroyed, nor left (as the rest were) to another people.

Quest. 5. Whether Daniel's Visions (there where the Angel expoundeth them) be so mystical, as not in propriety expounded by the Angel.

Answ. I understand the Interpretation of every Vision according to the propriety of the Letter, and not to be a new Allegory needing another mystical interpreta∣tion: yet for all this I see no more necessity why the Roman Kingdom should be de∣scribed (if Daniel any where describes it) from its situation to the West, (as those of the Seleucidae and Lagidae are by North and South,) than the Persian is by the East. For the Holy Ghost chuseth such Characters for distinction as he listeth, nor is tied to one way of characterizing, but doth it variously. Besides that Character of West-situation being common to the third kingdom, and anticipated in the vision thereof, chap. 8. 5. could not distinguish the fourth from it.

Quest. 6. Whether Daniel understood not his own Visions; especially when the Angel told him the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in that from the tenth Chapter to the end.

Answ. 'Tis one thing to understand the Interpretation of a Vision, another to un∣derstand the Application of the Interpretation; namely, to what times and places it belongeth. Where the Angel gave Daniel the Interpretation or meaning of the si∣militude of any Vision, I doubt not but he understood what such similitude meant, as that by Beasts were meant Kingdoms, by Horns Kings, and the like. But the Application of the Interpretation (unless where the Angel sometimes applied it) I believe he under∣stood not, especially in the last Vision, where himself says so: I heard, saith he, but I under∣stood not. And no marvel, for the Angel tells him, Those words were closed up and sealed, till the time of the end. And it is to be observed, that in that last Prophecie the Vision is not described, but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Interpretation only reported. The Vision out of the last verse of the tenth Chapter may seem to have been some Book or Writing, which ei∣ther conveniently could not, or the Holy Ghost thought not fit to describe.

Decemb. 17. 1632.

Ios. Mede.

EPISTLE XXXIII.

Sir William Boswell's Letter to Mr. Mede, touching some of his Books sent him.

Good Mr. Mede,

I Know the Iudgment and current of rhe world is for present thanks upon kindness; Non me qui caetera vincit Impetus. Above four months since (with Letters from Mr. P. full of your and his Affection) I received four Copies of your Comment upon the Apocalyps: a large time to make accompts and acknowledgment; true, but both are so much the riper and better seasoned. My thanks I shall ever be renewing. Your Books I sent, one to Domenico Molins, a most learned, noble Gentleman of Venice: Another, by my Lord Ambassador Anstruther, and his Chaplain (one Mr. Iohnson) an honest learned friend of mine, into Germany. The third I bestowed upon Dr. Rivet (long and lately Professor of Divinity in Leyden, now Tutor to the Prince of Aurange his Son,) whose name and extraordinary worth you know by his works. The fourth I send to Scholars and acquaintance here. Some Animadversions I am promised, which I for∣bear to touch at present. In general, it is commended for a modest, discreet, learned, re∣gular, and of all in that list most verifiable, discovery; if you forbear your Millenarian Fancy. Copies are very much sought; and certainly these parts would have taken off above two hundred, if sent at first. It is an errour and fault in our Printers, Visum non fieri extramittendo. In a word, you have set their teeth on edge: and I am pressed by many to procure them sight of all other things you have written; by name, your large notes upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ad Tim. 4. 1. they will come very seasonably; because there is in hand (since, and by order of the Synod of Dort) a new Translation of the Bible into Dutch, with marginal Annotations at large, to be printed in a folio Copy, wherein the Translators (understanding English perfectly) acknowledge the use and excellency of our last and authentick English Translation. Dan. Heinsius likewise tells me by Letter, that he is upon the New Testament; in what manner I shall know at meeting. I find the Zone here for Ecclesiastick Affairs temperate at present and quiet, though now and then producing Capreas saltantes, and such trifling Meteors which busie natures will be raising; as if to keep within the lists of obedience, and to do their work plainly and quietly, were but a Dulman's part. —Sic volvere Parcas! The Treaty between these Vnited and the other Catholick Provinces is slow-footed, & inter futura contingentissima.—Si quid in hac scena scire aves, aut aliud quicquam à vetere veróque amico velis, fac sciam. For I shall ever love Ioseph Mede as an honest old friend, and think upon him tanquam Academiam in Academia, being his most affectionate to serve him,

Hague 31/21 Maii 1633.

William Boswell.

An Advertisement.

THat the Reader may the better understand the occasion and purport of the following Epistle, he is to know that after Mr. Mede had published his Clavis and Commen∣tary upon the Apocalyps, Mr. Haydock of Salisbury, an aged Gentleman, acquainted him with some Objections he had against the form of the Seven-sealed Book expressed in his* 1.102 Apocalyptick Scheme, viz. 1. That the ancient form of Books was in several sheets of Parchment, fastened at one end only, and so rolled up together. (Hence those expressions in Psal. 40. 7. Hebr. 10. 7. & Luke 4. 17.) 2. That the form of the Seven-sealed Book (Apocal. 5.) ought to be such as might satisfie the Lamb's intention, which had an eye unto Prius and Posterius in regard of the sequel of the insuing Hi∣story: For that part which belongs to the First Seal ought to be viewed before the Second or the rest were opened; whereas in the form of the modern Books (ac∣cording to which form Mr. Mede had described the Seven-sealed Book in his Scheme) no use can be made of any part or leaf in the Book, until all the Seven Seals be

opened. But in the form of the Roll, when every part or leaf hath its several La∣bel inserted in the proper distance, with a Seal and several impressions of Emblema∣tical Signature, each several leaf being taken and unsealed in order, the several mat∣ter therein contained will appear, and no more of any of the rest till they be opened in order.

Thus far Mr. Haydock. The Transcript of his Letter (for the Original could not be met with) being imperfect, was not fit to be printed. He also acquainted Mr. Mede in his Letter with a purpose he had to represent in lively Pictures the Apocalyptick Visions, and sent him the Pictures of the Cherubins done by himself, for a Specimen of his skill in that Art, wherein he had exercised himself for many years, having in his younger days translated out of Italian and published the works of Io. Paolo Lomazzo concerning The Art of Painting.

The form of the Book sealed with seven Seals, and of the Book unsealed, according to Mr. Haydock's opinion, is represented in the following page.

[illustration]

EPISTLE XXIV.

Mr. Mede's Letter to Mr. Haydock, wishing him to perfect his design of representing the Apocalyptick Visions in lively Pictures, and applauding his ingenious observation upon the form of the Seven-sealed Book.

Humanissime & Cultissime Vir,

ACcepi literas tuas benevolentiâ & humanitate plenas, in quibus & favorem me∣um ambis, hominis scilicet nihili, nedum (ut tu* 1.103 putas) papali nescio quo fast••dio digni. Sed ut caetera quàm nihil sum sciam probè; non sum tamen tam ab humanitate procul, ut animo tam in me propenso par pari reddere nesciam. Et verò tu abunde meritus es ut tibi faveam, qui sic ultro compellas & amicitiam defers. De libello meo quod attinet, si quid exinde fructûs vel ad te vel ad alios redierit, Deo Opt. Max. in solidum sit gloria: Ejus enim solius est quicquid est boni; meum

nihil praeter imbecillitatem & ignorantiam. Illud autem vehementer doleo, quòd te priùs non novissem quàm Opusculum illud meum in lucem ediderim; sanè multò or∣natius operâ tuâ prodiisset—Cherubinorum quadriformium Iconas, quas misisti longè elegantissimas & novo artificio visendas, summa cum animi voluptate contemplor; neque satìs pro merito suo laudare aut (quod potiùs nullâ in talibus facultate praedi∣••um fari decet) admirari possum. Utinam totius Consessûs Apocalyptici typum eâdem manu delineatum aliquando videre liceat. Sane nusquam domum tibi à Deo collatum sanctiùs collocaveris, quàm in divinissimae istius Prophetiae typis ad vivum deline∣andis.

Cylindri tui Sigilliferi ingeniosa observatio est, & quae priùs mihi (licèt saepiuscule ea de re cogitanti) in mentem non venerat; imò, an omnino talis Voluminis forma, in qua uniuscujusque Sigilli reseratio novam ordine scripturam legentium oculis sub∣jiceret, dari possit, addubitaverim. De re verò ipsa adhuc incertus sum quid statue∣rem. Aliquando in ea sententia fui, Visiones istas Sigillares, non literarum notis in volumine scriptas, sed Iconibus quibusdam depictas sub Sigillorum tegellis latuisle; iisque reseratis, visui (non ad legendum, sed contemplandum) ordine quamque suo patuisse; atque ad hanc mentem verba ista ad Ioannem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, haud ineptè accommodari posse. Postea animadverti hanc opinationem meam Narrationi Apoca∣lypticae universae non convenire; utpote cum in Sigillo quinto & sexto oratio rei visae tribuatur: praeterea in Sigillo septimo Tubarum visa non simul & eodem tempore exhiberi, sed ordine & successivè in aspectum produci, observaverim. Ad haec appara∣tum clangori praevium ità describi, ut non nudis rerum visarum* 1.104 Iconibus in Volumine quocunque tandem id fiat modo, depictis, nec nudâ earundem scripturâ, led om∣nino repraesentatione extrinsecâ rem gestam fuisse fateri oporteat.

Tandem igitur, quoniam inconcinnum nimis videbatur solâ repraesentatione ex∣trinsecâ rem peractam affirmare, nihil prorsus conferente Libro, in eam sententiam prolapsus sum, Utrumque conjungendum esse, dicendúmque, Singula quidem Vati∣cinia in Volumine, sive Signis & Iconismis, sive literis, descripta & exarata fuisse; ea verò Ioanni, caeterísque coelestis Dramatis spectatoribus, non aliter quàm repraesen∣tatione forinsecâ recitationis viam explente propalam fuisse facta: Scilicet eodem ferè modo ac in Dramatis nostris Academicis fieri amat, ubi actoribus, cum libris ad∣stent monitores. Cùm enim neque Agnus ipse è libro recitaret quidquam, neque A∣postolus tam propinquus ei adesset (stabat enim Agnus juxta seslorem Throni) ut è re∣signantis manu legere potuerit; necesse est eum hâc (quam dixi) ratione singula per∣cepisse.

Hasce meditationes meas ut apud me expromerem effecit humanitas tua: jam de∣sino plura. Deum verò Opt. Max. veneror, ut selicem tibi senectutem, vitam lon∣giorem & beatae illius prodromam largiatur.

Ian. 20. 163••••

Tui studiorúmque tuorum pro merito aestimator, I. M.

EPISTLE XXXV.

Sir William Boswell's Second Letter to Mr. Mede, touching his Book sent to Ludovicus de Dieu.

Good Mr. Mede,

I Am sure long ere this by my Brother T. B. you have understood (which you shall by this present) that your Letters of 15 March, 13 May, 9, 11, 16, Iune, with Let∣ters and a Book inclosed to Ludovicus de Dieu, came safely to my hands in London; as his unto him from you since my return hither. For this last week he was President of a Provincial Synod held de decennio in decennium by the Ministers of Holland, in this Town; so as I delivered the token of your love with my own hand into his, but in so busie a time I could not expect an Answer, or other than thanks, which he prayed me to render in abundance, for the special honour you had done him thereby. Divers other Letters Responsory to Beverovicius have been long expected; but Salmasius delay in his

(wherein he would omit nothing set or fallen from the Ancients, especially Philosophers, to that purpose) hath cast all other mens arrier, whom I should be as glad to see, because together with their learning I should, how well they had learned tenere modum; for ought I know a most necessary part of Scholarship and Philosophy. It grieved me not a little that I could not see you in England, but in recompence I hope now and then to see your coun∣tenance and affection in black and white: for which you shall have returns from this place of all sorts it yields, and you affect, when I know what will be most wellcome, being evermore

Your most assured and ancient friend, William Boswel.

Hague 25. Iuly 1634.

EPISTLE XXXVI.

A Third Letter from Sir William Boswell to Mr. Mede, touch∣ing his Book sent to Ludovicus de Dieu.

Good Mr. Mede.

WHat entertainment your Letters and Book found with Ludovicus de Dieu you will see ere long by his own in answer, his time hitherto having been taken up by being President in a Provincial Synod of Holland, and publishing his Annotations up∣on the Acts, of the Apostles. It was sufficient for me to receive many thanks for the con∣veiance, and that which was better, (better than Musick) to hear innumerable commen∣dations of so near a Friend, though I knew them due; for 'tis no small pleasure to see debts paid, where we think our selves to have Interest. At my coming last into England I lay above three weeks wind-bound in the Briel, where I enjoyed the company of the Mi∣nister, Author of the inclosed, which I have gained by my acquaintance; and send it, for your affection to the Argument, by this bearer, son of Desiderius Heraldus, (whose works and worth you know of old) that you may for the Father's and my sake give him now and them conference and advice about such studies as he pursues, wherein himself will open his own mind. It will be a great kindness if Doctor Ward, whom I pray salute from me, will give him countenance and access at his times of leisure; which you may pro∣cure, and thereby oblige both him and me, and his Father my old and singular friend. You may see by this, and that title, how glad I should be to meet opportunities of doing any thing for your self, that might assure you with what truth and readiness of serving you I shall ever be

Your most affectionate Friend as of old, William Boswel

Hague, Sept. 1634.

EPISTLE XXXVII.

Monsieur Testard his Letter to Mr. Brooks, about his transla∣ting Mr. Mede's Clavis Apocal. into French: as also con∣cerning the Number of the Beast's Name.

SIR,

I Have translated into French, that I might communicate it to divers friends, the Book you sent upon the Revelation, which seems to me worthy admiration, and full of comfort to those that expect the consolation of Israel. I desire earnestly (if it may be obtained) the opinion of the Author touching a conceit came into my mind whilst I was reading the Book; particularly that which he remarks upon the number of 144000, and upon 666, the name of the Pseudoprophetical Beast, with the Reason he gives of the composition of the name, all of 6: which is, That the number of 666 ariseth from the multiplication of 3 Vnites joyned together, making up the number of III. That

these three Vnites set forth the three Offices of Christ, which pertain to him incommunica∣bly, and distributively, and conjoyntly considered. All which the Pseudoprophetical Beast usurps conjoyntly: in which consists particularly his Antichristianism. And this mul∣tiplication produceth the number of 666; as also the multiplication of 12 by 12, which is the Apostolical number, produceth the 144000. That for this reason the number of 666 is called the number of a man, in the singular number, because it is in one only man; whereas the number of 144000 is a number of men, in the plural number, and drawn from the num∣ber of men. If the Author hath set forth any other Treatises, I desire earnestly you would send them to me.

From Bloys in France, Iune 1634.

P. Testard.

EPISTLE XXXVIII.

Mr. Brook's Letter to a Friend.

DOE me the favour as to request Mr. Mede to give some satisfaction to the request of this Gentleman, my especial friend, and to suffer some Manuscripts which he hath not yet published to be copied out to be sent him, either in Latin or English. I will satisfie his pains that shall undertake it; with promise that nothing shall be communicated but to private friends.

Your assured Friend, Ioh. Brooks.

Westminster, 23. Feb. 1634.

EPISTLE XXXIX.

Reverendo & Doctissimo Viro, D. D. Mede, Paulus Testardus S. P. D.

QVantâ me laetitiâ totum perfuderint, Vir Reverende & Doctissime,* 1.105 quas ab ampli∣ssimo Viro D. Ioh. Brooks accepi literas, quae singularem tuam erga me non modò immeritum, sed & ignotum, humanitatem testantur, desunt mihi verba & voces quibus significem; vix profectò eam capit animus. Etenim non modò eae mihi exhibuerunt quae in mei gratiam dignatus es de mysterio Numeri Nominis Bestiae scripto explicare, sed etiam de optatissimi ad tuam Dignitatem accessûs facultate mihi per eum facta certum fecerunt. Isto, V. R. & D tanquam salvo conductu securus, non diutiùs haesi quin ad te istas transmitterem, quibus & gratias quantas possum maximas R. tuae pro eximio isto be∣neficio referrem primùm, ut ex animo refero; tum & Quaestionis quae ad te perlata fuit occasione descriptâ, rem ipsam & genuinam meam mentem ampliùs aperirem, quod sic cum bona D.T. venia facio. Praeteriit jam ferè triennium ex quo D. Brooks cum quibusdam Anglicè scriptis libris Clavim tuam Apocalypticam cum Commentariis pro liberali suo ergae me affectu misit. Opus sine nomine, sed invitante materiâ & mittentis commen∣datione, statim perlegi; deinde saepius, saaviter trahente Rationum turunt pondere, atque industriae expositionis elegantiâ & concinnitate, relegi, non tantùm Dei donum in te saepius miratus, sed & aliquid tibi assidenti (ut loqueris alicubi) revelatum, ad∣dam & extra ordinem, facilè persuasus. Dicam verbo; Nihil unquam mihi visum in Apocalypsin, non dicam quod cum Clavi tua & Expositione aequandam veniat, sed quod ad eas propè accedat. Atque (ut ità sumus naturâ comparati, ut ejus boni cujus nos maximè oblectat fruitio cognitionem cum aliis facilè communicemus, nec ve∣rò duntaxat cognitionem Bonorum spiritualium & salutarium, sed ipsam etiam (tan∣ta est eorum praestantia) fruitionem) horas aliquot, quando sivit perpe••uus muneris mihi à Deo misericorditer demandati labor, versioni Scripti tui in linguam Gallicam impendi, ut pretiosissimi istius ac divini the sauri fruendi copiam amicis meis facerem, &, si sine eorum quibus sine summa necessitate displicere est nefas offensa licuisset, Publico etiam Versionem typis vulgandam curando, suavissimam utpote proculdubio futuram

consolationem iis omnibus qui Israelis Dei, ut scitè vocas, subrogati consolationem exspectant, Regnúmque illud Christi Septimae Tubae deinceps aequè 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Possúmque procul adulationis arte D. T. sincerè profiteri, animum meum singulis tuis Expositionibus tam plenum praebuisse assensum, quàm praeberi potest ab eo qui non caeco impetu, sed ratio∣ne, ducitur, atque in re, ut agnoscis ipse, non parum difficili: Ipsámque adeo rationem quam reddis Numeri nominis Bestiae Bicornis visam mihi convenicntissimam. Nec enim quicquam in literis meis ad D. Brooks, tanquam illud Expositioni tuae adversum pata∣rem, proponere unquam mihi, fuit animus; sed quod maximè ei congruum meditanti mihi, meo quidem judicio, occurrerat. Nempe sic animum subierat ejusmodi conjectura: Quan∣doquidem 144000 signatorum Agni numerus numeri cujusdam, nempe 12, multiplicati per scipsum foetus est; Numerum etiam numinis Bestiae adversae, 666, numeri alicujus multiplicati foetum pariter esse. Ideó{que} cùm Bestiae istius forma, quatenus est Antichristus, & cornua habet similia Agni, (sc. professione & usurpatione tenùs) mihi videatur esse in Christi numerum, quae tria sunt, Sacerdotale, Propheticum, Regium, distincto, sed con∣juncta subjecot, & Potestatis singula indivisibilis, atque (detur venia verbo) immulti∣plicabilis, sacrilegâ assumptione; Arte Arethmeticâ quaesivi an fortè ex tribus Vnitati∣bus collateraliter dispositis, per Senarium multiplicatâ Triade, mihi prodiret numerus 666. statimque prodeuntem inveni. Hoc verò inventum quia mihi videbatur & à reipsa & à ratione tua non absonum, D. Brooks per liter as anno praeterito indicavi, simul eum ob∣nixè rogans, quando jam nomen tuum ex cujusdam, ni fallor, Ionstoni, libello, ut Cla∣vis Apocalypticae istius Authoris, innotuerat, ut, si fieri posset, & tuum de eo judi∣cium, Scripta alia tua siquae exstarent de quacunque materia possem per eum ha∣bere. Verùm longè aliam (quod aut expressionis meae, aut fortè tantùm Scriptionis vilio libenter tribuo) ad te pervenisse meam Quaestionem jam intelligo, Vir R. & D. ex titulo quem Scripto tuo doctissimo praefixisti; in quo non vulgarem certè hamanitatem prodis, qui me indoctum sanè Doctissimi titulo ut alibi etiam, dignaris ornare; cujus à me tantùm abesse meritum lubens agnosco, quantum adest mihi fervens tui cum samma ex∣imiae tuae Doctrinae admiratione studium, & humillimi atque devotissimi Discipuli ac Ser∣vi tui placet, si mihi concedas, clogium. Facit hoc, R. & D. Vir, ut, impellente D. Brooks, cujus ut Mediatoris ope apud te utor, de Clementia tua non parùm sperans ipse tibi de novo mentem meam Thesibus aliquot aperiam, id{que} non simpliciter, ut primùm D. Brooks indicâram, sed habitâ Scripti tui, ut videbit R. T. ratione; eo fine, ut solidissimi & acer∣rimi tui judicii de invento meo genuino censuram, si R. T. placet, per eundem Mediatorem accipiam. Quam si dederis, & libertatem meam aequi bonique pro humanitate tua consulu∣eris, me magis ac magis devinctum ac devotum habebis.

Vale, Vir Reverende & Doctissime. Deus te Reipublicae, Ecclesiae, Scholae diu servet incolumem.

Dat. Blaesis pridie Cal. Iul. 1635.

De Numero Nominis Bestiae••

Numerus Nominis Bestiae commodissimè quidem è radicè Senario eruendus videtur propter Imaginem Bestiae in 6. Capite.

Verùm & simul ex unitatum Triade, utpote per Senarium multiplicata, ad hunc mo∣dum III. videtur eruendus.

6./666.

Nam Numerus Nominis Bestiae cùm sit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 numero 144000 signatorum Agni, que ex certi numeri, nempe 12, per certum numerum, nempe 12, multiplicatione oritur; videtur ideo & ex certi numeri per certum numerum multiplicatione deducendus. Fit autem tantùm ex multiplicatione Triadis Vnitatum, multiplicante Senario, numerus iste nominis Bestiae 666.

Res verò ipsa favet, Nam Bestia cornua etiam habet Agni similia, hoc est, sibi tribuit potestalem Agni, quae triplex est, Sacerdotalis, Prophetica, Regia, unitatúmque Triadem facit, siquidem & distinctae sunt, & conjunctae subjecto, & unaquaeque immultiplicabilis. Nam quòd duo cornua repraesentantur, id fit propter convenientiam Typi. Et certè non tantùm in eo forma Bestiae ponitur, quòd loquitur ut Draco, Idololatrias nempe & lani∣enos Sanctorum; sed etiam in co quòd habet cornua Agni similia.

Vnde non obstat huic conjecturae quòd nomen Antichristi sit Ecclesiasticae institutionis, quatenus Bestiam significat; nam non nititur ea hoc nomine, sed dicto Apocalyptico, Cornua habebat Agni similia.

Nec item obstat quòd numeri signatorum Agni ab eo tantùm petatur ratio quod eis re∣verâ competit, nam carent hi fraude & dolo; at Bestia à fraude & dolo etiam descri∣bitur, nempe quòd cùm loquatur ut Draco, Cornua tamen habet Agni similia: Potesta∣tem scilicet similem jactat, imò ipsam Potestatem, quantum in ea est, usurpat.

Denique cum Draconismum misceat Christianismo Bestia quatenus est ista Bestia, u∣trumque numero nominis ejus significare par esse videtur.

EPISTLE XL.

Reverendo & Clarissimo viro Domino Paulo Testardo, Ecclesiae quae est Blaesis reformatae Pastori vigilantissimo.

Reverende & clarissime Vir,

ACcep•• literas tuas benevolentiâ & humanitate plenas,* 1.106 à Domino Brokaeo mihi transmissas: in quibus non ingratum fuit intellexisse, tenuem mean opellam vi∣ris, qualis tues, doctis ulla ex parte adlibuisse. Domi certè minùs propitiam quàm apud exteros fortunam est experta. Id quod ego quidem facilè animo praesagiebam; sed amicis quibuscum eam communicaveram, editionem, ut solet, importunè flagitanti∣bus, fidem facere non potui: donec eventus tandem docuit, me, hâc faltem parte, va∣tem non omnino vanum ••uisse. Hoc ideo te celatum nolui, ut indè pro prudentia tua judicium faceres, quantopere meâ intersit, nè ipse in novam libelli mei apud exteros editionem, sive suâ sive alienâ linguâ, consentirem; cui domi nedum ulteriori editi∣one, sed & hujus distractione publicâ, à superioribus interdictum sit, solâ communi∣catione privatâ mihi permis••â.

Interim majorem in modum me tibi obstrictum fateor, cui tantopere placuerim, ut illum non solùm iteratò legere, sed in eo transferendo tantum laboris & taedii devorate non dedignareris. Nesciebam antea quicquam meum tanti pretii fuisle; certè mihi ipsi non est visum. Sin quid ex eo fructûs vel ad te vel ad alios redierit, Deo Opt. Max. in solidum sit gloria. Ejus enim solius est quicquid est boni; meum nihil prae∣ter imbecillitatem & ignorantiam.

Ad quaesitum tuum quod attinet; equidem agnosco me mentem tuam antea, sive meâ sive aliorum culpâ, minimè assecutum esse. Iam verò eâ perceptâ, utut primo aspectu nonnihil concinnitate suâ adblandiebatur; tamen penitiùs introspicienti quò minùs adhuc tibi plenè accederem illud obstaculo fuit: Quòd tametsi verissimum sit, Radium senarium, nisi cum alio numero multiplicatum, Bestiae numerum non reddi∣turum; tamen animadverto, sitres istae Unitates, quas huic reiadhibes, valore simplo, & non, juxta locorum seriem, multiplo accipiantur, factum ex datis non fore, ut tu supponis, Sexcenta sexaginta sex, sed tantùm Octodecim. Quippe quia, si data Unita∣tum Trias cum Senario composita Sexcenta sexaginta sex conficere debeat, Unitates istas omnino pro CXI. numero, non verò pro simplis unitatibus, reputandas esse: Ali∣oquin enim tres istos Senarios ex iis factos non nisi pro simplis quoque Senariis ha∣bendos.

Hic scrupulus si eximi potuisset, reliqua quae adduxerim tanti fortè futura non essent quò minùs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tuum calculo meo comprobarem: praesertim si usquam in S. Scrip∣tura (quod tamen non memini) officia illa Christi Triade signarentur. Alioquin enim ad S S. Trinitatem potiùs retulerim; cujus nempe cum cultu Bestiae sexti capitis dae∣monolatriam Pseudopropheta nefario temperamento commiscuit. Neque enim prorsus absque suspicione sum, posse in numero isto Trium Unitatum aliquid mysterii latere quod mihi nondum eruere datum est.

Haec habui, Vir Doctissime, quae ad Quaesitum tuum responderem. Fecit autem tua erga Scriptum meum benignitas & affectus, ut alias quasdam chartulas meas, Domini Brokaei rogatu, tecum communicare non dubitârim. Harum unâ mysterium calculi istiu•• Angelici apud Danielem, cap. 12. com. 11, 12. jam ante septennium vestigare sum co∣natus; quousque verò assecutus sum, necdum scio. Alteris duabus (* 1.107 Epistolâ ad A∣micum, &* 1.108 Conjecturâ de Gogo & Magogo Apocalyptico) sententiam meam de beato Millennio paulò pleniùs aperio. Plura non addo, nisi ut sanctissimis tuis studiis faveat benignissimus Deus, &c.

Mense Ianuario, Anno 1635/6

Ios. Medus.

EPISTLE XLI.

Mr. Mede's Answer to some Enquiries of Dr. Twisse, touching the meaning of Ezekiel 38. 17. and Daniel 11. 35, 36.

Worthy Sir,

WHen I received your last, I was full of business, and therefore deferred my answer thereto till some time of better leisure and freedom; which now I have attained. But for that of yours which in particular concerns my self, I will say only this, that my friends conceive me to be a man of far greater abilities than I am. Believe me, I am far unfit for such undertaking as they think me. Ingenium habeo tar∣dum & cunctabundum: and though perhaps my Fancy be a little pregnant for notions, yet for expression I am very unready, and write nothing either in Latin or English without much pains and difficulty. Such a disposition is not fit for the wars, but for peaceable and retired meditations. Besides, for the introducing and perswading a new and unfrequented Truth, the choice of a seasonable time is half the work: without which a man shall sooner damnifie than promote it. We see it by experience, what a wound sometimes a Truth gets by an error in this kind. If the time therefore be not seasonable and likely, private communication and insinuation is most safe; publick avouching is dangerous, even to the cause it self, lest it be condemned before it be un∣derstood, and so never fecible again till that generation be gathered to their fathers, if then. A Truth therefore not yet admitted must be urged very warily and tenderly, for fear of incurring such a dangerous prejudice by an overpotent opposition. For the sons of men are untoward creatures, that talk much of Reason, but commonly stear by another Compass, as of Passion, Faction, or Affection, &c.

I thank God for that portion of knowledge hath been pleased hitherto to give me in these Mysteries, and the opportunity he hath vouchsafed me to make it known to others so far as I have done. I deserved neither of them: and for the latter, ne∣ver intended it; but was catcht as it were at a running pull. If it be his pleasure I shall proceed further, he will afford me those opportunities and inducements which yet I find not. And thus much for that matter.

Now for the rest, I perceive what it is that most pincheth you in the Millenarian Prophecy; to wit, that of Gog and Magog. Wherefore I send you enclosed here∣with my* 1.109 Conjecture thereof. How you will approve it, I know not. Howsoever you may gather thereby, and by what I formerly sent you, my whole conceit of that Mystery, and that my thoughts are still, now and then, reflecting upon their accustom∣ed subject.

AS for your Quaere about the meaning of that Ezek. 38. 17. Thus saith the Lord:* 1.110 Art not thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the Prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years, that I would bring thee against them? I sup∣pose you would know by what Prophets, and where any such Enemy as that Gog, was prophesied of before Ezekiel.

I answer, by Esay, chap. 27. 1. with the two last verses of the foregoing Chapter: by Ieremy, chap. 30. 23, 24. by Ioel, chap. 3. 1, &c. by Micah. chap. 5. vers. 5, 6, 9, 15, In all which places is mention of some terrible Enemy which should come against Israel at the time of their Return, whom the Lord should destroy with a hideous and dreadful slaughter.

This Enemy is that Army of* 1.111 Gog of the land of Magog, chief Prince of Meshech and Tubal, of which Ezekiel prophesieth; formerly mentioned by the Prophets which were before him; but never so punctually and particularly described by the place of his habitation, nation and name, as by him. The nearest unto him comes Micah, who prophesies of him under the name of the Assyrian, a Nation to the Northward; And He (that is, the Ruler to come forth of Bethlechem) shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land, &c.* 1.112 Not as though this should be his Original Nation, but as the Province from whence he should fall into the land of Israel. For the Prince of Magog and Tubal cannot come into the Land of Israel, till he be first master of the Land of Ashur, which lies between them. And the Prophet de∣scribes him by this Name, rather than by that of his own Nation, because the Name of Ashur was at that time so terrible to the Iews, and the Invasion of Salmanasser and

Sennacherib still fresh in their minds: and perhaps those Nations were then at the de∣votion of the Assyrian, and no small part of his Army; as they used to be of the Saracens, when they ruled in those parts. Howsoever by this name he pointed to a Northern Enemy, whatsoever the Nation should be that should then Empire it in those parts, as the Assyrian did when he prophesied. For Assyria is described by that situation, Esay 14. 31. Ier. 1. 13. and ch. 4. 6. Zachary 2. 6. and I believe our Geogra∣phical Tables are not so true and exact herein as they should be, in that they place Saroh (as they say Assyria is now called) too much to the Eastward.

I see I have some room left for another Observation concerning Daniel XI. in which one of your Letters intimated some difficulty of Exposition.* 1.113 It may be I shall speak that which may ease you. Howsoever, it is this.

All the Ancients refer that from vers. 36. and forward to the Fourth Monarchy, especially to Antichrist, in whose reign that Monarchy should conclude. And good reason; for the Resurrection of the dead and Iudgment comes in at the end thereof, Dan. 12. 2, 3. but thither no Kingdom reaches but the Fourth. 'Tis a dangerous eva∣sion to turn this Prophecy of the Resurrection of the dead (which is the most evident and express in all the Old Testament, and that whereon the Iewish Church built her faith and hope of the Life of the world to come) into an Allegory, as some of those are forced to do who interpret all of Antiochus Epiphanes.

The stumbling-block which hath diverted so many of ours in this last Seculum to depart from the ancient and Catholick Exposition, seems to me to be chiefly, be∣cause there appears no apparent Transition in the Text from the Prophecy of Antio∣chus to this we speak of, but it coheres as a continued Narration to the end.

Now the cause of this obscurity I take to be a misdistinguishing of the Text, which refers some words to the former verse which should be the beginning of this 36. these namely, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For if these words be referred to that which follows, the Transition will be evident enough, in this manner.

35. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the* 1.114 end.

36. FOR YET at the time appointed, a King shall do according to his will, and shall exalt and magnifie himself above every God; yea he shall speak marvellous things against the God of Gods, and shall prosper until the Indignation be accomplished, &c.

For understanding of this we must know, that after the death of Antiochus Epipha∣nes the Third Kingdom comes no more in the holy reckoning, none of the Greek Kings after him being at all prophesied of; yea Daniel himself calling the time of Antiochus his reign The Latter end of the Greek Kingdom, chap. 8. 23. The reason of this is, because during the reign of Antiochus, Macedonia (whence that Kingdom sprung) with all the rest of Greece, came under the Roman obedience. From thence therefore the Holy Ghost begins the Rise of the Fourth Kingdom; yea the Roman Historians themselves mark out that time for the Rise of their Empire. Lucius Florus, lib. 2. cap. 7. Cedente Annibale, praemium victoriae Africa fuit, & secutus Africam ter∣rarum orbis. Post Carthaginem vinci neminem puduit: Secutae sunt Africam Gentes, Macedonia, Graecia, Syria, caeteráque omnia, quodam quasi aestu & torrente fortunae: Sed primi omnium Macedones, affectator quondam Imperii populus. Item Velleius Pater∣culus, lib. 1. cap. 6. ex quodam AEmilio Sura de annis populi Romani haec habet: Assyrii * 1.115 principes omnium Gentium rerum potiti sunt; deinde Medi, postea Persae, deinde Ma∣cedones: Exinde duobus Regibus, Philippo & Antiocho, (qui à Macedonibus oriundi erant) haud multò post Carthaginem subactam, devictis, summa Imperii ad populum Ro∣manum pervenit. Compare 1 Maccab. c. 8.

The meaning then of those words of Daniel—[even to the time of the end] is, That the persecution he describeth should be terminated with the end of the Third Kingdom. For from thenceforth another King [the Roman] should prevail, and ad∣vance himself over all.

Under the name of King we must understand the whole Roman State under what kind of Government soever. For the Hebrews use King for Kingdom, and Kingdom for any Government, State or Politie in the world. See but Matth. 4. 8.

By exalting and magnifying himself above every God, nothing else is meant but the greatness and generality of his conquests and prevailings: the reason of that expression being, Because in the times of Paganism every City and Country had their proper and peculiar Gods which were deemed as their Guardians and Protectors. Hence sometimes the Nations themselves are expressed by the Name of their Gods: The People of Iehovah, that is, Israel; The people of Chemosh, Numb. 21. 29:

that is, Moab. Ità accipe Deut. 4. 28. and chap. 28. 64. Ier. 16. 13. 1 Sam. 26. 19. Sometimes the Exploits of the Nations are said to be done by their Gods; as we, by like priviledge of speech, ascribe unto our Kings what is done by the People under them. See 2 Chron. 28. 23. Ierem. 51. 44. Thirdly, and most frequently; What is attempted against the Nations, is said to be done against their Gods; as we are wont in like manner to say, when an Army is overthrown or overmastered, that such a General is beaten or vanquished: See this, 2 Kings 18. 33. Isay 46. 1, 2. Ierem. 50. 2. and ch. 51. 44. and ch. 48. 7. Compare 2 Sam. 7. 23. So here the success and pre∣vailing of the Roman, in the advancing his dominion and subduing every Nation un∣der him, is expressed by exalting and magnifying himself above every God.* 1.116. But if any had rather here take Gods for Kings and Potentates, let them.

I have now no more room left: therefore with my best respect I rest

Christ's Coll. Ian. 31. 1634/5

Yours, I. M.

EPISTLE XLII.

Dr. Twisse his Fourth Letter to Mr. Mede, approving his con∣jectures touching Gog and Magog, and desiring his opinion of the English Plantations in America.

Good Mr. Mede.

I Must begin with apologizing for my self: I had purposed to return your Discourse the next week ••••ter I received it, that being of so precious a nature you might have it with the soonest. But I had so much to write upon that occasion, and withal many other Let∣ters to dispatch the same week, that I deferred it to the next. Then I was put off by an unhappy accident: For a Scholar living with me got it over night to peruse, and the next morning, upon a su••••en motion, observing the fair weather, took the opportunity to ride to London, without thinking of your Paper, neither was it in my memory to call for it. So that till the week following I could not recover it.—Now I have returned it, and I trust it shall come safe unto your hands. Now touching your Letters, I pro∣fess a truth, I was so far from taking any the least offence that I heard not from you so soon, that (believe it, sir) I blam'd my self for making so bold with you, still putting you upon new matters; though when a vein is once found of gold or silver, it makes a man hungry and greedy to pursue it; and the Kingdom of the Saints goes beyond all Mines and Treasures. O how have you blessed me, and still continue to bless me with your Papers! I protest unto you, your Letters, your Conjectures, your Meditations, are the greatest Iewels my Studie contains. I approve your Reasons for not proceeding to pub∣lish any more at this present; but as Mariners provide against a storm, so may we for a calm. I have heretofore observed how, after Civil Wars in Christendom, many excel∣lent things came forth which were studied in the time of Trouble. Did not Cicero the like in times of like condition? I am glad your thoughts reflect (and I hope ever and anon) on the same subjects, that your friends in private may enjoy the benefit of your labours and talents.

In the matter of Gog and Magog you have acquainted me with new Mysteries that I never thought of.* 1.117 Yet to one who first embraceth your way (so I call it, because God hath made you his Minister to bring it to light; but I account it the way of Truth, and so carried by you, that in no particular I find just cause of exception) concerning Reg∣num Sanctorum, such light you bring to justifie your Conjecture, that he will be driven to confess that you deliver nothing without fair ground, fair probability, and that in such a degree, that any other way seems to me, for the present, nothing capable of the like. Your grounds are very fair and clear to every one, but never (I think) taken into con∣sideration by any before your self, to that end and purpose whereunto you direct them. You cannot easily conceive what content you give me herein, and what refreshing it is to my spirit. First, I perceive that Expedition of Gog against the Land of Israel is rec∣koned by you after their calling unto Christ, and thereupon possessing themselves of the

Holy Land, the Prophecies of the Old Testament leading thereunto; though Iews in former ages have joyned themselves with the Christian Churches of the same Countrey amongst whom they conversed. Secondly, Also that now you are resolved concerning the place of New Ie∣rusalem, namely, the land of Iury. Thirdly, I guess also, you conceive the destruction of Gog and of Antichrist shall be at once by the coming of Christ. Fourthly, And that the re∣storing of the Temple in the latter end of Ezechiel, following upon the destruction of Gog, is a Type of New Ierusalem. Fifthly, And that Gog is the Turk. For which light that you have given me in all these particulars, I most heartily thank you.

NOW, I beseech you, let me know what your opinion is of our English Plantations in the New world. Heretofore I have wondered in my thoughts at the Providence of God concerning that world, not discovered till this old world of ours is almost at an end; and then no footsteps found of the knowledge of the true God, much less of Christ. And then considering our English Plantations of late, and the opinion of many grave Divines con∣cerning the Gospel's ••leeting Westward; sometimes I have had such thoughts, Why may not that be the place of New Ierusalem? But you have handsomely and fully clear'd me from such odd conceits. But what? I pray, shall our English there degenerate and joyn them∣selves with Gog and Magog? We have heard lately divers ways, that our people there have no hope of the Conversion of the Natives. And the very week after I received your last Let∣ter, I saw a Letter written from New England, discoursing of an impossibility of subsisting there; and seems to prefer the confession of God's Truth in any condition here in Old Eng∣land, rather than run over to enjoy their liberty there; yea, and that the Gospel is like to be more dear in New England than in Old: and lastly, unless they be exceeding careful, and God wonderfully merciful, they are like to lose that life and zeal for God and his Truth in New England which they enjoyed in Old; as whereof they have already woful experi∣ence, and many there feel it to their smart.

I am ashamed to urge you unto that which I do extremely desire, that you would afford me your interpretation of the last verses of Dan. 11. concerning the Fourth Kingdom: For I am confident by that you make of the first of them, you have in like manner considered it throughout; and your fetching the matter off from Epiphanes and the Greeks to the Fourth Kingdom, gives great light to the whole. Thus over shoes, over boots; I am run so far in your debt, and withall I am so much in love with it, that I care not how deep I plunge my self thereinto. I commend me heartily unto your love, which I prize more than I can ex∣press. I shall rest

Newbury, March 2. 1634.

Yours, ever to love and honour you, W. Twisse.

Post-script.

I had almost forgotten a special Argument against Regnum Sanctorum, whereof I should crave the solution; which is this. All the Saints departed this life are with the Lord Christ, 2. Cor. 5. 8. If all at his coming be not brought with him, they shall be divided from Christ, and consequently in worse condition than they were before. Though he bring all with him, yet in that Kingdom there may be place for different degrees of glory; and that 1 Cor. 15. Every one in his own order, is applied there only to Christ and them that are Christ's.

EPISTLE XLIII.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Dr. Twisse his Fourth Letter, touching the First Gentile Inhabitants, and the late Christian Plantations, in America: as also touching our Saviour's proof of the Resurre∣ction from Exod. 3. 6. with an Answer to the Objection in the Post-script of the foregoing Letter.

SIR,

COncerning our Plantation in the American world, I wish them as well as any bo∣dy; though I differ from them far, both in other things, and in the grounds they go upon.

And though there be but little hope of the general Conversion of those Natives in any considerable part of that Continent; yet I suppose it may be a work pleasing to Almighty God and our Blessed Saviour, to affront the Devil with the sound of the Gospel and Cross of Christ in those places where he had thought to have reigned se∣curely and out of the dinne thereof; and though we make no Christians there, yet to bring some thither to disturb and vex him, where he reigned without check.

For that I may reveal my conceit further, though perhaps I cannot prove it, yet I think thus;

That those Countries were first inhabited since our Saviour and his Apostles times, and not before; yea, perhaps, some ages after: there being no sings or footsteps found amongst them, or any Mounments of older habitation, as there is with us.

That the Devil, being impatient of the sound of the Gospel and Cross of Christ in every part of this old world, so that he could in no place be quiet for it, and foresec∣ing that he was like at length to lose all here, bethought himself to provide him of a seed over which he might reign securely; and in a place, ubi nec Pelopidarum factane∣que nomen audiret.

That accordingly he drew a Colony out of some of those barbarous Nations dwelling upon the Northern Ocean, (whither the sound of Christ had not yet come) and promising them by some Oracle to shew them a Country far better than their own, (which he might soon do) pleasant, large, where never man yet inhabited, he con∣ducted them over those* 1.118 desart Lands and Islands (which are many in that Sea) by the way of the North into America; which none would ever have gone, had they not first been assured there was a passage that way into a more desirable Countrey. Namely, as when the world apostatized from the Worship of the true God, God cal∣led Abram out of Chaldee into the Land of Canaan, of him to raise him a Seed to pre∣serve a light unto his Name: So the Devil, when he saw the world apostatizing from him, laid the foundations of a new Kingdom, by deducting this Colony from the North into America, where since they have increased into an innumerable multitude. And where did the Devil ever reign more absolutely and without controll, since man∣kind fell first under his clutches? And here it is to be noted, that the story of the Mexican Kingdom (which was not founded above 400 years before ours came thi∣ther) relates out of their own memorials and traditions, that they came to that place from the North; whence their God Vitzliliputzli led them, going in an Ark before them: and after divers years travel and many stations (like enough after some gene∣rations) they came to the place which the Sign he had given them at their first setting forth pointed out, where they were to finish their travels, build themselves a City, and their God a Temple; which is the place where Mexico was built. Now if the De∣vil were God's ape in this; why might he not be so likewise in bringing the first Colo∣ny of men into that world out of ours? namely, by Oracle, as God did Abraham out of Chaldee, whereto I before resembled it.

But see the hand of Divine Providence. When the off-spring of these Runnagates from the sound of Christ's Gospel had now replenisht that other world, and began to flourish in those two Kingdoms of Peru and Mexico, Christ our Lord sends his Mastives the Spaniards to hunt them out and worry them: Which they did in so hideous a manner, as the like thereunto scarce ever was done since the Sons of Noah came out of the Ark. What an affront to the Devil was this, where he had thought to have reigned securely, and been for ever concealed from the knowledge of the followers of Christ?

Yet the Devil perhaps is less grieved for the loss of his servants by the destroying of them, than he would be to lose them by the saving of them; by which latter way I doubt the Spaniards have despoiled him but of a few. What then if Christ our Lord will give him his second affront with better Christians, which may be more grievous to him than the former? And if Christ shall set him up a light in this manner, to dazle and torment the Devil at his own home, I will hope they shall not so far degenerate (not all of them) as to come in that Army of Gog and Magog against the Kingdom of Christ; but be translated thither before the Devil be loosed, if not presently after his tying up. And whence should those Nations get notice of the glorious happiness of our world, if not by some Christians that had lived among them?

Thus have I told you out my fancy of the Inhabitants of that world: which though it be built upon mere conjectures, and not upon firm grounds; yet may have so much use as to shew a possibility of answering such scruples as are wont to run in mens heads concerning them: which consideration is not always to be despised.

BUT because I see you entertain to favourably my Notions concerning the King∣dom of Christ at his appearing;* 1.119 I will make bold to acquaint you with another Notion which draws deeper (I think) than those you have yet heard.

I doubt not but you have felt some scruple (as well as others) at our Saviour's de∣monstration of the Resurrection in the Gospel, Matth. 22. Mark 12. God said to Moses in the bush, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Ergò Abraham, Isaac and Iacob must one day rise againe from the dead. How doth this Conclusion follow? Do not the Spi∣rits of Abraham, Isaac and Iacob yet live? God should then be the God of the living, though their bodies should never rise again. Therefore some Socinians argue from this place, that the Spirits of the Iust lie in the sleep of death until the Resurrection. Or might not the Sadducees have replied, the meaning to be of what God had been, not of what he should be? viz. That he was that God who had once chosen their Fathers, and made a Covenant with them; I am the God that brought Abraham out of Chaldee, who appeared to Isaac and Iacob whilest they lived, &c. But how would this then make for the Resurrection? Surely it doth. He that could not erre said it. Let us there∣fore see how it may.

I say therefore the words must be understood with supply of that they have refe∣rence unto; which is the Covenant that the Lord made with Abraham, Isaac and Ia∣cob; in respect whereof he calls himself their God. This Covenant was to give unto them and to their seed the land wherein they were strangers. [Mark it.] Not to their seed or off-springs only, but to themselves. Vide loca. To Abraham, Gen. 13. 15. & ch. 15. 7. & ch. 17. 8. To Isaac, Gen. 26. 3. To Iacob, Gen. 35. 12. To all three, Exod. 6. 4, 8. Deut. 1. 8. & ch. 11. 21. & ch. 30. 20. If God then make good to Abraham, Isaac and Iacob this his Covenant, whereby he undertook to be their God, then must they needs one day live again to inherit the promised Land, which hitherto they have not done. For the God that thus covenanted with them, covenanted not to make his promise good to them dead, but living. This is the strength of the Divine argument, and irre••ragable; which otherwise would not infer any such Con∣clusion.

And this to be our Saviour's meaning may appear, in that the Iews at that time used from these very places thus understood to infer the Resurrection against the Sad∣ducees out of the Law. As it is to be seen expresly of two of them (Exod. 6. 4. Deut. 11. 21.) in the Talmud 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.120 ubi in Gemara sic habetur, Traditio Rab. Simai; Quo loco astruit Lex Resurrectionem mortuorum? Nempeubi dicitur, Atque etiam constabili∣vi foedus meum cum ipsis, ut dem ipsis terram Canaan. Non enim dicitur vobis, sed ipsis.

Iterum rogârunt Sadducaei Rabbi Gamalielem, (Praeceptor fuit Pauli Apostoli) Vnde∣nam probaret Deum mortuos resuscitaturum.* 1.121 Non quieverunt usque dum produceret ipsis istum versum, Quam terram juravit Dominus patribus vestris se daturum illis. Hine constat Legem testificari Resurrectionem mortuorum.

Note therefore, that when in a two or three of these places it is added, and to thy seed, or their seed after them, the word after is not to be referred to give (as if it were, I will give it to thy seed after I have given it to thee;) but to seed; as, Thy seed after thee, that is, to thy posterity, their seed after them, that is, to their posterity which should come out of their loyns: For that the off-spring is in beginning after to the be∣ginning of the Parent.

To perswade this conceit by stronger testimonies than of Rabbins, I pray compare with that which hath been said, the 8, 9, and 10 verses of Hebrews 11. adding to them the 13, 14, 15 and 16 verses of the same Chapter: In the last of which you need not stumble at the Epithet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 heavenly; because it notes not only that which is in heaven, but that which is from heaven, de Coelo; as it is said verse 10. They looked for a City whose builder and maker is God. And consider well the latter part of this 16. verse with our Saviour's Argument.

Compare besides and consider that of Zachary's Benedictus, Luc. 1. 72. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which we, for fear of Limbus patrum, translate, To perform the mercy promised to our Fathers, &c. But there is no such word as [promised] in the original. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is di∣rectly, To shew mercy, or kindness, to our Fathers: For that is the Scripture phrase,* 1.122 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To shew benignity unto, or deal kindly with, one. The Fa∣thers then themselves are the Object of this benignity and favour which is to be by Christ; it is to be shewn to them.* 1.123 But what is this favour and mercy? the words

following will tell us—and to remember his holy Covenant. What was that? To give unto them, even to them in their own persons, the Land wherein they were strangers, and that by and with that seed of theirs wherein all the Nations of the earth were to be blessed.

Add lastly and consider what may be the meaning of that, Matth. 8. 11. Many shall come from the East and the West, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Iacob in the Kingdom of heaven; when the children of the Kingdom (that is, the Iews, many of them) shall be cast out into outer darkness, &c.

Now I have done, I am afraid I have not expressed my mind so clearly and evident∣ly as I would. But the Summe of what I would say is this.

God covenanted to give to Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, in their own persons, (as well as to their seed) the Land wherein they were strangers (that is, the Land of Cana∣an) for an inheritance.* 1.124 But this was not performed to them while they lived; there∣fore must they one day live again, that they may be partakers of this Promise; and consequently the Saints shall live on earth after their Resurrection.

To your Postscript•• Objection, That if the Saints come not all together with Christ, those which are left behind shall be in worse case than they were before: The assoil∣ing thereof depends upon the exact knowledge of the State of the Saints in bliss, and the degrees they are in; which we know not. Who can affirm whether all the Saints now in bliss have the Vision of Christ in his Humanity, or some of them only? And as for the presence of his Godhead, they may enjoy it in an illustrious manner, though his Humanity be on earth. We must be content in so great a Mystery to be ignorant of something. Deus providebit. For the words* 1.125 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will not contend for the sense I used them in. They may be understood the other way, so may they be in mine. Quisque fruatur suo judicio. But what say you to that in the end of Da∣niel, Go thy way, Daniel, till the end be; for thou shalt rest and stand up in thy Lot at the end of days? What is this [in thy Lot?] Is it not, In thy course, or In thy turn? See the Courses or Turns of the Priests and Levites so called, 1 Chron. 24.

For my full interpretation of that part of the 11. of Daniel, I have it in a Treatise upon 1 Tim. 4. which I preached in certain Sermons at S. Marie's before I was so well versed in the Apocalyps or understood the Mystery of the Millennium; and therefore it hath some things in it not so consentaneous to my present opinion either in that or some other things there discoursed. I could* 1.126 mend the foundation thereof. Not∣withstanding these defects I could be willing to let you have a sight of it, if I could send it by a certain hand; but the hand of a Carrier is too contingent to adventure it in: And this to save the labour of writing out that which concerns that Prophecy of Daniel, which would be a little tedious to me.

Mr. B. at his sending me your last, desired to know my opinion of Gog and Magog in the Apocalyps, whether they were not Hypocrites on the one side within the Church, and open Enemies without on the other. Whereby I gather he is not acquainted with my conceit of the Millennium, and wants the Praecognita. Wherefore it would be a tedious business to go about to inform him by writing. I answered him, My Opinion required many Praecognita, and what it was you could inform him: but I thought it concerned not these times.

Thus with my best respect, and commending your self and all yours to the Blessing of the Almighty, I rest

Christ's Colledge, March 23. 1634/5.

Your assured Friend, Ioseph Mede.

EPISTLE XLIV.

Mr. Hartlib's Letter to Mr. Mede, intimating a Learned man of Leiden his judgment of his Book on the Apocalyps.

Worthy Sir,

IVst now I received a Letter from a Learned man of Leiden, to whom also I sent your Clavis, who writes thus: Doctissimum Commentarium Apocalyp. coepi lege∣re. Gratulor mihi de talibus scriptis, quorum etsi fides non potest esse nimis certa in

omnibus, sunt tamen quorum nomine maximi aestimari debent. Nam 1. Non parùm valent contra Atheos, quorum perversi••as priùs concinnis ejusmodi delectanda, quàm convincentibus expugnanda. 2. Nec minùs ad erigendos eos qui certitudinis de Re∣ligione deliquium patiuntur aliquando, qualis nemo non est. 3. Nec non ad solati∣um in adversis. Nihil enim fortiùs solatur quàm quod certitudinem de Religione Christiana ex habitu in vivum & vegetum actum excitat: At hoc potest Apocalypseos consideratio talis. 4. Quantum in eo situm sit ut evincatur Papam esse Antichristum nemo non novit: At hoc longè fortiùs persuadetur tali modo quàm per disputationes; saltem disputationes confirmat. 5. Nè dicam quòd multa Scripturae dicta in hoc Com∣men••ario egregiè explicantur, & historiae profanae ad pium usum transferuntur: quam postremam ob causam O quàm opto ut lucem videat ejusdem Authoris Scriptum, quo Originem Pontificiae Religionis ex Ethnicis••••o egregiè demonstratam intelligo! Et qui∣dem video eum pag.* 1.127 116. lin. 7. Comment. Apocalyp. tale quid citare. Scribe quaeso an impressum. Interim velim D. Duncus hunc Comment. Apocalyp. consideret, & judi∣cet, annon suum interpretandi modum hic Author accuratissimè secutus sit. An igitur audebit dicere hanc Apocalypseos interpretationem & Analysin esse infallibilem? Thus you see how our affections of your worthy labours begin to turn into a true judgment and right value. Yet I should be glad too to spend more of my affections upon you in writing oftner, if many other weighty and publick occasions would give me leave: But I know you will excuse me, and remain confident that I am always

6. Martii, 1634.

Your very assured and affectionate friend to serve you, Samuel Hartlib.

EPISTLE XLV.

Mr. Mede's modest Answer, excusing himself and his Book.

Worthy Mr. Hartlib,

THanks for your good affection, in rejoycing for that you conceive to tend to my honour. Yet I see not why I should think much better of my self for it. It is the hap of many a Book that hath no worth in it (as I see daily) to find applause and en∣tertainment, when a good Book is often scarce taken notice of. Why may not mine then, notwithstanding all this, be of that sort? I confess it is far better accepted than ever I looked for. This is enough. Yet might it be any furtherance but in the smal∣lest degree to draw a Prince to our Religion, I should think then I might have cause of glory. But, alas! I dare not so much as give such a conceit entertain∣ment.

Howsoever, because you send me abroad, and the Book contains a Paradox which is but generally and tenderly touched, and not fully explicated; lest I might be repu∣ted, in this generality, to be of the same Opinion that Piscator, and some others are, who avouch a Millennium Regni, as I do, but not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so their conceit far differing from mine; I thought not amiss to send you these inclosed Papers, wherein those that shall study that point shall find my opinion competently explicated; at least so far as may secure them that I cherish no gross and groundless error. When you have made that use of them you think fit, I would desire you to send me them again, for I have no other Copies, and they are sometimes useful to me in giving satisfacti∣on.

If Mr. Dury hath read my Book, you may communicate them with him; else it will not be to purpose. I would I knew whether he had a Book or not. The Book he sent me down from De Dieu, I have now at length, and but newly, received. I read De Dieu's Letter but this morning, and would have written to Mr. Dury in answer to his kind Letter, but that I am all overwhelmed at present with business and distra∣ctions, and am of a disposition that can tend but one thing at once. I pray howsoever remember my service to him•• the next week I shall be at leisure I hope to write to him.

For your excusing your seldom saluting me with your Letters, it needs not; I am sensible of the trouble my self, and therefore most ready to hold others excused. Thus my time is spent, and I must to other writing work. So with my best affection I rest

Christ's Colledge, March 11. 1634.

Your assured Friend, Ios. Mede.

EPISTLE XLVI.

Ioh. Duraei Epistola ad Ios. Medum.

Gratiam & Pacem.

CUM Lugduno-Batavorum,* 1.128 Clarissime & Doctissime Vir, discessurus valedicerem Rev. Domino De Dieu, quocum mihi à multo tempore notitia intercesserat, Fidei meae commisit suas hasce in Acta Apostolorum Annotationes vobis tradendas. Gra••ula∣tus mihi sum de qualicunque hac occasione ipsi & tibi simul inserviendi; aut saltem testan∣di erga te praesertim (cujus Pietatem atque Eruditionem meritò omnes piè doctivenerantur) Studium & affectum meum, quo tuam virtutem prosequor. Hanc igitur scribendi ansam nactus nolui meo voto deesse ampliùs, quo in tuam aliquando irrepere familiaritatem exop∣tavi. Multa illa & praeclara optimorum, & nominatim Domini Hartlibii, de tuis doti∣bus testimonia, animum meum ad haec vota & desideria inflammârunt. Dabis igitur, Vir eximie, veniam pro tua humanitate meo affectui, cujus impulsu haec scribo, ut liceat mihi imposterum tuo cul••ui mea studia dedicare, & pro re nata te per Literas salutare, siquid dignum tuà notitiâ in communibus studiis occurret. Impraesentiarum nihil adhuc ad ma∣num est praeter hoc Decretum ab Ordinibus Imperii factum in negotio Pacis Ecclesiasticae meo rogatu capessendo: in illo videre poteris quousque divina Clementia meis conatibus praeter & ultra exspectationem faverit; atque ut illi mecum eo nomine gratias agas rogo. Quae reliqua in hoc instituto promovendo sunt, & communicatione digna videbuntur, suo tem∣pore suggerentur; ut siquid ab Eruditione & Prudentia tua accedere possit ad hanc causam juvandam, id meo quodam jure in Communione Sanctorum postulare & impetrare queam•• Val••, Vir mihi maximopere colende. Dabam raptim

Londini, 4. Kal. Mart. 1634/5.

Vestrae Pielatis Observantissimus, Iohannes Duraeus,

EPISTLE XLVII.

Ios. Medi Epistola ad Ioh. Duraeum.

Doctissime & Ornatissime Vir,

DIutius factum est cùm tuas Literas accepi,* 1.129 nec respondi: In causa fuit, quòd Li∣brum ad me à Clarissimo viro Domino Lud. De Dieu missum Vehicularii incuriâ ante superiorem septimanam non acceperim: tunc autem cùm scribendum esset, aliis occupationibus & scriptiunculis adeò distinebar, ut vel tantillum otii & temporis huic officio non suppeterit.

Duplici verò beneficio me affecit Vir clarissimus doctissimúsque & omni laude supe∣rior Dominus Ludovicus De Dieu; tum quòd eruditissimi Libri sui munere me honorare voluerit; tum quòd unâ eâdémque operâ, quasi tesserâ quadam in manus traditâ, mi∣hi ad amicitiam tuam viam patefecerit; Viri, quem verè heroicum illud Religiosae Pa∣cis procurandae studium mihi jamdudum & omnibus bonis amabilem reddiderat, Deo

quinetiam charum & acceptum. Macte, vir beatissime, (talem enim te* 1.130 Christus ip∣se pronunciat) hoc animo, hâc virtute. Utinam autem ità ferret conditio mea, es∣sémque porrò ab ingenio & prudentia satìs instructus, ut tibi in tam sancto munere inservirem. Nunc verò illud, ultrà quàm voto & commendatione, non licet. Nos enim hîc (ut scias) qui inferioris subsellii sumus, ab aliorum pendemus arbitrio, neque sine illorum nutu aut ductu in talibus quicquam audemus; alioquin factiosi & inordina∣ti ingenii notam incursuri, nullo, mihi crede, siquis eo maculetur, oceano eluendam.

Est & aliud offendiculum quod te non celabo, quo Nostratium quorundam animos, alioquin rectos, deterreri & retardari suspicor, quò minùs voluntatem suam tam liberè & apertè in hac causa profiteantur: nempe quòd aliorum temeritate, aliorum malitiâ factum animadvertunt, ut quò quis in exte••as Ecclesias proniorem se ostendat, eò sta∣tim à nostra habeatur alienior. Audîsti Satanae Stratagema, quo tam pulchro & pio in∣cepto remoram objicere conatur. Hinc conjice, in suffragiis ad rem istam colligen∣dis quantâ cautelâ & judicio opus sit.

Meipsum quod attinet, scias velim, me summis animi votis Ecclesiarum pacem & concordiam exoptare, tibíque eo nomine & sanctissimis tuis conatibus impensè ••avere, &, quà licet, promovere velle. Dextram verò amicitiae (quam tam benignè obtu∣listi & vicissim postulas) en tibi ••am jam nunc porrigo, ínque affectûs mei testimonium Scriptum hoc qualecunque meum in Apocalypsin dono mitto; minimè illud ei par quod mihi à doctissimo & (quod ex Literis ejus cognovi) amicissimo tibi viro ferendum ac∣cepisti: Rogo tamen ut aequi boníque consuleres, quod ab homine cui angusta est eru∣ditionis supellex proficisci potuit.

Nolim enim te ex Domini Hartlibii & aliorum amicorum de me judiciis, qui ex hoc Scripto (quod immane quanto labore mihi constitit) vires meas aestimant, in errorem abduci. Non sum profectò quem illi me existimant, sed in quo omnia mediocria sunt, nè dicam tenuia; multis eruditionis praesidiis destitutum esse, praesertim (quod maxi∣mè angit) cogitata mentis sive sermone, sive scripto apud alios facilè & expeditè pro∣ferendi facultatem à natura denegatam habere, ut nullo modo sim amicorum de me judiciis & exspectationi responsurus, mihi de meipso crede, nè de novo amico nimiùm fortè sis tibi gratulaturus.

Plura non addo, nisi ut faveat sanctissimis tuis inceptis benignus Deus, téque diu in∣columem servet, Ecclesiae & Reipublicae Christianae bono. Ità vovet

E Collegio Christi Cantabrig. 18. Martii 1634/5.

Nominis tui studiosissimus, Ios. Medus.

EPISTLE XLVIII.

Lud. de Dieu Epistola ad Ios. Medum.

Clarissime, Doctissime atque Ornatissime Vir,

LIter as tuas 4.* 1.131 Iunii praecedentis anni datas, per Nobilissimum atque Amplissimum Equi∣tem D. Guilielmum Boswellum jamdudum accepi; ex quibus leviusculas meas in doctissimam tuam Clavem Apocalypticam Animadversiones communicat as tibi à literatis∣simo viro fuisse intelligo. Quod etsi praeter mentem meam acciderit, magno tamen meo bo∣no factum, quòd isthoc pacto aditus mihi ad eruditionem tuam datus sit. Allubuisse tibi mearum Observationum aliquid, est quod mihi gratuler: quòd alia non satis à me intelle∣cta, aut seciùs accepta, illustrare ac plana facere dignatus fueris, gratias ago maximas, & acquiesco. Quòd autem nullam adhuc causam te videre potuisse ais, cur magis in Veteri Testamento variantem lectionem admittere pertimescas quàm in Novo, examinandum peni∣tiùs videtur. In Vet. Testamento unicus fuit populus Iudaicus, intra angustos terrae Ca∣naan limites conclusus, qui à summo Pontifice paucísque Sacerdotibus pendens, Scripturae Sacrae &. Lectiones & interpretationes accipere ab iis debebat: ibi Scripturam in puritate sua conservare & varationem arcere facile fuit; unde & summo consensu, paucis exceptis apicibus & literis, codices Hebraei conspirant; adversus quorum consensum variantem le∣ctionem comminisci, audendum non arbitror. In Novo Testamento, ubi, dispersà protinus per omnes populos salutis doctrinâ, res secùs se habuit, variari aliquid facile fuit, ut & va∣riantes codices variantes lectiones admittere cogunt.

Tria autem adfers consideratione digna. Primum est, Ipsius Hebraei Textûs lectio∣nem variare: ubi con••erri vis hymnum Davidis novissimum 2 Sam. 22. cum codem Psal. 18. Historiam excidii Hierosolymitani 2 Reg. 24. à vers. 18. ad finem cap. 25. cum ea∣dem historia Ierem. 52. Legationem Merodach Baladan 2 Reg. 20. vers. 12, 13, &c. cum eadem Esa. 39. Item 2 Sam. 21. 19. cum 1 Paral. 20. 5.

Respondeo, Plurima in illis locis esse quae invicem collata aliter quidem hîc leguntur quàm illic, ità tamen ut & hîc eodem modo omnes codices legant & illic; & nè Mazorethae quidem variantes lectiones annotarefuerint ausi. Varictas illa crebrò contingit, ubi de ea∣dem re diversi authores scribunt. Quoties apud Evangelistas id videre est? ubi eandem historiam diversi tractantes addunt, demunt, commutant verba & sententias, immutant personas, transponunt ordinem, & alia aliter scribunt. Matth. 3. est portare calcea∣menta; Marc. 1. solvere corrigiam calceamentorum: illic, baptizabit Spiritu Sancto & igne; hîc, omittitur igne. Quae Matth. 5. in Beatitudinibus narrantur tertiâ personâ à Christodicta, recens••t Lucas secundà personâ. Quodque Matth. 13. 17. est, Multi Pro∣phetae & justi; Luc. 10. 24. est, Multi Prophetae & ••eges. In quibus neque variare le∣ctionem, neque corruptam esse hanc aut illam dic••t quisquam; quia diversitas ista jus••as ju∣as habet causas & usus insignes. Talia quoque sunt, quòd 2 Reg. 25. 4. omittantur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quae Ier. 52. 7. leguntur: Quòd illic scribatur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, apud Ierem•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; ut & Esa. 39. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quod 2 Reg. 20. 12. est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; & 1 Reg. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quod 2 Chron. 13. est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: facilè enim tempora in nominum proprio∣rum pronunciatione & scriptione literam aliquam variant, unde & in Evangeliis est, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quod in Hebr. est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Et ut quod primo l••co ponis potissimùm conscram, nempe Psal. 18. cum 2 Sam. 22. Illic vers. 1. legitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hîc 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Versus qui ibi secundus est, hîc omittitur. Ibi vers. 3. est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hîc 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ibi desunt quae hîc eadem versu adduntur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibi vers. 5. est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hîc 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cesso, quia plurimae ejusmodi sequuntur mutationes; quae satis evincunt aut Psalmo Davidis contigisse à novo scriptore qui libros Regum contexuit quod passim orationibus Christi in Evangeliis, ubi ab alio Evangelista aliis verbis recensentur; aut ipsummet Davidem, diversis temporibus egregium hunc hymnum proferentem, consultò quaedam mutâsse, ut uberior ejus esset sensus; unde sanè d••ver sacodi∣cum lectio, nec ulla aut hîc aut illic depravatio, arguipotest.

At respicis forsitam ea loca ubi aliter se habere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 annotârunt Mazore∣thae. Respondeo, Ipsorum annotationes non indicare quomodo alii codices legerint, sed quomodo legendum sit: ideo nunquam duplex, multò minùs triplex, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 annotatur; & vocales semper 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nunquam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accommodantur; ut unicam tantùm lectionem rectam esse indicarent, quae scilic••t 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 est adaptata. In quo cùm sensum suum & ju∣dicium sint secuti, rejicio passim ipsorum lectionem, tanquam aut non necessariam, aut in∣utilem, aut superstitiosam, aut etiam depravatam, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sequi amo. Vt in hymno Davidis 2 Sam. 22. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ketif postulat legi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sicut Psal. 18. quod rectius est quàm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Keri 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quod mascul. gen. non bene construitur cum seq. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vers. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ketif vult legi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ut est Psal. 18. & rectius est quàm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Keri 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vers. 33. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ketif vult legi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Keri est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quia nempe sic legitur Psal. 18. at cur non eodem jure annotârunt pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 legendum ut in Psalmo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Iam antè diximus studio mutâsse nennulla Prophetam, ut & alia in eodem hoc versu, & suprà vers. 11. est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & conspectus est, quum illic sit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & volavit: hic vers. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 colli∣gationes aquarum, cùm illic sit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tenebras aquarum. Optimum habet sen∣sum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.132 Et exsilire facit integrum via ejus, vel & exsilire facit integrum in via sua, pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Indè pendet & alterum vers. seq. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sic habet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ketif, pro quo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Keri 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; at rectius est prius, si in praecedenti legas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, disponit pedes ejus (nempe integri viri, quem exsilire facit aut expeditum reddit via ejus) ut cervarum. Versu ult. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ketif vult legi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sicut Psal. 18. at Keri est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, omnino prave. Sic in historia Merodachi 2 Reg. 20. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ketif est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Keri vult inter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 legi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quia nempe id apud Esaiam legitur; quid necesse? Sic vers. 18. Ketif est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accipiet, nempe Rex Babel, optima sensu; at Keri est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accipient, quia sic legitur apud Esaiam, sinc ulla necessitate. 2 Sam. 21. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ketif vult legi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vir men∣surarum aut extensionum (est enim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••rabicè extendere) sicut in sing est 1 Par. 206. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; at 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Keri est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quod sanè multò minùs quadrat. Ibid. vers. 19. est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, volunt legi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quia sic est in Chronicis; quasi non ubique nomina propria mutationes tales subeant.

Alterum quod statuis est, Ubi Apostoli & Evangelistae lectionem quam secuti sunt LXX calculo suo comprobâsse videntur, illos duces sequi perinde tutum esse ac Mazo∣rethas, neque sacrilegum in Scripturam esse qui sic ex ipsa Scriptura & meliore ejus le∣ctione pronunciaverit.

Repeto, Vir Clarissime, quod dixi, me duces Mazorethas non sequi, nisi ubi res ipsa cogit, & meliorem lectionem postulat. Menda quaedam literaria irrepsisse in Sacros Codi∣ces, ut in alios quosvis, non nego: Sed quae ex re ipsa & genio linguae, etiam sine Mazo∣rethis, à peritis facilè deprehendi, & dum leguntur emendari possint. Ex LXX interpre∣tibus, etiam cùm Apostoli & Evangelistae eos sequuntur, lectionem in qua omnes Hebraei co∣dices consentiunt suspectam habere & meliorare non ausim. Psal. 40. 7. legitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. sequitur id Apostolus Hebr. 10. an indè colligere licebit veriorem lectionem esse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? Psal. 19. pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 LXX habent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: sequitur Apostolus Rom. 10. an propterea verior lectio est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? Esa. 1. 9. pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 LXX habent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quod sequitur Apostolus Rom. 9. anidco verior lectio est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? Malta sic erunt immutanda, alibi addenda: ut Esa. 65. 2. legitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sic & Apostolus Rom. 10. 21. addendúmne ergò erit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Est & ubi omittunt aliquid LXX, ut Esa. 10. 22, 23. quod sequitur Apostolus Rom. 9. 27, 28. Malim cum doctissimis multis viris sentire, Non accuratè admodum & sollicitè spe∣ctâsse sanctos viros quousque cum Hebraica lectione LXX Interpretes convenirent; sed vulgatae & inter Hellenistas receptae Versioni libenter inhaesisse, modò salvam indè integrámque ha∣berent Spiritûs Sancti mentem.

Tertium quod statuis est, Alicubi observare esse, Spiritum Sanctum crisin manifestiùs exercere, aliámque à recepta lectionem praeferre, etiam ubi LXX versioni cum hodi∣crnis exemplaribus Hebraicis ad amussim convenit. Locum citas ex Matth. 27. 10. ubi ex 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 conjectas innuisse Spiritum Sanctum pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 legendum apnd* 1.133 Prophetam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; quod quidem ego minimè sentio: Sed cùm apud Prophetam initio versûs 13. praecedat narratio mandatai divini quo jussit Deus projici argenteos illos ad figulum, omissâ narratione mandati voluisse Evangelistam subjicero in fine, factum esse si∣cut mandaverat Dominus. Quòd autem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nullam faciat mentionem, cau∣sa est, quia & apud LXX ••a omittitur, qui tamen loco ejus illud 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non habent. Retinendum est omnino illud 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quia circumstantiam loci continet in quem conjici debebant argentei, in quem & conjectos à Iuda esse Matthaeus docet vers. 5. Et si Thesin illam tuam sequi liceat, quidni Rom 10. 9. crisin exercuisse dicatur Apostolus in illum locum Mosis, Deuter, 32. 21. Ego ad zelum provocabo eos, ut & LXX habent, sed Paulus citat vos? Aliâ viâ existimo, Vir Clar. ejusmodi loca esse expedienda quàm tantae libertatis concessione. Nolim taenm cuiquam sententiâ meâ praejudicatum.

Reliquum est, Vir amicissime, ut ob praeclarum tuum munus, quo affectum tuum erga me ingentem maximopere es testatus, quàm possum maximas agam gratias. Vsus eo est per ali∣quot menses, & adhuc utitur, Cl. Vir ac Theologiae hîc Professor D. Antonius Walaeus, qui ex Ill. Ord. mandato novae in linguam vernaculum Novi Testamenti transtationi cum aliis incumbens, & prae caeteris Apocalypsin notis marginalibus illustrandam nactus, operam tuam vehementer laudat, sibique ejus usum gratulatur; quo nomine majores etiam tibigra∣tias debemus. Accipe jam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 levidense mearum in Acta Apostolorum Animad∣versionum, tuo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nequaquam par, sed quale ab homine cui angusta est eruditionis su∣pellex proficisci potuit, cui animus melior quàm facultas. Accipit hasce ad te deferendas D. Duraeus, Vir omni doctrinae & virtutum genere ornatissimus, nobísque amicissimus, nec cuiquam nisi pessimo invisus. Hunc si amas, méque cum ipso in ejusdem amicitiae so∣cietatem intromittere dignaris, erit utrique cur nobis gratulemur. Faveat sanctissimis tu∣is laboribus benignus Deus, téque Ecclestis & Reipub. literariae diu incolumem conser∣vet.

Datum Lugd. Batav. 10. Ianuar. 1635.

Reverentiae tuae studiosissimus, Ludovicus de Dieu. Superser. Clarissimo, doctrinâ virtuléque summo viro, D. Iosepho Medo, amico ac fautori honorando.

EPISTLE XLIX.

Ios. Medi Epistola ad Lud. de Dieu.

Reverende & Clarissime Vir,

DUplici me beneficio affecisti;* 1.134 tum quòd Libri tui eruditissimi munere me orna∣re volueris; tum quòd unâ eâdémque operâ, quasi tesserâ quadam in manus tra∣ditâ, mihi ad Domini Ioannis Duraei amicitiam viam patefeceris, Viri, quem verè he∣roicum illud Religiosae pacis procurandae studium mihi dudum & omnibus bonis amabi∣lem reddiderat; haec verò occasio primùm de facie notum, & in interiorem familiari∣tatem acceptum. Utroque hoc nomine, Vir Clarissime, gratias tibi ago meritissi∣mas; inprimis ob 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tuum tam praeclarum & omnimodâ eruditione refertum, cuique meum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (quicquid tu dixeris) nullatenus conferri potest: imò videor liberalitate isthâc mcâ omnino foenus exercuisse, & quaestum fecisse, si fas dicere, im∣probissimum.

De mendis autem & corruptione Textûs Hebraici, non est mihi tecum in ea causa reciprocandi animus: Fateor enim ultro hîc, siusquam alibi, cautè & religiosè agen∣dum, imò & sentiendum. Interim tamen mallem mendum alicubi agnoscere, quàm in inexplicabilem difficultatum Labyrinthum compelli, unde me haud expedirem, nisi absurdiuscula quaeque & multò minùs verisimilia (prout nonnunquam ab aliis factum video) comminisci vellem. Unum tantùm ant alterum in Responsione tua notabo. Primum, quòd in collatione historiae 2 Reg. 25. cum eadem Ierem. 52. non videris id animadvertisse in quod ego animum praecipuè intenderam: nempe capite illo Regum, v. 3. verba nonnulla omissa esse, sine quibus historiae veritas salva esse non potest; ea∣dem verò ex Ieremia facilè & tutò restitui posse. Conferamus invicem.

2 Reg. 25. 3. sic legitur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—Ier. 52. 6. sic, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Quis hîc non videt verba illa [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] sine quibus narrationis veritas non constat, è contextu Regum exci∣disse? Simile mihi observâsse videor, 1 Paral. 6. 28. in illo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Atqui primogenito Samuclis nomen fuit Ioel, non Vashni; imò eo nomine memoratur in hoc ipso capite, non nisi quinque abhinc versibus. Censeo igitur exci∣disse nomen Ioel, & olim sic scriptum fuisse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Et si∣lii Samuelis, primogenitus Ioel, & secundus Abijah. LXX certè sic legerunt, & con∣firmatur ex 1 Sam. 8. 2. ubi legitur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nè dicam planè absurdum esse, nomen cuique esse inditum ex voce cum Vau copula∣tiva praefixa; nam quid quaeso significabit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quocunque modo tractes, quàm & secundus?

Alterum quod notabo est, to Textum LXX. Zach. 11. 13. leviter tantùm inspexisse, ex eo quòd affirmes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 apud illos non haberi; háncque causam esse cur ne∣que apud Evangelistam compareat. At, nisi me quoque fefellerunt oculi, LXX hîc cum Hebraeo habent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Praeterea Evangelistam hîc LXX non esse secutum, argumento est, quòd totam pericopen aliis ferè verbis enuntiet.

Haec sunt, Vir clarissime, quae eruditissimis tuis (quas tanquam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aliquod apud me servare decrevi) reponenda duxi, nec plura. Deus Opt. Max. eruditissimos tuos conatus ad Reipublicae literariae emolumentum & nominis sui gloriam indies magìs magísque provehat, téque quàm diutissimè incolumem servet. Ità vovet

Claritatis & Virtutis tuae studiosissimus, Ios. Medus.

EPISTLE L.

Dr. Twisse's Fifth Letter to Mr. Mede, applauding his Con∣jecture concerning Gog and Magog, and the first peopling of America; as also his proof of the Resurrection from Exod. 3. 6. with a Post-script relating partly to a report of Mr. Sel∣den's Censure of his Book upon the Apocalyps.

HOw exceedingly am I beholden unto you; first, for your pains in affording me so libe∣ral Letters, especially considering with what recreation and delight I read them; but above all for your love in communicating your thoughts? And I dare profess, though I have not seen your face, (whic I heartily desire at mine house; but I will think of preventing that suit, and first take a time to visit your self at Cambridge) yet you cannot communicate them to one that holds them more dear. Alas! had it not been for your help, I had been to this day a stranger in the mystery of God; while all my thoughts are employed in making up the breach which these degenerate Times have caused in the mystery of God's grace. But I have a desire to receive information; and God hath made me capable in some measure to discern the strength of rational discourse, and the congruity of Conclusions with their Pre∣misses in any argument. And to profess a truth, I did not think the mysteries of God's Providence, set down as they are in obscure Prophecies, had been capable of such evidence of illustration as God hath enabled you to bring thereunto, before the Event doth manifest them.

I went a little too far in my last; only that I might not be too immodest to create new troubles unto you, by comparing your Book on the Revelation, I guess the destruction of Gog is before the ruine of Antichrist, though perhaps not long; and thereupon will follow that great commotion, Revel. 19. 19. And as for the destruction of the Temple after Gog in Ezechiel, whether you think it to have any reference to new Ierusalem, I know not.

As for your former mystery concerning Gog; I find it evident, that if Lactantius were now alive, in all likelihood he would go hand and foot into your opinion. He is clear for the reservation of some Gentes untouched of the fire at Christ's coming. This lately I met withal, not in Lactantius himself, but in Sixtus Senensis.

As for the peopling of the new world, I find more in this Letter of yours than former∣ly I have been acquainted with. Your conceit thereabouts, if I have any judgment, is grave and ponderous; and the particular you touch upon, of Satan's wisdom imitating the wisdom of God, doth affect me with admiration. And for matter of fact, the grounds you go upon, for ought I see, are as good as the world can afford. I think it a far safer course to entertain your apprehensions of God's Providence concerning our better Plantations in those parts, than the vain prognostications of those who think that likeliest which pleaseth them best. Were it not for Christians that live amongst them, they could neither have notice of the glory of new Ierusalem, nor ever in all likelihood attain either to the Art of Ship-build∣ing and Navigation, or Art military, to fit them for such an Expedition as you speak of. And it may serve as a chamber to hide many of God's children, till the indignation pass over, whic hastens upon us more and more. Call that which you write Fancies, as your modesty suggests; I cannot but entertain them as sage conceits.

As for the place alledged by our Saviour to prove the Resurrection, [God is not the God of the dead, but of the living] long ago my brains were exercised to make it good, which I did in a Philosophical way; from the Immortality of Souls concluding the Re∣surrection of their Bodies, from that Philosophical Maxim, Nihil violentum perpetu∣um; and consequently the dividing of the Soul from the Body not to continue for ever. I then thought not of the mystery of God concerning the First Resurrection, and that of the Iust only. And albeit some thoughts do arise against your way therein, upon consideration that glorified Bodies stand in no need of inheritance temporal; and un∣doubtedly the eating and drinking of Saints in their Resurrection shall be rather to main∣tain a familiar communion with the* 1.135 Nations that escape, who are to walk in their light, than to supply any domestical necessity of their natures; yet howsoever, the land of Canaan being the place where they shall reign as Kings, and the promise of God so

express to Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, not to their seed only; and albeit the state of Grace was a better inheritance than the land of Canaan, yet the state of Glory, reigning with Christ, better than that: this makes me highly to respect your interpretation. And you back your interpretation with learned Observations out of the Rab∣bins: and the good use you make of them makes me the more in love with them; and I am sorry I have not spent more time in them; and it stirs me up sometimes to recreate my self in the Venice Bibles set forth by Buxtorsius, wherein I have been not a little re∣freshed with what they write of Balaam's prophecy, and upon Gog in Ezechiel, and how they strain their wits upon that, [Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time?] R. Solomo fetching it from Eldad and Medad, whic made me smile; and Kimchi referring it to Ezechiel only and Zachary: and upon that, Matth. 8. 11. and the like. One Mr.—in Lincolnshire doth vehemently insist for your way, as I have heard from my Lord S. to whom I have lately written pleasantly, touching upon his counsels for advancing the Plantations of the West, and telling him, that his Lordship little thinks that they tend to the promoting of the kingdom of Gog and Magog. For that noble Lord gives me leave to be merry with him; nothing pleaseth him more than when he finds me free from a dejected Spirit. In his next he gave a touch only thereupon, which was this, that surely the Ame∣ricans were not Gog and Magog. In my text I shewed him they could not be the same with Gog of the land of Magog in Ezechiel (which was his opinion;) that Gog coming from the North, but these from the East, West, North and South, the four corners of the world. But withal I told his Lordship, he was not as yet idoneus Auditor of this mystery; he must first be a good Proficient in an inferior Form, where is read and studied the mystery of Regnum Christi & Sanctorum and the First Resurrection. Vpon this he wrote a larger Letter opposing the conceit (I touched upon) of Gog and Magog, though the Millennium of Christ's Kingdom were granted; yet not a little against that also. I answered his Let∣ter punctually; but when I had done, I kept that by me, and wrote at large to him concern∣ing Regnum Christi, professing my desire he might not be unacquainted with the Mystery of God, Revel. 10. 7. according to the true contents thereof, Revel. 11. 15. and so pro∣ceeded to shew unto him what a Mystery it seemed to me at the first, and how incredible; though that Revel. 20. 4. was plain enough; but we were willing to project some recondite meaning, because the plain sense of the words seemed incredible. When I came to under∣stand your way, what course I took to crave leave to propose my Reasons, in number* 1.136 ten, to send unto you, these I sent to him without any answer; which yet he shall have, if he re∣quire it; not otherwise, for I do not affect to cramme any man against his appetite. I know he is much taken with Mr. Brightman.

As touching my Objection; I know that 1 Cor. 15. Every man in his own order, is more fair for your way than that I proposed; and to contract it to that which immediately followeth, seems to me to infatuate it; especially you having so fairly confirmed it out of Daniel, and the Ancients stand with you herein. Vndoubtedly the enjoying of Christ••s God-head is more happiness than the enjoying of his Manhood; and the same joy in enjoying Christ the Lord* 1.137 can maintain in the spirits perfected: And why should it be any discom∣fort to me, that Christ in his Manhood is gone to ruine Antichrist, and to reign with his Saints, and that I must stay till my turn comes to reign with him?

I have written to Mr. B. in answer to his Letter, wherein he made relation of where∣abouts he had written to you, and what you answered him; whereupon I took occasion to write unto him, and to acquaint him with the Praecognita you speak of.

In one of your former Letters, you told me of a Chappel-exercise you had to communi∣cate unto me, when I returned that of Gog and Magog; which truly I had forgotten in my last to entreat: but since perusing your Letters, and lighting upon it, I resolved the next time I wrote to put you in mind of your promise: which whether it be the same you have wrote of concerning Dan. 11. I know not.—I could not neglect to write unto you with the first, to acquaint you with my receit of yours, which came to my hands Apr. 4. and to give you many thanks for your love and pains, which I shall never requite save with love; if that may be a requital, as your acceptance may make it. I commend you from my heart to the Grace of God, and your studies as mine own to the Divine benediction, and rest

Newbury, April 6. 1635.

Yours ever in the Lord extreamly obliged. W. Twisse.

Post-script.

A strange Book came lately to my hands of the variation of the longitude of places on earth by the variation of the Compass, which was formerly supposed to be invaria∣ble. That which 54 years since was found to be deg. 11, 22 years agoe was found to be but deg. 7, and the last year but deg. 4. Dr. L. my neighbour desires to be remembred unto you: He told me a story of Mr. Selden, what he delivered to my Lord Herbert concerning you, as namely that you took it unkindly that he would not believe that a Trumpet signified a thousand years. I made answer on your be∣half as I thought good.

EPISTLE LI.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Dr. Twisse's Fifth Letter, expressing the great Candour and Freedom of his spirit as to differences in Opi∣nions, and how little affected he was with the report of Mr. Sel∣den's Censure of his Book. An Answer to an Exception concern∣ing the State of the Millennial felicity in Seculo futuro. A Vin∣dication of Lactantius and others from the calumnies of some Antichiliasts. The reason why Hierom was afraid to mention Iustin Martyr where he speaks of the ancient Chiliasts.

SIR,

SOME business that calls upon me will make me be short at this time. That which I called a Chappel-exercise, was a diverse thing from this I last offered to send you; namely a little thing for understanding S. Paul's allegation out of Psal. 8. Hebr. 2. concerning the exaltation of the nature of Man, to which God hath subject∣ed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This last is a large Discourse upon 1 Tim. 4. deliver∣ed first at several times by way of Common-places (as we call them) in the Colledge and in certain Sermons at S. Mary's; but at what time my Notions in the Apocalyps were yet but raw, and the Mystery of the Millenary Kingdom not understood. So you will find in it many things not consentaneous to my present notions, and some other things that my maturer thoughts could now correct or wipe out. Well, whatsoever they be, I send you them both. The little one hath another conceit annexed to it, which I was not so well aware of, viz. of Zipporah's circumcising. I would fain, but could not tell how to separate it from the other, unless I should write it out anew, which I had rather than undergo, hazard (as you see) the imputation of Vanity.

For Mr. Selden; he is a Gentleman by whose Writings I have learned much, and make no slight esteem of; but otherwise utterly unknown unto me. I never saw him in my life, nor he me; nor was there ever any entercourse between us, by letter, word, message, or otherwise. Nor did I ever hear any Censure of his concerning my Book, or any particular therein, till now; much less replyed to any such thing re∣ported to me, or took it unkindly, as you say he told my Lord Herbert. Surely it was but some scheme of discourse that passed from some body gratis, when my Book was discoursed of: But the author of that scheme was more deceived in me than he could have been in any man else. There are, I think, few men living who are less troubled to see others differ in opinion from them than I am (whether it be a Vice or Vertue, I know not:) So far is it from me to take it unkindly that I should not be believed in a Paradox. If any man can patiently suffer me to differ from him, it no∣thing affects me how much or how little they differ from me: Which disposition so much the more encreaseth in me, as I take dayly liberty to examine either mine own former persuasions or other mens opinions. But if I should go on, I should perhaps discover too much my indifferency this way. Let it pass.

I am no niggard according to my ability to impart what I know; but it is where I find some appetite (as you say;) otherwise my familiarist friends, some of them, are as ignorant of my Notions as any stranger: For if they discover no stomach, I use not to examine them, no not to offer them: and it would be in vain, Pauci enim inviti discunt.

'Tis true that Glorified bodies have no need of inheritance temporal for their main∣tenance and nourishment; but for their mansion and habitation they have need of a place of abode. The Creatures upon earth were not all made, no not the most of them, for mans eating and drinking; but for his glorifying the Wisdom, Goodness and Power of his Creator in the contemplation of them. Such a use is not unbefitting the Sons of the Resurrection. And what use should many of them have had but this, if Man had continued in the Integrity of his first Creation? Like scruples will arise in a mans mind concerning the State of Beatitude in the heavenly mansions; as, What should a glorified Soul do there with a Body and bodily Senses? What Ob∣jects are there to entertain them? Some body, and, if I am not much deceived, our Mr. Perkins, somewhere in his Works (I had thought in his Aurea Armilla, but now cannot find it in the English, nor have I the Latin Copy) moving a question, To what use the Renovated Earth after the Last Iudgment should serve; answers, For the solace of the glorified Saints, who should sometimes live in Heaven and sometimes on Earth; alledging for this conceit that in Apocal. 5. 10. Thou hast made us unto our God Kings and Priests, and we shall reign on earth. Were it not more agreeable to Reason to affirm, That, seeing Man consists of two parts, a Body and a Soul, each shall have his preeminence in order, in respect of the Place of Beatitude; first the Body on Earth, then the Soul in Heaven; Earth seeming more suitable for the en∣tertainment of the one,* 1.138 and Heaven for the other, yet so as both of them shall be for ever undivided, as in being, so in bliss and fruition of God? The creature hath been ever since the Fall of Man subject to Vanity and the bondage of corruption; that which was made at first to glorifie its Creator under the dominion of Man, being abused to sin, and made the instrument to dishonour him that made it. Under which bondage (to which it is unwillingly subject) it even groaneth and travelleth in pain, expecting one day to be delivered therefrom into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Shall there never then be a Time in which the Creature shall serve and be used to the end for which it was first made, namely, to serve to set forth the Wisdom, Power and Goodness of its Maker, and that too under the dominion of Man, in such a degree and manner as hath never yet been, nor is easy by us yet to be conceived? I say again, The Creature may serve Man for a more noble and divine use than for eating and drinking, though I am not able to comprehend and decipher it. Think what the use of so many Creatures should have been to Man in Paradise, when as yet there was no Commission given to eat flesh, nor had Man need of clothing. Should not Man then first have enjoy'd his happiness in Paradise and on Earth, and after a time have been translated into Heaven? Shall not the Soul come down to receive its Body on Earth? If so, what absurdity is it, that it may stay a while with it* 1.139 here, and entertain it self together with it in that beginning of Felicity which the Instauration of the Crea∣ture may afford them?

There are many Tenets among the Fathers and Schoolmen, Concerning the Day of Iudgment and State of the Resurrection, which most men receive without question. Bring them together with that I represent unto the Lydius lapis of the Scripture, and try which of the two hath most easy footing therein.

S. Peter tells us, Acts 3. 21. of an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the Second coming of Christ, foretold by the mouth of all the holy Prophets since the world began. Try whe∣ther you can shew any such thing in the Prophets, according to your manner of ex∣position.

S. Iohn tells us of a* 1.140 Mystery of God to be yet finished which he had declared to his Servants the Prophets. Try how well this will be found, according as some in∣terpret them.

But I never meant to have gone thus deep, when I put pen to paper. Now there∣fore I end with my best respect, and prayers to Almighty God to make us capable of that Felicity he hath prepared for such as look for the Coming of the Lord Iesus, when he shall come to be glorified in his Saints, and to be admired in all them that be∣lieve. So I rest

Yours to command, I. Mede.

Christ's Coll. April 18. 1635.

In that passage of Lactantius you mention, you may please to observe how wrong∣fully the ancient Chiliasts, and Lactantius by name, are charged to hold. That the Saints which rise from the dead shall marry and get children; whereas he expresly affirms it of those only qui erunt in corporibus vivi when Christ cometh. Nor did any

of the rest, I mean of the Fathers, Iustin, Irenaeus, Melito, &c. think otherwise.* 1.141 You may observe also that Hierom in so many passages (wherein he names the Fa∣thers that were Chiliasts) doth never mention Iustin Martyr, being afraid, it seems, of the Antiquity and Authority of the man.

I conceive the measuring of the Temple in Ezekiel to have reference to the time of the New Ierusalem; but how to expound it I know not: And no marvel; for I have read some-body of our Writers affirming it was never yet understood by any man what it meant, nor could easily be divined.

EPISTLE LII.

This that follows is under the Author's own hand, and was enclosed (its likely) in some short Letter to Dr. Twisse. What the Let∣ter contain'd appears not, it being not to be found among the MSS. But the Discourse contains some Testimonies concerning the Kingdom of Christ: The first taken out of the Form of Ecclesiastical Doctrine set forth by the First Council of Nice; The other taken out of a Catechism set forth in K. Edward the Sixth his Reign.

I.

THat great Council of Nice called by Constantine, besides their Definition of Faith and Canons Ecclesiastical, set forth certain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Forms of Ecclesiastical Doctrine, according to which all Teachers in the Church were to frame their Discourse and direct their opinions. Some of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; or Formulae doctrinae Ecclesiasticae are recorded by Gelasius Cyzicenus in his Historia Acto∣rum Concilii Niceni. Amongst these there is this Formula for the Doctrine of the State of the Resurrection.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. Minutior (i. vilior seu imperfectior) fact us est Mundus propter praecognitionem:* 1.142 praeviderat enim Deus peccaturum esse hominem. Ideirco novos coelos & novam terram exspecta∣mus, juxta Sacras literas, quando illuxerit Apparitio & Regnum magn•• Dei & Sal∣vatoris nostri Iesu Christi: Et tunc (ut aita 1.143 Daniel) accipient Regnum Sancti Altissimi. Et erit terra pura, sancta, terra viventium & non mortuorum, (quam oculis fidei praevidens David, clamat,b 1.144 Credo videre bona Domini in terra viventium) terra mansuetorum & humilium. Beati enim (c 1.145 inquit) mites, quoniam ipsi possi∣debunt terram: Etd 1.146 Propheta, & calcabunt ipsam (ait pedes mansuetorum & humi∣lium.

• 1. Iudge by this (notwithstanding 50 years opposition) how powerful the Chi∣liastical party yet was at the time of that Council. By some of whom if this For∣mula were not framed and composed, yet was it thus moderated as you see, that both parties might accept it, Salvâ cuique interpretatione suâ, as being delivered in the Terms and Language of Scripture.
• 2. Iudge secondly, whether in my Explication of the Millennium I have not kept within the compass of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not swerved one jot therefrom.

II.

What do you think the Author of the Catechism set forth in K. Edward's time (and by him authorized 20. May in the last year of his reign) meant, when he ex∣plicates the two first Petitions of the Lord's Prayer in this manner? The Dialogue is between Magister and Auditor.

Sanctificetur Nomen tuum.

M.

Quomodo hoc fit?

A.

Dicam: Tum demum hoc fit, cùm omissis illis omnibus qui nomen Deorum sorti∣untur,

sive in coelo, sive in terra, sive in templis variis figuris & imaginibus adorentur, solum hunc nostrum Patrem agnoscamus, & precemur verum Deum & filium ejus Iesum Christum quem ipse misit, & eum solum cum vitae integritate & innocentia, puris & in∣fucatis precibus sollicitemus.

M.

Rectè quidem dixisti. Perge quaeso.

A.

Secundo loco petimus, ut Adveniat Regnum ejus: Adhuc enim non videmus res omnes Christo esse subjectas: non videmus ut lapis de monte abscissus sit sine opere huma∣no, qui contrivit & in nihilum redegit Statuam descriptam à Daniele: ut petra sola, qui est Christus, occupet & obtineat totius mundi imperium à Patre concessum. Adhuc non est occisus Antichristus: quò fit ut nos desideremus & precemur, ut id tandem ali∣quando contingat & impleatur; útque solus Christus regnet cum suis Sanctis, secundùm divinas promissiones;* 1.147 útque vivat & dominetur in mundo, juxta Sancti Evangelii decreta, non autem juxta traditiones & leges hominum & voluntatem Tyrannorum mundi.

M.

Faxit Deus, ut Regnum ejus adveniat quàm citissimé.

I have the Book by me, and have had long. But I suppose it is known but to a few. In Foxe's Martyrologie you shall find in the examination of Master Philpot, that the Bishops, when they came, brought the Catechism with them; but what special relation it had to him, I know not, nor is ought there mentioned about it.

The Kings Letters before it begin thus.

Cum brevis & explicata Catechismi ratio, à pio quodam & erudito viro conscripta, nobis ad cognoscendum offerretur; ejus pertractationem & diligentem inquisitionem qui∣busdam Episcopis & aliis eruditis commisimus, &c.

I. M.

EPISTLE LIII.

Dr. Twisse's Sixth Letter to Mr. Mede, desiring him to per∣fect his Comment upon the Apocalyps, and to communi∣cate what Notions he had concerning the Temple in Eze∣kiel, as also upon some obscure passages in Dan. 11.

SIR,

—YOur love and your worth makes me zealous of your name, and so shall I ever be.* 1.148 And I willingly profess I never expected so rational Discourses in the ex∣planation of passages so mysterious. We are commonly taken with pretty fictions and imaginations, the ground whereof when we come to examine, we find no solidity to fasten on. O that my desires were worthy to be considered by you, that you would be pleased in your private studies to go on to perfect that you have begun upon the Revelation! To my thinking, by considering your Specimina thereon, the three next Chapters, viz. 15, 16, 17. would be soon perfected. The touch you give me about repairing of the Temple in Ezekiel doth exceedingly content me, though I am perswaded you have some Notions, ge∣neral at least, concerning many passages therein—In the eleventh of Daniel, that which you apply unto the Turk, I had thought belonged to Antichrist: and the* 1.149 last verse, of planting his Tabernacles between the seas, seems to me fairly to set forth Rome and the Throne of the Beast therein. And as touching the* 1.150 tidings from the East and North, that troublesome body, if it be the Turk that is troubled, have you not some propension to apply it to the Iews, after their conversion to Christ? Thus I make that saying good, Garrit amor & benevolentia, and one thing more, a desire to sound you—

W. T.

EPISTLE LIV.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Dr. Twisse's Sixth Letter, containing some Testimonies touching Regnum Christi and the New Ierusa∣lem, out of Tertullian and K. Edward's Catechism; with some general hints concerning Ezekiel's Vision of the measuring of the Temple, and an Explication of Dan. 11. 44, 45.

SIR,

I Am not unwilling to communicate unto you the most of my ••ew, because, I per∣ceive, you make some account of them. For in the Un. where I live, I know not a second man that understands any thing concerning such Mysteries, nor desires to be made acquainted with them. I speak not of the Mystery of the Millennium only, but of the Mystery of Iniquity. Concerning which I cannot but exceedingly admire how uncapable men (otherwise extraordinarily qualified with gists, and well-affected too) are found to be—Condemn me not therefore too much, if my edge be not so sharp in this way as you desire it should be. But let this pass. You shall receive herewith the* 1.151 Prophecie of Tobie in a paper by it self. And I will add in this two other. The one, the authority of Tertullian for the applying of Ezeki∣el's Temple to the New Ierusalem; the other, another passage yet out of K. Edward's Catechism, which I had not time to transcribe in my last.

Tertullian. lib. 3. adversus Marcionem c. 24.

Nam & confitemur in Terra nobis Regnum repromissum, sed ante Coelum, sed alio sta∣tu; utpote post resurrectionem in Mille annos, in Civitate divini operis Hierusalem coelo delata? quam & Apostolus Matrem nostram sursum designat, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nostrum, id est, municipatum, in coelis esse pronuntians, alicui utique coelesti Civitati eam deputat. Hanc & Ezekiel novit, & Apostolus Ioannes vidit—Hanc dicimus excipiendis resur∣rectione Sanctis, & refovendis omnium bonorum, utique spiritualium, copiâ, in compen∣sationem eorum quae in seculo vel despeximus vel amisimus, à Deo prospectam.* 1.152 Siquidem & justum & Deo dignum, illic quoque exultare famulos ejus, ubi sunt afflicti in nomi∣ne ipsius. Haec ratio Regni* 1.153 coelestis. Post cujus Mille annos, intra quam aetatem con∣cluditur Sanctorum resurrectio, pro meritis maturiùs vel tardiùs resurgentium, tunc & mundi destructione & Iudicii conflagratione commissâ, demutati in atomo in Angelicam substantiam (scilicet per illud incorruptelae superindumentum) transferemur in coeleste Regnum—

In this latter, for the time of the World's Conflagration and its destruction, Ter∣tullian differs from the rest, I am sure from Irenaeus; unless by Iudicii conflagratio he means that of Gog and Magog, Apoc. 20. 9. But I think he doth* 1.154 not.

Ex Catechismo Edwardico, De Extremo Iudicio.

M.

Finem mundi Scriptura sacra consummationem & perfectionem Regni ac Mysterii Christi, & Renovationem rerum omnium appellat. Sic loquitur Apostolus Petrus 2 Ep. cap. 3. Nos coelos novos & terram novam exspectamus, juxta promissionem Dei, in quibus justitia inhabitat. Videtur autem rationi consentaneum, ut corruptio, muta∣bilitas & peccatum (quibus subjicitur totus mundus) aliquando cessarent. Quâ verò tandem viâ aut quibus circumstantiarum rationibus ista fient, cupio abs te audire.

Aud.

Dicam, ut possum, eodem ipostolo teste: Coeli procellae in motem transibunt, elementa aestuantia solventur, terráque & quae in ea sunt opera exurentur. Quasi di∣ceret, Mundus (uti in auro fieri videmus) totus igne repurgabitur, atque ad ultimam suam perfectionem reducetur, quem minor ille mundus, nimirum homo, imitatus, à cor∣ruptione itidem & mutatione liberabitur. Itaque hominis causà (in cujus gratiam ma∣jor hic mundus creabatur primùm) renovatus tandem, faciem induet multò ••ùm jucun∣diorem, tum pulchriorem.

M.

Deinde autem quid superest?

Aud.

Vltimum & generale Iudicium. Veniet namque Christus, ad cujus vocem mor∣tui omnes resurgent, & animâ & corpore integri, atque in throno Majestatis suae resi∣dentem

videbit totus mundus: post excussionem autem conscientiae cujusque, extrema sententia pronunciabitur. Tunc temporis filii Dei perfectè possidebunt Regnum illud im∣mortalitatis & aeternae vitae, quod illis praeparatum fuit ante jacta fundamenta mundi, & regnabunt cum Christo in aeternum. Impii verò qui non crediderunt abjicientur in ignem aeternum, destinatum diabolo & angelis ejus.

I send you this passage, as I did the former, that you might admire with me what this Author meant; whether such expressions could fall from him by mere chance, or whether they argue not some further notion in this Mystery than was common and ordinary, though those to whom the review and approbation of the Book was committed were not capable to observe it.

CONCERNING Ezekiel's Vision of the measuring of the Temple I have no no Notions, either general or special, worth relation. Only I suspect some Mystery to be in the Numbers, as in the New Ierusalem in the Apocalyps I observe all the Numbers to be 12, or multiplied thereof, with reference, I suppose, to the 12 Apo∣stles. But whether the Number of Ezekiel's measures should have reference, I can∣not yet so well comprehend. I have been sometimes tampering that way, and me∣thought they seemed to suit very well with the Name of God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the letters whereof are 3 in each, and the Numbers they signifie 1. 5. 6. 10. 30.* 1.155 For these are the Numbers or the Radices of the Numbers of nigh all Ezekiel's measures. Notwithstanding I give my self but little satisfaction in so Cabbalistical a conceit. Yet seeing the measures of the City in Ezekiel (cap. ult. in sine) are diverse from those of S. Iohn in the Apocalyps; if the Cities be the same, the Numbers also must have some identity in a Mystery which they have not in the Letter; one fitted to the time of the Law, the other to the time of the Gospel. But he that can tell me how to unfold this Mystery, shall be my Master.

CONCERNING my application of the* 1.156 King of the South and the King of the North to the Saracen and Turk, who should plunder the Roman Empire in his latter end; 'tis not my conceit alone, but Mr. Brightman's upon that part of Daniel. And 'tis true, which you guess, that I incline to apply the King of the North's going forth (upon the tidings from the East and the North) in a fury to destroy, and to that purpose to plant the Tabernacles of his palace in the glorious mountain of Holiness, to the Iews return, and the expedition of Gog and Magog into the Holy land. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place, is constantly in this Book a description of the Holy land. See chap. 8. 9. and this chap. vers. 16, and 41. The tidings from the East and North may be that of the return of Iudah and Israel from those quarters. For Iudah was carried captive at the first into the East, and Israel by the Assyrian into the North, (namely in respect of the Holy land) and in those parts the greatest number of each are dispersed at this day. Of the reduction of Israel from the North, see the Prophecies Ier. 16. 14, 15. and chap. 23. 8. also chap. 31. 8.

Or if this tidings from the North may be some other thing, yet that from the East I may have some warrant to apply to the Iews return, from that of the Sixth Vial in the* 1.157 Apocalyps, where the waters of the great River Euphrates are dried up, to prepare the way of the Kings of the East.

If you can digest this application of the Kings of the South and North to the Sara∣cen and Turk; I will then desire you to consider the notation of the Time when, which (saith the Holy Ghost, v. 40.) should come to pass 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the time of the End, that is, of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Roman Kingdom; which what they are you will find in my Discourse upon 1 Tim. 4. And to this you may refer that Question of Da∣niel in the next chap. vers. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How long shall this latter end of won∣derful things be? which the Angel answers, For a time, times and a half; referring to his former Vision thereof chap. 7. 25. Of the same Latter times he asketh yet again, vers. 8. incertus & mirabundus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lord! what are these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which our Translation turns but untowardly. And further than this I cannot go in Daniel. The next is all dark. But it may seem the Angel tells the Prophet in those last* 1.158 Numbers when and how long it should be before this Mystery of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be understood. For so he intimates both vers. 4. Shut up the words, and seal the Book until the time of the End; and again vers. 9. The words are closed up and sealed till the time of the End— and then, None of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand, vers. 10. Now you know the Mystery of Antichrist, whereon the knowledge of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wholly depends, was not discovered till a good part of them were run out. What if those Numbers (vers. 11, 12.) point out that time, counting from the Prophanation of Epiphanes? But I

confess I know not here which way to take. This I intimate was an old Notion, which I can neither satisfie my self in, nor yet meet with another better grounded.

Io. Mede.

* 1.159

EPISTLE LV.

Dr. Twisse's Seventh Letter to Mr. Mede, desiring to know his thoughts touching Genuflexio versus Altare.

Worthy Sir, and my dear Friend,

THese are only to give you to understand that your Packet is arrived safely in my hands; your Letters, your Manuscripts, two larger upon 1 Tim. 4. and the other of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and a third less. Time will not serve me to express the content I take in them; the satisfaction you give me in your Letters. I am taken with the meditation of the sla∣very of the Creature, ever since the Fall of Adam in bondage to them that are slaves to sin; and what that bespeaks of better times both for the Creature and for us: the passages of the Form of Doctrine prescribed by the Council of Nice; the Catechism in K. Ed∣ward's days; and the rest. And like enough the land of Canaan shall have preeminence above all the rest, when it comes to be the Throne of Christ's Kingdome, like as it was the glory of all Lands when the children of Israel were brought to inherit it.

Your Doctrine of Daemons (whereof I have tasted, even to the Answer of the second Objection, Why invocation of Saints should be made choice of to set out Antichrist there∣by, as a principal Character of him,) doth so affect me, that withal considering these de∣generate times, I could heartily wish you would give way to the printing of it. You know what Spalatensis mentioneth of one of his Prebends, that should profess, if he were sure Angels heard him, he would use that Collect, Angele Dei, qui custos es mei, &c. And who it is that taketh it upon him to have been the man meant, and justifies it. When I read your Discourse of that, Thou shalt have no other Gods before my face, it makes me willing to know what you think of Genuflexio versus Altare, which now grows rife, and begins to challenge subscription thereto as licita; like as genuflexio at the name of Iesus, as pia ceremonia; and where we shall end I know not. I cannot but take notice, as you wish me, of the vile depravation of the opinion of the Ancients concerning Mil∣lennium. For all these I cannot sufficiently give you thanks, and must study how to ex∣press my thank fulness. Mr. S. is a man of very good parts, but withal I doubt he hath his vanities as well as other men; for I cannot believe but that Dr. L. related unto me the truth of what he heard—

The beginning of the week hath been a very busie time with me, and I must make haste, desiring you may understand with the first the safe landing of your precious commodities— I nothing doubt but the Lord will perfect the good work he hath begun in you and by you; to whose gracious direction I commend all your ways, and shall ever rest

Newbury, May 5. 1635.

Yours in all due respects infinitely obliged, Will. Twisse.

EPISTLE LVI.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Dr. Twisse's Question about Genuflexio versus Altare. His freedom from self-ends in this and all other his opinions.

SIR,

FOR your question about Genuflexio or Adoratio versus Altare, I was in some pause whether to answer to it, or to pass it by in silence. I confess I have not been unacquainted with speculations in things of this nature: they were my eldest thoughts and studies, full twenty years ago, and the argument of my* 1.160 Concio ad Clerum when I commenced Batchelor of Divinity, and before I was any proficient in the Apocalyps. And it may be I have had so many Notions that way as would have made another man a Dean or a Prebend or something else ere this. But the point of the Pope's being Antichrist, as a dead fly, marred the savour of that ointment. And be∣sides I am no Practitioner nor active, but a Speculator only: But I am afraid there are others as much in fault, which practise before they know. I suppose you have heard something this way, and thence took occasion to move this Question to me; which is the reason I have told you this long tale by way of Preface, lest you might think I had (as some men use to do) made the bent of the Times the rule of my opinions. But if I did so, I should quickly renounce my Tenet of the Apocalyptical Beast, which I know few men here so hardy with us as to profess they believe, yea or would fain do. But alas that I am so ill advised I cannot do with all! And I thank God I never made any thing hitherto the caster of my resolutions but Reason and Evidence, on what side soever the advantage or disadvantage fell. Besides it fell out happily that the Times, when my thoughts were exercised in those Speculations I spake of, were times of better awe than now they are; which preserved me from that immoderation which I see divers now run into, whether out of ignorance or some other distemper I cannot tell. Haec omnia dixi in antecessum: now I will answer your Question briefly.

• 1. We must distinguish between Imago, and Locus or Signum praesentiae. To pray or worship toward the First, with respect thereto, is Idolatry; but not toward the Second.
• 2. The Israelites in the Wilderness bowed and worshipped the Lord toward the Cloud wherein he manifested his presence; in the Temple toward the Ark and the most Holy place as Solium Dei. When they were absent from it (though in a strange Country) yet they turned themselves and spread out their hands toward it when they prayed, as Daniel in Babel. Ergò, to worship toward Locum praesentiae is no Ido∣latry: or, if it were, we should commit it as often as we lift up our hands and eyes to Heaven in our prayers, as to the place of God's special Presence: Yet our Saviour taught us to say, Pater nost••r, quies in coelis, and to look that way when we prayed.
• 3. The reason of this difference between Imago, and Signum or Locus praesentiae, in the point of Divine worship is this; 'Tis one thing adhibere creaturam in cultu Dei per modum Objecti, another per modum circumstantiae Loci aut Sitûs, or as Instrumen∣tum. The First is Idolatry, for God is a jealous God, and cannot endure that the worship we give to him should look towards any thing as an Object but Himself. But unless the Second be lawful, we must not look toward any created thing when we pray, not to Heaven, nor turn our selves towards the Table where God's blessings are when we say Grace, or the like; not lawful to invocate God in his Temple, not lawful to pray unto him with a Book, not use the Communion-Table as a place to give praise and thanks unto him Name. In all which Res creata adhibetur tantùm either as Circumstantia cultûs, ubi & quo-versùs, or as Instrumentum quo utimur ad invocandum, (as a Prayer-Book) but not as Objectum cultûs. But an Image, in the nature of the thing, if it be used in Divine worship as an Image, cannot but be used as an Object, that is as a Representation of the thing worshipped. For to look to a thing as it is the Representation of the Object whereto we address our Prayers and Services, what is it else but to make it Objectum mediatum & relativum? I must desire you to supply my meaning where my expression is defective. I should do better coràm; by pen ••tis tedious to me.
• ...

• 4. Now the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Altar (for they are but Synonyma's, as I take it) was ever in our Christian Oratories accounted as Solium Christi, as being the place where the Mysteries of his Body and Bloud (the Rites of the New Covenant) are exhibited unto us.
• 5. All the Prayers and Devotions of the Church were there offered unto God, and no where else, for many hundred years,* 1.161 and still are in all the Churches of the Orient, and in the Latin Church their Mattins and Even-song, if of later ages not at it, yet always near and toward it. Desks for reading Prayers is a new device since the Reformation, never in the Church before. Whatsoever was spoken to God, was spoken at the Altar or towards it; whatsoever to the people, out of the Ambo or Pulpit and towards them, as Readings, Sermons. Tertul. Exhort. Castit. c. 10. Si spi∣ritus apud se reus sit & conscientia erubescit, quomodo audebit orationem dicere ad Altare? An Altar is nothing else but a Table to call upon God at; whence the Scripture relates so often of Abram and Isaac, that they built Altars where they came, and there called upon the name of the Lord.
• 6. If it be lawful to invocate and call upon God at and toward the Altar as Solium praesentiae; 'tis as lawful to worship him toward it. The specification of Christian worship is to adore and invocate the Father through Iesus Christ crucified: why should it not then be comely, when we address our selves unto him, to look toward the place where his Passion is commemorated and the Rites thereof exhibited? 'Tis but to represent that by our posture which otherwise we express by our tongue, when we say, Through Iesus Christ our Lord.
• 7. 'Tis the fashion of all Nations and Religions (and ever was) to use some Re∣verential gesture when they enter into God's House. Our Saviour, when he sends forth his disciples to preach the Gospel, Matt. 10. saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when ye enter into an House salute the same, i. e. (as S. Luke relates it, and the Vulgar and some other Copies have in this of Matth.) say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Agreeable whereto is that Custome now almost only retained amongst a few of the Vulgar to say, when they come into an House, God be here. Why should not some such Rite be comely, when we come into the House of God?

I am sorry now that I entered at all into this discourse, for I see so many things re∣quisite yet for the understanding thereof, (as of the Nature of Temples and their Holiness, of the Christian Sacrifice so much decantated in the ancient Church, of the Lawfulness of Rites ordained by men, and the like) that it would require a Vo∣lume to give satisfaction herein. But you desired but to know what I thought of Ge∣nuflexio versùs Altare, and I think I have told you; and you see hereby what a mungrel I am. I know not how you will like it, I know how full of prejudice in these Things most of our Divines are. But I am verily perswaded that the No∣tions of Antiquity hereabout are so far from being followed, that they are quite forgotten and unknown.

I will neither trouble you nor my self any longer, but commend you to the Di∣vine protection, and so I rest

Christ's Coll. May 13. 1635.

Your loving Friend, Ioseph Mede.

EPISTLE LVII.

Dr. Twisse's Eighth Letter to Mr. Mede, containing his thankful acknowledgments of Mr. Mede's singular good∣ness in communicating his Papers, and his high esteem of them, particularly of his Notions upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. as also his Observations upon Mr. Mede's forego∣ing Letter, what he approved therein, and what he ex∣cepted against.

Good Mr. Mede, and my thrice worthy and dear Friend,

I Have at length return'd your Manuscripts; both the first and latter concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the smaller one containing two Discourses and the * 1.162 Prophetia Tobiae expounded in the belly thereof. I am heartily sorry to hear your La∣bours upon the Revelation, published for the common good, and opening such Mysteries unto the world: have put your self to so much expence, and found so little reward in the world: I protest I cannot think of it without disdain—I have not spared to profess my indignation thereupon before some good friends of quality, and shall be ready to do as much upon every occasion. But your Reward shall be the greater in Heaven.

My motion was not to put you to any expence or care about the business I wrote of: I nothing doubt but order shall be taken to have it done otherwise, if you would but give way. But I would not in the least respect abuse your kindness, which I account precious as a jewel by doing ought that might occasion any distaste in your self upon any pro∣ceedings of mine, or others whereunto I should give any occasion.

Sir, I cannot sufficiently express my obligation unto your self for your singleness in communicating such precious commodities. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the constru∣ction of it which you make, I am clearly of your mind; and that Genitivus materiae is nothing strange, were there no other incongruity of construction in the Text thereby avoid∣ed, which yet there is, and that foul one. The truth is, the phrase is unquestionably usual, expressed of Things; but being expressed of Persons, we being apt to understand it of Genitivus Efficientis, that use makes the other way seem strange, as I found in Dr. S. But so much the more it became the Holy Ghost to express the Mystery of Iniqui∣ty in a covert manner; not easily and at first sight to be discovered but in good time, by serious intention and consideration of all circumstances, when the Lord thought it most seasonable to bring it to light. And blessed be God that he hath brought it to light, and that my self have lived to see such Mysteries of iniquity brought to light, and made good by evidence of Scripture, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; testifying so much; and that with such evidence, that I know not where to parallel it with the like, all things con∣sidered.

Long agoe I have entertained an opinion that you are as exact in the right under∣standing of Daniel Mysteries as of those in the Revelation. I saw a touch you gave, in a Letter to Dr. Meddus, of the years mentioned in Daniel 12. by way of passing your judgment on some parts of Alstedius his Chronologie: I would you would be pleased to impart unto me what you think of the beginning of those times mentioned in Daniel 12. 11, 12.* 1.163 and what remarkable things fell out at the end of each; the rather because I am promised some notions of Mr. G. your friend thereabouts. I doubt not but you conceive two seasons of the Abomination of desolation, one before our Saviour's coming in the flesh, by Antiochus Epiphanes; another which our Saviour himself points unto, as to be made by the Romans, which yet Baronius saith cannot be meant of that by Tirus when he took Ierusalem, because at that time it was too late to be warned of flying thereupon and shifting for themselves.

Your Chappel-Exercises, 1. that of Psal. 8.* 1.164 of quelling the en••••y and the avenger, 2. the other of* 1.165 Zipporah's speech, (which I would not for any good you had divided, and kept from me) not only my self but divers others, as Mr. W•••••• Dorchester and Mr. T. of Sarisbury, and others, all of us have been exceedingly taken with them. And it rais∣eth in me suspicions that you have many conceptions of the like nature, for the clearing of

divers passages of Holy Scripture, and vindicating them from vulgar and erroneous in∣terpretations; and inflames me with a desire to be partaker of them. I read to them somewhat also of your Mahuzzims, which not only ravished them, but wrung from them a protestation that none but your self could have found that out. But modestie pacifies my importunity, and forbids me to urge you too far, having so extraordinary experience of your freeness this way. All which I have returned with my best care; so I trust they shall arrive safely in your hands.

And now taking your last Letter into my hands, I find how by occasion of tidings from the East and from the North you fall upon this very place of Dan. 12. 11, 12. which you acknowledge to be obscure and dark; yet such light as you meet with you are pleased to communicate, wherein I rest satisfied for the present, and would not have you trouble your self any more for me thereabouts. I have found some working upon Iulian's days, when all hope of re-edifying the Temple was taken away; but I find no colour of any Abomination of Desolation committed there, but rather Abomination of Restau∣ration: yet from thence they think may be reckoned a determining of the daily Sacrifice. But all along you carry me with you, and where you make a stand, there I make a stand. I pitie (I profess) your neighbours in Cambridge, that make so little use of your labours in searching those precious Mysteries, especially when our selves are fallen upon the latter end of the accomplishment of them.

In answer to my Question, I am glad your resolution was not to pass it over in silence, and that you open your self in such manner. Whereas you conceive I may perhaps have heard something that way you touch upon; truly I never did, but somewhat I have heard another way, which hath made me recount my own fortunes in resemblance unto yours: For sometimes I have been censured for a Puritan, sometimes for a good fellow: My preaching as in opposition to Popery was opportune to undergo the one censure before persons Popishly affected; and my free conversation in the enjoying of my friends (yet I thank God without all scandal) hath exposed me to the other, and that from the same mouths, not judging indifferently, but upon particular, and those unjust, distasts practising to disgrace me. I see your fortunes have not been much unlike; I trust we shall love mutually so much the more.

• 1. I willingly subscribe to the difference you put between Imago, and Locus or Sig∣num praesentiae.
• 2. Both your Rule and Instances of worshipping towards Locum praesentiae I approve.
• 3. The reason of the difference mentioned between the use of a Creature per modum Objecti in Divine worship, and the use of a Creature per modum Circumstantiae, of Place, Posture or Instrument, I find likewise no cause to dislike; the Lord having pre∣scribed the one, not the other, but expresly forbidden it.
• ...

  4. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Altar was ever in Christian Oratories accounted as Solium Christi, I profess ingeniously it is a new thing unto me, and most willingly do I commu∣nicate unto you my thoughts that have had their course hereupon. That the Sanctuary at first, and Temple afterwards, might well be accounted Solium Dei, I see this ground; because the Sanctuary at first was made by God's appointment, that he might dwell among them; and so the Temple afterwards, and chiefly the Ark there, the Lord being said to dwell between the Cherubins. Now I find not the like ground for the Table of the Lord to be so called. 2. If so, then the Table, where and when these Rites of the New Covenant were first instituted, was to be so accounted as much as any; and that as well in reference to the participation of the Paschal Lamb that went before, as of the Bread and Wine which followed after. 3. And so it seems the Table whereon the Iews did eat the Paschal Lamb was to be so accounted. 4. And why not the Altar for the Burnt-offering also? 5. And are not the Mysteries of Christ's Death, yea and Resurrection too, represented in Baptism, as Prudentius calls it Fontis ara, as Mr. S. observes?

  Yet I doubt not of Christ's presence there to the faithful receiver; so he is to every faithful hearer of the Word, and faithful petitioner; God being a Sanctuary unto us in all places wheresoever we come, and accordingly Solium praesentiae ejus & Christi in every place to be found. But as Sacraments are not Sacraments any longer than in the use of them; of the same condition to my thinking for the present should the Lord's Table be conceived. Like as we heard not long since D. B. should preach that Temples were holy only in respect of the holy use of them; and it was thought he should be called in question for it, but he was not. I confess I am no more versed in things of this nature than as some occasional opportunity doth set my thoughts on work. But fearing degenerate times coming on upon us and Superstition to encrease, we may well be the more wary. And we find by experience that albeit when any is urged thereunto, sometimes it is carried only in the

• ...

  style of Genuflexio versus altare; yet in common speech most call it Bowing to the Altar. And a Iesuite sometimes meeting with a Friend of mine (an intelligent Gen∣tleman) at Antwerp, and offering him the kindness of having him to the great Church. after he had shewed him other things, bringing him up to the high Altar, he pulled out the Pyx from behind the Arras, and shewed it him, saying, This is the reason why we bow to the Altar, otherwise (saith he) it were Idolatry.

• 5. As for the Prayers and Devotions of the Church there offered unto God, I find no∣thing amiss therein, if the place be so ordered that it be convenient for the Congregation assembled to hear; as it is fit they should. And I find it alledged out of Iewel against Harding,* 1.166 Altaria apud veteres non semper & ubique in extrema Templorum parte, quam vulgò Chorum vocamus, sed in medio posita fuisse, and divers Testimonies of Antiquity alledged for proof thereof. And therefore that all things may be done to edification, I find it nothing strange that in the Reformation our Fathers in the Church of England, as well as in other Churches, have altered that course, when they found how miserably the Service of God was deformed, Superstition from ancient times first creeping in, and afterwards increasing more and more; and no great matter where Latin Service was per∣formed, when the people understood it not.
• 6. I make no question but it is lawful to invocate and call upon God at or towards the Altar. But why the Lord's Table, where the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is administred, should be called Solium praesentiae more than the Font where Baptism is administred, or the Pulpit where God speaks unto us, I do not yet find sufficient reason to sa∣tisfie me. Yet I have heard that one who much furthereth these courses should give us a reason thereof, that Hoc est Corpus meum is more with him than Hoc est Verbum me∣um. And to my thinking the Table of the Paschal Lamb might as well be called Solium praesentiae as the Lord's Table with us.
• 7. As for the fashion of all Nations and Religions to use some Reverential gestures when they enter into God's House; this openeth a way to a new consideration and inquisi∣tion, as Whether Bodily Gesture alone be fit to be urged or practised in entring into God's House; the outward adoration without the inward; the one without the other, being no better than Hypocrisy. Yet these days are full of Formality.

Lastly, Things lawful in themselves become unlawful by accident; as when they are superstitiously practised, though not by our selves, yet by concurring in the same act, we may scandalize by countenancing the Superstition of others.

Thus have I taken liberty to communicate my thoughts unto you, to be censured by you as you think good; my self but upon the present observation of times taking into conside∣ration. And I willingly profess I fear Superstition hereby will creep on in a conceit as if God were better served by worshipping him towards the Altar than otherwise: the contrary whereunto were it publickly professed, I should be the less sollicited with such fears. Yet am I nothing sorry, but very glad, that you have entered thus far into this discourse, and for the Notions here mentioned, whereupon I shall willingly confer with other Divines.

For your judgment concerning Ezekiel's Vision so freely communicated, I heartily thank you: That I have your acknowledgment of the obscurity thereof, gives me much content; yet withal your adventures thereupon, which you are pleased to impart, they are as sparks of light unto me shining in a dark place. Your candour throughout works me to think the better of any opinion which you embrace. I profess unto you, you make me more and more happy in all your Speculations. I shall heartily beg at the Throne of grace for God's blessing upon your Studies, and that he will be pleased to enlighten you more and more for the opening of these heavenly Mysteries, to the comfort of God's Church in these un∣comfortable days. Hereupon comes to my remembrance what I had almost forgotten, though I purposed to mention it with the first. I was not long since resolved to write unto you, to inquire whether the K. of S. proceedings in Germany might not be the accomplishment of the Fourth Vial, and that in these times we are in a preparation to the Fifth, by the slaugh∣tering of the Witnesses, according to that Exposition which you give thereof—Sr. N. R. told me moreover that your opinion was, that it should be very Vniversal—The Lord keep you and bless you. I shall ever remain

Newbury, Iune 1. 1635.

Your faithful and respectful true friend much obliged, Will. Twisse.

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 uphold∣eth 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 be∣lieve it is done. Their fall, whensoever it happens, will in all likelihood so shake the Beast, as will drive him into a* 1.167 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 re∣verent 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 presup∣posed 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 Pen∣work 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 win∣dow. 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,* 1.168 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. Israe∣lis Deus, juxta, illud 1 Sam. 2. 2. Non est Sanctus sicut Dominus, neque enim est alius praeter te, & non est Deus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] sicut Deus noster: For this Holiness is God himself, his Essence, his Divine Majesty, whence all other Holiness is derived, not any inhe∣rent Attribute differing from him, as in created subjects.
• 2. Holiness of Integrity is that which the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Latines Sanctimo∣nia, 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,* 1.169 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Propri∣ety: (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 de∣dicate 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 eve∣ry 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 on∣ly 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 differ∣ing 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, con∣cerning the reverence due to Churches and Altars. Eadem enim est ratio Loci & Tem∣poris sacri; quia utrumque sanctum est, neutrum prophanandum, sed omnino sanctè haben∣dum 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. Wit∣ness Mount Tabor, which only for the glorious Transfiguration of Christ thereon (ha∣ving 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Hence Antiquity called the Holy Table 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the place where it stood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The first, in that place you mention for Altars standing in the middle of the Quire. It is in a Panegyrick Orati∣on 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 de∣scribing, and amongst the rest the Seats erected in the Quire for the honour of the Clergy, he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [and having placed the most Holy Altar in the midst] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [that it might not be accessible to the multitude] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [he compassed it about reticulati operis can∣cellis ex ligno fabricatis, adeò ad summum solertis artificii elaboratis, ut mirabile intuentibus praebeat spectaculum.] That of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 The∣odosius and S. Ambrose, where Theodosius after his absolution coming up into the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. Quoniam interiora ista, ô Imperator, solis sunt Sacerdotibus pervia; reli∣quis

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 Ta∣bernacle 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, tan∣quam 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. Mo∣ses, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Tabernacle of meeting, viz. of meeting with God, not of Mens meeting together, as we mean when we turn it, Ta∣bernacle of the Congregation: Of which perhaps more* 1.170 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‖ 1.171 they should not make with him (whom they had seen talking with them from Heaven) Gods of silver and Gods of gold, and that* 1.172 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 commu∣nicates himself to men, to bless them, Exod. 20. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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* 1.173 testifies his Covenant, and, as it were, commerceth with Men. And though the Ark were afterward made for this pur∣pose, as the standing Memorial of his Name, (and there∣fore 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 immedi∣ately 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (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* 1.174 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;* 1.175 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 mainte∣nance of the Ministery, 1. Cor. 9. and the like; and the practice of the Church ab ini∣tio 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,* 1.176 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 reconci∣liation 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 in∣terpretation, 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 Apo∣stolical Age, whose name (S. Paul says) was written in the Book of Life) in his genuine Epistle ad Corinthios, lately set forth, page 52. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Omnia ritè & ordine facere debemus, quaecunque Dominus perage∣re nos jussit. What doth he command? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. praestitutis temporibus oblationes & liturgias obire; neque enim temere vel inordinatè volu∣it ista fieri, sed statutis temporibus & horis: V B I etiam & A QVIBVS peragi ve∣lit, 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 Al∣tar, 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 after∣wards to be celebrated should no otherwise be accounted of. First, I answer, It fol∣lows 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* 1.177 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 san∣ctified and hallowed at the Lord's Altar, before they feasted with them? whence per∣haps 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* 1.178 sent it to those which were absent. And if it be well obser∣ved, 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,* 1.179 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) intend∣ed, when he said that Hoc est Corpus meum was more with him than Hoc est Verbum me∣um.

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 be∣fore him, to offer unto his Divine Majesty our thanksgivings, supplications and prai∣ses in the Name of his Son Iesus Christ crucified for us: that is, It is not only a Sacra∣ment, 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 per∣haps 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 Fa∣ther, 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 in∣tercedes 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 Cru∣ce oblationis, (cujus hîc memoria celebratur) quàm perpetui Sacerdotii & jugis Sacrificii quod in coelis sempiternus Sacerdos offert, rationem habuerunt; cujus hîc Imago per solen∣nes 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 Chri∣stum offerunt Deo Patri victimam, dum scilicet mente affectúque ad Sacrificium ejus uni∣cum feruntur, ut Deum sibi habeant faciántque propitium: that is, What every Christi∣an 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 so∣lemn 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 Cove∣nant 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 where∣in 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 Man∣kind 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 represen∣ted 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 abo∣lished 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 obscure∣ly) reduced that ancient Commemorative Sacrifice of Christians, wherein that one Sa∣crifice 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 diffe∣rent nature from Baptism, which is not so, but the Rite only of our New Birth, where∣by 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 Di∣vine 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 Eu∣charist, 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 de∣nomination 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, instead of that which is 1 Chron. 16. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But the Altar of In∣cense 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 com∣memoration of him who is all these unto us.

AND thus far I have adventured to discover my thoughts in this nice and doubt∣ful 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 ex∣tream abomination of Idolatry, have, according to the nature of men, incurred some guilt before God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Iudg∣ments 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 alrea∣dy: 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 bles∣sing 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 se∣parate 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.

EPISTLE LIX.

Dr. Twisse's Ninth Letter to Mr. Mede, thanking him for his pains in the foregoing Letter, and desiring his resoluti∣on of a Doubt concerning the 7 Lamps signifying the 7 An∣gels in Zach. 4.

Right dear and Right worthy Sir,

I AM somewhat of a more chearful spirit than when I wrote my* 1.180 last—I have gotten more liberty of spirit to consider your large Discourse, savouring of great Learning, no less Iudgment, and a distinctive Apprehension of things of good importance; and that not in my judgment only, but in the judgment of others; though all require serious and further consideration. And for mine own particular, I cannot but reflect upon my self how deeply I am beholden unto you for intrusting me in so liberal a manner with these your Speculations. We can never offend in putting difference between the Holy and Prophane; neither can we offend in presenting our selves too reverently at the Lord's Table. Never was the Mercy-seat so well known in the days of the Old Testament as in these days of the New: We now be∣hold the glory of the Lord with open face; and accordingly our Saviour tells us, the Lord requires the true worshippers should worship him in spirit and in truth, in distinction from worshipping him either at Ierusalem or in the Mount the woman spake of: And in this kind of worship we cannot exceed. But as for outward Gestures, I doubt I shall prove but a Novice as long as I breath; and we affect not to make ostentation of our Devotion in the face of the world, the rather because thereby we draw upon our selves the censure of Hy∣pocrisie; and sometimes if a man lifts up his Eyes, he is censured for a P. and I confess there is no outward Gesture of Devotion which may not be as handsomly performed by as carnal an heart as breaths. I am confident you are far from studia partium; so should we be all, and be ambitious of nothing but of the love and favour of God, and of our conformity unto him in truth and holiness. I heartily thank you for all, and particularly for these Pieces which now I return. I hope they will arrive safely in your hands.

What I wrote the last time I have almost utterly forgotten, saving the clearing of one Ob∣jection concerning* 1.181 the Seven Angels standing before the Throne, represented by the Seven Lamps, which I much desired; it arising from the Text it self, the Lamps being maintained by the Oile which drops from the Two Olive-trees, which are interpreted to be Zorobabel and Ieshua. But I have troubled you so much, that I fear the aspersion of im∣modesty in troubling you any further: I cannot sufficiently express my thankfulness for that I have already received. I desire ever to be found

Newbury, Iuly 27. 1635.

Yours in the best respect, Will. Twisse.

EPISTLE LX.

Dr. Twisse's Tenth Letter to Mr. Mede, desiring him to reveal unto him those Pluscula in Zach. chapters 9, 10, 11. which fit not so well Zachary's time as Ieremy's; as also to resolve a Doubt about the 7. Lamps in Zach. 4. with some reflexi∣ons upon Mr. Mede's large Letter about Temples and Al∣tars and the Christian Sacrifice.

Worthy Sir,

DO you not miss your* 1.182 Letter ad Ludovicum de Dieu? And do you not find it strange it is not returned with the rest? I assure you, I took no notice of it till Wednesday last, two days after the last week's Letter I wrote unto you. In every particular it was wel∣come unto me, as all yours always are. But your‖ 1.183 Variae lectiones concerning the Old Te∣stament, and the pregnant evidences thereof which you alledge, do astonish me; and above all,‖ 1.184 your adventure to vindicate unto Ieremy his own Prophecy, which so long hath gone under the name of Zachary. I never was acquainted with any better way of reconciliation than that which Beza mentions, of the likeness of abbreviations of each name, which might cause a mistake by the Transcribers. O that you would reveal unto me those Pluscula, which in those three Chapters of Zachary 9, 10, 11. do more agree (as you observe) to the time of Ieremy than to the time of Zachary! Why may you not have a peculiar way also to reconcile the Genealogie in the LXX with that in the Hebrew, where Kainan is found in the one, which is not in the other? Thus I make bold to put you to new trouble; but I presume it is no more trouble to you than the writing; like as that other whereabout I moved you, How the Seven Lamps are maintained by the oyl derived from the two Olive-Trees, if by the Seven Lamps are meant the Seven Angels that stand before the Throne of God.

Yet have I not done with your large Letter concerning Temples and Altars. Since the wri∣ting of my last, while I was reading that large Letter of yours to some Divines, who were much taken with admiration at the Learning contained therein in an Argument wherein we had been so little versed, I say in the reading of it, I observed one thing which in all my former readings I took no notice of, and that is in these words; This is a point of great moment and consequent, worthy to be looked into by all the Learned of the Refor∣med Religion, lest while we have deservedly abolished the prodigious and blasphemous Sacrifice of the Papists, wherein Christ is again hypostatically offered to his Father, we have not (but very implicitely and obscurely) reduced that ancient Commemorative Sacrifice of Christians, wherein that one Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross was conti∣nually by that sacred Rite represented and inculcated to his Father; his Father put in mind thereof by those monuments set before him, wherein we testified our own mind∣fulness thereof to 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 to us mise∣rable sinners. In which words, upon better and more serious consideration, I observe you acknowledge, 1. A Commemorative Sacrifice of Christians continually performed in anci∣ent times. 2. This hath been miserably corrupted by the Papists, and transformed by the Pa∣pists into that Service which is called their Mass in distinction from their Mattins. 3. That Protestants have justly abolished this prodigious and blasphemous Sacrifice of theirs. 4. But they have not done well, in that they have not reduced that ancient Commemorative Sacri∣fice of Christians, save implicitly and obscurely.

Now in two things I am to seek for the understanding of your meaning. 1. How we have reduced it in that implicite and obscure manner you speak of. 2. How you would have it re∣duced in conformity to the Ancients, and wherein this Conformity doth consist. I remem∣ber what you alledged out of Clemens, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which were to be perfor∣med in times prescribed by Analogie to the courses of Devotion commanded in the Old Testa∣ment. Now this I guess you deliver not so much in respect unto the Sabbath-Service, as unto the daily Sacrifice of a Lamb every morning. I imagine you would have the celebration of that Service which we call the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be daily; but I presume not in a private manner, but in the way of a Communion: but unless it be twice a-day, it is not congruous to the daily Sacrifice which was of a Lamb every evening, as of a Lamb every

morning. And then again I find amongst the Ancients no small difference: For a time it was celebrated in the evening only, at least in some places, and that with some difference: for some celebrated it after they had eaten; some fasted all the day before, that they might come j••juni thereunto. Now I would hear your judgement both of the practice of the Anci∣ents in this particular, wherewith I am not so well acquainted. Our Saviour saith, Do this in remembrance of me: this prescribes nothing concerning the frequency of it. S. Paul adds, This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me: Where also we find no cer∣tain time prescribed. Act. 2. 42. We read that they continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers: here likewise is no signification that this breaking of bread (which I understand of the celebration of that Sacrament) was performed daily. And whereas vers. 46. it is said, that they continued daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread at home did eat their meat with glad∣ness and singleness of heart; I have conceived it to be spoken of refreshing natural, not Sacramental and Spiritual. And Act. 20. 7. their meetings for breaking of bread seem to have been restrained to the First day of the week, that being the day of their assembling themselves, as it seems by 1 Cor. 16. 2. And Iustin Martyr makes relation of their Chri∣stian meetings when the Sunday comes. 2. I would gladly know how far you think fit that custom of the Ancients you speak of (whatsoever it be) should be reduced, and that clearly, not implicitly and obscurely. For I assure you, I am much to seek in the meaning of this; yet I have read in some sort Mornay upon the Mass, and Bishop Morton too, and somewhat in Baronius concerning this. And I am in doubt whether the Papists themselves, were it not for their Doctrine of Transubstantiation, would not be as much to seek herein as we are.

That which you touch concerning the German War, and the Causes of it, and the Sin∣mark, I willingly profess doth make me melancholick; for I cannot but sympathize with them—Yet although, as I understood when I was in the Palatinate, none was more free from such Sacrilegious courses than the Palatine, not only Bishopricks but even Monasteries continuing there of his Ancestors foundation; yet have they suffered as much as any, both first and last, if not much more.

In the close of that large Letter of yours you signifie that you reserve one thing, lest it might undergoe censure; which otherwise you would communicate. Good Sir, you have no cause to distrust my censure. I hear by Mr. B. it is concerning Cornelius, whom you take to have been no Proselyte in any degree; the contrary whereunto supposed in our Divinity-Schools was one of the first things I was acquainted with upon my coming to Oxford; and since I find confessed by Schindler on the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the interpretation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yet I pray let me see your Discourse thereon, and let me know how you salve it; for I am confi∣dent you are no Arminian. The Text acknowledgeth him to be not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and one of good report amongst all the Iews; and Act. 11. they that opposed Pe∣ter's going to him and his are said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I heartily desire to know the most and worst that can be said against any Tenet of mine. I shall be no loser by Truth; & Ve∣ritas magna est, & praevalebit against all opposition: For that is from God; Error and Falshood is from the Creature. You may see by this I make you a great, if not the greatest, part of my study; especially considering my infirmity at this time, which requires I should rather be lying upon my Bed than either going or sitting up. Your Answer to these particu∣lars, Zachary in two places, the Prophecy of the* 1.185 fourth Chapter, and that other of the 9, 10, 11. The sight of Cornelius, and your explicating the Practice of the ancient Churches in their continual celebrating of that Commemorative Sacrifice, in distinction from that which we do implicitly and obscurely, will be a great refreshing to my spirit, and consequent∣ly may prove some ease to my bodily infirmity also. And I hope I shall trouble you no more, unless it be to excite you to go on upon the Revelation. The Lord give a blessing to all your studies, and in good time perfect them to the consolation of his Church in these sorrowful days of Christendom.

Newbury, 3. Aug. 1635.

Your loving friend in the surest bond, W. Twisse.

Post-script.

It is time to return that of yours ad Ludov. de Dieu, which herewith I do. Mr. B. knows him well, and he desires to be heartily remembred unto you, with many thanks for your kind and free entertainment of him.

EPISTLE LXI.

Mr. Mede's Answer about the seven Lamps in the Temple, signi∣fying the seven Archangels; as also about the Pluscula in Zach. 9. 10, 11. with an intimation of his purpose to perfect his Dis∣course on Dan. 12. 11, 12.

THE seven-lamped Candlestick in the Temple before the Veil signified the* 1.186 seven Archangels which stand before the presence of God.

That in Zachary was but a Vision of that, and chosen there to represent (Synecdo∣chicè) the Throne of God's Majesty, the Temple ••nd his Service therein. The two Olive-branches on each side ministring after an unseen and unusual manner Oyl unto those Lamps, figured Zorobabel and Ieshua, the Prince and High Priest, by whom this Throne of presence had and should be first and last re-erected, and together with the service thereat continued and fully established: But this not by armed might and po∣wer, but by the secret way of God's Spirit and Providence working with them, and giving success more than credible to their endeavours; even as these Lamps in the Vi∣sion were supplied with Oyl from the two Olive-branches, not according to the wonted, but an extraordinary and imperceptible way.

The supplying therefore of Oyl to the Lamps from the two Olive-branches hath no respect or reference to the seven Angels which the Lamps signified, but to the Place pitched for God's presence and service, which the Candlestick in this Vision stood to represent, and so was accordingly accommodated, as the scope of the Vision requi∣red; or more briefly thus, The Olive-branches had reference to what the Candlestick stood for in this Vision, not to what it immediately signified in the Temple.

'Tis one thing to set up, maintain, and continue the Type and Symbol which re∣presents; another, the thing thereby represented. Zerubbabel and Ieshua did the one, but not the other; namely, no more than the Priests in their courses in the Temple were wont to do, who were to renew the Lamps every day morning and even∣ing.

Besides, in Types and Parables non oportet quidlibet in significationem trahi, because some circumstances may be of decorum, and some of necessity. But

Lastly, If none of these ways be sufficient to discharge this rub by declining it; then say that Zerubbabel and Ieshua in this Vision, in that work of building the Temple of the Lord and of bringing the people out of captivity, were intended for Types of Christ, according to his twofold Office of Kingdom and Priesthood; from whom, when he should be exalted to the Throne of Divine Majesty and sit at the right hand of God, the seven Archangels were to receive their instructions and commissions (i. e. the Oyl wherewith they burn) as from the Head of the Church; and therefore in the Apocalyps are made to be the Eyes and Horns of the* 1.187 Lamb, that is, Ministers and In∣struments of his jurisdiction, both to see and execute; and that this was mystically implied in this Vision of Zachary. For that these two were Types of Christ, it ap∣pears; of Ieshua in chap. 3. of this Prophecy, ver. 8, 9. and chap. 6. ver. 11, 12, &c. Of Zerubbabel, (if not by this Vision, yet) by the last of Haggai in the very end; be∣sides that our Saviour descended from his loyns.

Concerning the ninth, tenth and eleventh Chapters of Zachary, and what therein befits not so well his time as Ieremie's.

You press me here to discover my fancy. For the allegations will not be convi∣ctive, though of force to incline him who out of that citation in the* 1.188 Gospel can be pliable to think those Prophecies Ieremie's. For Zachary's no Scripture saith they are, though they are inserted into his volumes. But this proves them no more to be his,

than the like doth Agur's Proverbs to be Solomon's, or all the Psalms in the Psalm-Book to be David's. For as for the Titles in the tops of every page, it matters not: it is a later device. The Iews wrote in Rolls or Volumes, and the Title was but once. If ought were added to the Roll, ob similitudinem argumenti or for some other reason, it had a new Title, as that of Agur; or perhaps sometimes none, but was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Well then, that which I fansie or conceive is.

• 1. That those Prophecies against Damascus and the Philistins, chap. 9. would bet∣ter befit Ieremie's time, of their destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, than (if of Zachary's time) by Alexander. See the Prophecy against Damascus, Ier. 49. 23. against the Philistins, chap. 47. 2. and Ezek. 25. 15. For where do we find Damascus destroyed from Zacharie's to our Saviour's time? For to come under the hands of new Masters, or suffer some direption or pillaging, doth not seem to satisfie the intent of the Pro∣phecy. And for the Philistins, though it be true that Alexander destroyed Gaza, (be∣cause it held out long against him, and he was wounded there) yet it appears not that any such desolation befell Askelon whereby it should not be inhabited, or Ashdod; nor should they seem in Zacharie's time to have so well recovered that Clades by Nebuchad∣nezzar, as to be a subject ripe for a new Prophecy to that purpose.
• 2. That of Tyre in the third verse of that chapter, That she had built her self a strong hold, and heaped up silver as the dust, and fine gold as the mire of the streets, I doubt whe∣ther it so well befits her that had so lately been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Sure not so well as it would the time of Ieremy. See Ezekiel's Prophecies thereabout, chap. 26, 27, 28. Sed transeat.
• 3. That which moves me more than the rest is in chap. 11. (whence that in the Gospel is quoted) which contains a Prophecy of the destruction of Ierusalem, and a description of the wickedness of the Inhabitants, for which God would give them to the sword, and have no more pity upon them. It is expounded of the destruction by Titus; but methinks such a Prophecy was nothing seasonable for Zacharie's time, (when the City yet, for a great part, lay in her ruines, and the Temple had not yet recovered hers) nor agreeable to the scope of Zacharie's Commission, who together with his collegue ••aggai was sent to encourage the people lately returned from Captivity, to build their Temple and instaurate their Commonwealth. Was this a fit time to foretel the destruction of both, whiles they were but yet a building? and by Zachary too, who was to encourage them? would not this better befit the desolation by Nebuchadnez∣zar?

I confess I am not so well skilled as to interpret the particulars thereof, supposing they be of that time. But you see now what those Pluscula are I fansie not so well to fit Zacharie's time as Ieremy's. Valeant quantum valere possint.

'Tis certain that Ieremie's Prophecies are digested in no order, but only as it seems they came to light in the Scribe's hands. Hence sometimes all is ended with Zedekiah; then we are brought back to Iehojakim, then to Zedekiah again, &c. Whereby it seems they came not to light to be enrolled secundùm ordinem temporis, nor all toge∣ther, but as it happened in so distracted a time. And why might not some not be found till the return from Captivity, and be approved by Zachary, and so put to his Vo∣lume according to the time of their finding and approbation by him, and after that some other Prophecies yet added of his?

IF you had not put me out by your last Letter, (which I received on Friday Aug. 7.) I was looking into an old Notion concerning our old business of Antichrist; a Notion which I had long laid aside,* 1.189 but upon a late occasion began to take some new liking thereunto, seeing some good use thereof: namely, That the Prophecy of Anti∣christ, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wherein he was to reign, should not be understood till many hundreds of years after Christ, but remain sealed till the time appointed, viz. ad seculum usque duodecimum. All this by express prophecy; and that therefore the Au∣thority of the Fathers and their opinion concerning this point is of no validity, how∣soever it be now come of late among our selves to be a main Objection, That the Pope is not He.

But now I must defer it to more leisure, some other business coming upon me, and I being unfit for above one thing at once.

There was something I wrote to you once about the* 1.190 proof of the Resurrection out of Moses, and that Demonstration of our Saviour in the Gospel; which I never per∣ceived you found leisure hitherto seriously to examine and consider of: yet may it have something considerable.

Thus desiring Almighty God to fill you with all benediction, with my best re∣spect I take my leave, and am

Christ's Coll. August 12. 1635.

Yours, Ioseph Mede.

Postscript.

My Sizer being not yet come with a candle, I will transcribe a passage of Eusebius, concerning the Christian Sacrifice, in his De landibus Constantini. He is mag∣nifying the unparallel'd power of our Saviour testified by the wonderful change he had then wrought in the world; to which purpose with other passages he hath this:

Quis alius, solo nostro Servatore excepto,* 1.191 coepulonibus suis inornenta & rationalia Sacrificia, precibus & arcanâ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 peragenda, tradidit? quorum causâ tum * 1.192 Altaria in toto terrarum orbe constituta, tum Ecclesiarum* 1.193 dedicationes factae. Solique omnium moderatori Deo divina Sacrificiorum solâ mente & ratione ob∣cundorum ministeria ab omnibus gentibus exhibita: Sacrificia verò sanguine, cruore & fumo peragi solita, vi quadam occultâ & invisibili deleta & extincta sunt.

EPISTLE LXII.

Dr. Twisse's Eleventh Letter to Mr. Mede, signifying his high esteem of Mr. Mede's Discourse De Numeris Danielis, Chap. 12. 11, 12.

Right dear and my right worthy Friend,

THis day a little before dinner came your* 1.194 Letter unto me. I have been of late ex∣tremely melancholick; your Letters inspire chearfulness into me—How am I be∣holden unto you for communicating unto me your Treasures, which I esteem beyond the Treasures of the Queen of Sheba! You have heretofore blessed me with the Mysteries of a 1.195 Dan. 11. now with the Mysteries of Dan. 12. vers. 11, 12. The bare discovery of others Errors I should esteem a Iewel, and a preservative from engaging our selves in erroneous ways, which is worst of all. Better a great deal to content a man's self with Ignorance, so to keep himself entire for the embracing of Truth, when the time of its nativity is come. But you go farther, and from the Text it self discover whereto thoseb 1.196 Numbers tend, namely, for the discovery of Antichrist; which gives me wondrous content: and all this you crown with admirable accommodation to the Event—What a gracious God do we serve, that hath so well provided for us in these times and for our consolation so many hundred years ago; and as he hath reserved us for these times of light, so raiseth up some to open these Oracles unto us? What should man be the better for that sweet Dew, Hony I mean, if the Lord had not provided such a Creature as the Bee by natural instinct to seek after it, and gather it for the use of others as well as for themselves?—I protest unto you, if I should lie in prison all days of my life, next unto the consolations of God's spi∣rit your Writings would most refresh me: They do always dispel melancholy. I desire no better Preferment than you can perform, and that is to be preferred to acquaintance with your Rarities. I make bold to keep your Discourse till the next week, for I cannot let it pass from me without copying it out. I commend me to your Love, as one of them I hold most dear, and shall ever from my heart desire that God will prosper your courses and studies, and recompense you with himself, to be your Buckler and exceeding great Reward—I rest

Newbury, Octob. 12. 1635.

Yours ever in the surest bond, Will. Twisse:

EPISTLE LXIII.

Mr. Estwick's Letter to Mr. Mede, touching the Millennium.

SIR,

TOuching the Opinion of the Millenaries, it was not yet my hap to light of a Book to inform me: You shall find me to be a teachable Scholar: only this Mora Resurrectio∣nis seems to be confuted in divers places of the Scripture, where it is said, The dead shall be raised at the sound of the last Trump; All they that are Christ's, at his coming, (1 Cor. 15. 23.) in a moment, vers. 52. and the coming of the Son of man. See Matt. 24. 39. and, excepting one place, I think the Resurrection is said to be of good and bad to∣gether. How these and the like Scriptures are to be expounded agreeably to the doctrine of the Millenaries I would willingly know.

Warkton, Nov. 4.

Yours ever, N. Estwick.

EPISTLE LXIV.

Mr. Mede's* 1.197 Letter to Mr. Estwick, vindicating Lactantius about the Millennium, and proving Cyprian to be for the same Opi∣nion; with some reflections upon Ierom's want of Candour and Faithfulness in relating the opinion of his adversaries.

Mr. Estwick,

YOU would bring me to express my self de modo, before you were persuaded de re. But soft you there, I like not that Method.

S. Ierom is a man of no faith with me, when he describes the opinion of his Ad∣versary: which whatsoever it were, he would set it forth as odiously as possible could be. He was a man that cared not what he said, so it might disparage his Adversary: This appears sufficiently in the cases of Vigilantius and Iovinian. Yea but he lived at the same time. Answ. So do we with those we differ from, and yet we see the experience daily, that scarce any one will relate the opinion of his Adversary candidly.

Yea but I cannot deny that Lactantius was for ciborum abundantia, gulaeque ac ven∣tris ingluvies, & ea quae sub ventre sunt. But what if I can? The words of Lactantius are only these, Lib. 7. cap. 24. Tunc, inquit, qui crunt in corporibus vivi (he speaks of those who shall be living at Christ's Second coming) non morientur, sed per eos∣dem mille annos infinitam multitudinem generabunt, & erit soboles eorum sancta & Deo chara. Qui autem ad inferis suscitabuntur, (that is, those who shall rise from the dead Resurrectione primâ) ii praeerunt viventibus tanquam Iudices. You see he puts a difference between those who shall be then living and those who shall rise from the dead. The last shall live vitam coelestem & Angelicam, even on earth, without mar∣rying or giving in marriage; but not the first. He saies indeed the one shall genera∣re; but of the other only, that praeerunt viventibus tanquam Iudices; and presently in the words following describes that Regnum to be the Mille anni coelestis Imperii in quo Iustitia in orbe regnabit. But of gormundizing, ingluvies & gula, I find no word, unless you think it must needs follow upon the taking away the curse of the creature, and the restitution thereof to the perfection it lost through mans sin. For Lactantius means no more, but that such as then lived should live the life that Adam should have done in Paradise, had he not sinned: but those that should then rise from the dead should live in a far more Heavenly and Angelical condition, even the life of the Blessed Spirits in Heaven. But S. Ierom is wont to relate the opinion, as if those who rose again should generare, and give themselves to feasting and gormundising.

Besides, you say S. Austin intimates that some held some such carnal Beatitude. I answer; So he intimates that some did not, and that himself was once of that opi∣nion, and that to hold so was tolerable; Quae opinio esset utcunque tolerabilis, si aliquae deliciae spiritales in illo Sabbato affuturae Sanctis per Domini (i. Christi) praesentiam crederentur. Nam nos etiam hoc opinati fuimus aliquando. De Civit. Dei, Lib. 20. c. 7.

But where can I shew Cyprian to be a Chiliast? You see it is tedious to answer a Question in writing, which may be asked in a few words. Yet I will say some∣thing: I say therefore, he shews himself plainly a Chiliast (to such as know the my∣stery of that Opinion) Lib. de Exhortatione Martyrii. In the Preface whereof he speaks thus; Desiderâsti, Fortunate charissime, ut quoniam persecutionum & pressurarum pondus incumbit, & in fine atque consummatione mundi Antichristi tempus infestum appropinquare nunc coepit, ad praeparandas & coroborandas Fratrum mentes de divinis Scripturis hortamenta componerem, quibus milites Christi ad coeleste & spiritale certamen animarem—paulò pòst— Sex millia annorum jam penè complentur—Si imperatum invenerit Diabolus militem Christi, &c.

But he that, as you see, expected the coming of Antichrist should be at the end of the sixth thousand year, which he supposed then near at hand, yet thought the world should last 7000. viz. a thousand years after the destruction of Antichrist, ut patet ex iis quae disserit cap. 11. in these words, Quid verò in Maccabaeis septem fra∣tres & natalium pariter & virtutum sorte consimiles, Septenarium numerum perfectae con∣summationis implentes? Sic Septem fratres in Martyrio cohaerentes, ut primi in dispositione divina Septem dies, annorum Septem millia continentes—ut consummatio legitima com∣pleatur, &c. This to him that knows Chiliasm is plain Chiliasm. Look and compare your Austin, cap. 7. lib. 20. de Civit. Dei, from those words, Qui propter haec hujus Libri verba primam Resurrectionem, &c. Compare also what C••prian hath in the end of that Book out of the Gospel, Mark 10. 29, 30. and Apocalyps 20. and you will acknowledge him to be (as he was wont to profess himself) Tertulliani Discipulum.

But I must not follow you too far in this kind of answering: 'tis tedious. I send you some more Papers, and so with my love, I rest

Christ's College, Novemb. 16.

Yours, Ios. Mede.

EPISTLE LXV.

Dr. Twisse's Twelfth Letter to Mr. Mede, containing Seven Quaere's, relating partly to Iewish and Christian Antiqui∣ties, and partly to some difficult places of Scripture.

Worthy Sir,

I Have been a stranger from you too long; I come now to renew my acquaintance. I presume you are acquainted with Dr. Heylin's Book of the History of the Sabbath. Do you know the Author whom he opposeth about the Precepts of Noah, for making the Commandment of the Sabbath one of them, though he name him not? Yet the que∣stion is not whether it be one of them, but whether not comprehended under one of them. But he allegeth Rambam to the contrary out of Ainsworth. I have read enough in Cocceius to discredit Rambam, and I pray let me know whether Aben Ezra upon Exod. 20. on those words [the stranger within thy gates] doth not maintain that it was one of them, coupling it with that of* 1.198 Nakedness and Shedding of Bloud. And though you doubted whether Solomon Iarchi on Gen. 26. 5. did deliver that which he doth of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 two of them as out of his own opinion: yet Dr. Heylin confesseth that Abulensis and Mercerus testifie that the Rabbins upon that place are opinion that Abram kept the Sabbath.

I pray, what think you both of his and Dr. White's opinion concerning Synagogues, that the Iews had none before the Captivity, and their Inference thereupon, That

the Sabbath was nowhere observed (save in the Temple) by any publick congregation but only in private? Dr. Andrews was of another opinion, as hath been shewed me in some Notes of his; and his ground in my judgment is fair, Levit. 23. 3. The Se∣venth day is a Sabbath of rest, an holy Convocation—it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. The holy Convocation here mentioned seems to be in reference to all their dwellings: whereas the other Feasts and holy Con∣vocations belonging thereto were to be celebrated at Ierusalem. But I have not yet con∣sulted any Rabbines about this.

Then, I pray, What think you of Dr. Heylin saying, That Evening-prayer on the Lord's-day is but a late invention? Yet I find it in the Iewish Synagogue and Noctur∣nae after Vespertinae; like as I find the like in one of Austin's Epistles de Tempore: and in Cassian it appears that the Sabbath-Solemnity was not ended until the time of their Evening-repast corporal—

Doth your plough stand still in the Revelation and such like passages of a mysterious nature? I hope it doth not.

Is not that Matth. 25. spoken of the last period of the Day of Iudgment? It seems it is; for the Resurrection is general both of Sheep and Goats; yet to the Sheep it is said, Receive the Kingdom, Shall they receive a Kingdom when Christ resigns his unto his Father? and in Heaven it seems there are none for them to reign over. Or is it a Fi∣gure of speech, representing the glory of that State when God becomes all in all, by the greatest glory that we are acquainted with, which is the glory of a Kingdom?

I pray, what think you of that in Esa. 66. 23. From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all flesh come to worship before me? Shall not the Observation of our Christian Sabbath continue, after Christ's coming with his Saints, amongst the Nations that are saved from that Deluge of fire (though it be Irenaeus his phrase, yet I learnt it from you) where∣with the Earth and all the works thereof shall be burnt up? And if it be urged that by the same reason the Festivities of the New-moons shall have their place in Christ••s Kingdom as well as Sabbaths, and by consequence the Ceremonies of the Iews be re∣stored: I answer, it followeth not; the words may be rendred, From month to month, as the Geneva doth. If we read it, From New-moon, &c. with our last English, yet it is not necessary to understand it of any peculiar Festivity denoted thereby, least of all Iewish. And we Christians in Cathedrals, Colleges and great Towns have our Month∣ly Communions all the year over.

And seeing I am upon it, what think you of Matth. 24. 20. Pray that your flight be not in the Winter nor on the Sabbath-day? We know Dr. Andrews B. of Win∣chester as well as Mr. Dod apply it to our Christian Sabbath: And to my judgment it is a strange fiction to apply it to unconverted Iews, that our Saviour should stir them up to pray, who scorned the Gospel whereby alone we come acquainted with such an Ad∣monition, and certainly scorned Christ's Instructions: and how can we think that God would hear the prayers of such? and was it fit that our Saviour should lay such a ground for the countenancing of their prayers, yea and their Iewish Sabbath too?

And now truly, Sir, there is no Book that I desire to study more than your self. I have found great freeness and acceptance with you hitherto, I hope I shall do so still. I heartily desire God's blessing upon your person and studies, as upon my self and mine. I shall ever rest

Newbury, April 5. 1636.

Yours in my best respects exceedingly obliged, Will. Twisse.

EPISTLE LXVI.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Dr. Twisse's 7 Quaere's, viz. about the antiquity of Synagogues among Iews the and of Even-song in the Christian Church, as also about the meaning of some difficult places of Scripture, viz. Matth. 24. 20. Matth. 25. 31, &c. Isa. 66. 23, &c.

SIR,

I Turned over the leaves both of the Bishop's and D. Heylin's Book, when they came newly out, that I might see their Principles and the way they went: fur∣ther I am not acquainted with them; because I took no pleasure neither in their Con∣clusions nor their Grounds, which, if they be urged, would overthrow a great deal more than they are aware of.

• 1. If there be any such Author the Dr. opposeth for affirming the Sabbath to have been comprehended under one of the 7 Commandments of the Sons of Noah, I sup∣pose it is Godwyn in his Moses and ••aron, Lib. 1. cap. 3.
• 2. That of Aben Ezra upon Exod. 20. 10. seems to me to be very evident for that Opinion. For though it be as much as I can do to understand a piece of Rab∣binism, yet methinks this passage, if it be translated, will sound thus; Ecce non du∣bium est quin dictio [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tu] comprehend 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unumquemque qui est silius praecepti. Ideirco 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Filius tuus & Filia tua sunt parvidi quorum requies est super te, tibique incumbit officium custodiendi eos, ne quicquamfaciant quod tibi vetitum sit. Si∣militer de 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Servo tuo & Ancillâ tuâ; quoniam in pot•• state tua est, tui est officii custodire eum, neque sinere eum ut serviat alteri. Sin minùs, tu transgredieris praeceptum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Non facies; quòd eo spectat ut quiescat Servus tuus & Ancilla tua perinde ut tu ipse; sunt exposult Moses Dominus noster viâ quam commemoravi.* 1.199 Et secundùm hunc Doctorem vovebii 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Peregrinus qui est intra portas tuas, quod non facturus sit opus in Die Sabbati neque in Die Expiationum. Propterea scriptum est secundò Peregrinus. Similiter atque de praecepto Nuditatis, cùm secundùm hunc Docto∣rem vovebit quòd custoditurus sit praeceptum Nuditatis; eodémque modo de Comestione sanguinis. This Dominus Moses he here cites, I take to be Rabbi Moses Haddarschan, who lived an hundred years before him, and was Master to R. Solomon Iarchi. Mai∣monides, whom Ainsworth cites for the contrary opinion, and Aben Ezra, were both of an age and contemporaries.
• ...

  3. For Synagogues, I am inclined to believe they were before the Captivity, and not first taken up there, as the more common opinion is. But how to evict it against him that shall obstinately maintain the contrary, I confess I know not. That in Act. 15. 21. [Moses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath in every City them that preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath-day] will not reach so far; yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is more than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If I should allege that of Psal 74. 8. They have burnt up all the Synagogues of God in the land; they would say as Iunius doth, that this Psalm was composed under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes: and indeed that which follows [We see not our signs, there is no more any Prophet, neither any among us that knoweth how long] may seem to argue it cannot be meant of that vastation by Ne∣buchadnezzar; for then there were both Prophets, and those that knew how long. But if this be granted, there will arise another difficulty, viz. That either this Psalm is no Canonical Scripture, or That some part of the Canonical Scripture was written long after Malachy, when there was no Prophet and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had ceased. And if this, why not the first Book of Maccabees? There remains but yours Lev. 23. 3. which to me hath appearance of probability; but he that were refractory would pick some hole or other, either in the word translated [Convocation] or in [dwellings,] especially in the first. See Vulgat. and LXX.

  But did not the Levites (shall we think) teach the people out of Ierusalem in the places abroad where they dwelt? And did not the people use to resort to such as could teach them, on Sabbath-days and New-moons? What doth that of the Shunamite argue else, 2 Kings 4. 23? where her husband saith unto her, Wherefore

• ...

  wilt thou go to him (the man of God) to day? It is neither New-moon, nor Sabbath. If this; had they not some place where to resort and assemble?

  Besides; were there not then Colleges of Prophets and Prophets Sons in Israel? In the same* 1.200 chapter we shall find they had, and an hundred men in a place, vers. 43. and in chap. 6. initio, that they had Houses where they lived together. Did not the Israelites erect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Houses of false worship too may? Could they think of building Places to transgress God's commandment in, and never of Places wherein to be instructed in his Law? But the Scripture is silent. I answer, If the silence of Scripture be an argument sufficient to conclude against matter of Fact in the times pre∣ceding, for the use whereof we have testimony enough in the times following, with∣out any express intimation of Novelty; then must we not think that the Iews paid Tithes from Ioshua's time to Hezekiah's, (for there is no tittle intimating they did) nor that ever they kept the year of Iubilee; for where is it mentioned they did? and so of other the like.

• ...

  4. For Even-song publick in the Church, there is very little to be produced out of the Monuments remaining of those First Ages. That the Monks used it in their Monasteries, it is granted, because affirmed that it was from their example derived into the Church. That in their private Devotions devout Christians observed the ninth hour as well as the first, third and sixth, in those elder times, may be proved out of Tertullian de Iejunio cap. 10. and S. Cyprian de Oratione Dominica. But for Ves∣pers in ortu Ecclesiae, neither of them mentions them. Yet Tertullian in his Apology, to∣gether with Pliny ad Trajanum, hath antelucani coetus; and in his Lib. 2. ad Vxorem, cap. 4. Nocturnae convocationes: But as those seem not to have been properly those we call Mattins, so neither these our Vespertinae. And in this inquisition notice is to be taken, that both Mattins and Even-song were distinct from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or solemn address of the Church to God in the holy Eucharist, which they termed Sacrificium Christi∣anum. Well, the most ancient Testimony to be found of Vespertinae in coetu Ecclesiae is with the Author of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which, though it be an Apocryphal writing and of a false inscription, yet is the most ancient Record of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, by way of purposed Collection, that is at this day ex∣tant, and not younger than 200 years after Christ at the most. The Author, who∣soever he were, seeming to have gathered this Rhapsodie out of the Customes and Ceremonies he found then in use in the Churches founded by the Apostles; and sup∣posing them to have been derived from their institution, accordingly fathered them upon them; and where there was any singularity or difference, brings in that Apostle, whose Church he found it in, as speaking in Council, &c, It is put by Eusebius, in his Catalogue of Sacred Books, amongst the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and is often quoted by Epiphanius by the name we give it.

  In this Rhapsody, Lib. 8. cap. 35. is not only mention, but the Form of Evening Prayer,* 1.201 with the solemn dismissing (at the beginning thereof) of the Catechumeni, &c. as at the Eucharist, ascribed to Iames the Brother of our Lord in particular. Whence it may seem, according to my former supposition, not to have been common at first to all Churches, but peculiar to that* 1.202 of Ierusalem, whereof this Iames was the first Bishop; whence also the Liturgy of that Church (though the greatest part thereof (as now it is) were afterward at several times added) bears the name of S. Iames his Liturgy.

  The next Testimony for antiquity is that of the Council of Laodicea, (which, if Baronius his arguments be good, was before the first Council of Nice,) the 17. and 18. Canons whereof are, Quòd non oportet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psalmos contexere, sed inter∣jecto inter unumquemque Psalmum spatio Lectionem fieri: The next, Idem ministerium Precum semper & in nonis & vesperis fieri debere; Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Though I cite both Canons, yet I suppose not the latter to have reference to the former, (for what had the Evening to do with the Synaxis?) but the meaning to be, that one and the same Form of Prayer should be used both at the ninth hour and at the Vespers.

• ...

• 5. Concerning that in Matth. 24. Pray that your flight be not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath-day, I conceive thus; That the believing and Christian Iews, even the Apostles themselves, were to observe the Rites and Ordinances of Moses (and consequently that of the Sabbath together with the Lord's-day) until their Tem∣ple and Politie founded and constituted by God him••elf should be actually and fully dissolved. And do we not find they did so? yea even S. Paul himself, who was so great a Vindex of the liberty of the believing Gentiles, that they should be tied no farther than the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Proselytes of the Gate were. Therefore Acts 21. it is ac∣counted a slander or calumnie which was reported of S. Paul, that he should teach the Iews which were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that they ought not to circum∣cise their children nor walk after the customs. For neither he nor any other of the Apostles taught that the Iews should do so, either abroad among the Gen∣tiles, or at home in Iudaea. For the Gentiles indeed they did, and S. Paul (whose charge they were) more zealously than the rest, that they should have no such imposed upon them, according to the decree of the S••nod, Acts 15. Consider it with that Story Acts 21. à vers. 20. & deinceps. This therefore being to be the condition of the believing Iews when their City should be compassed with an Army by Cestius Gallus, (at which time they were admonished to flee (to save themselves) with all speed into the moun∣tains of Petraea, as soon as Cestius by withdrawing a little his Army should give them that liberty) our Saviour saith here, Pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath-day. For he speaks not of any flight to be when the City should be taken, or when it should be once besieged by Titus; for both would be too late; but of a warning be∣leaguering to precede it.
• ...

  6. Concerning that in Matth. 25.* 1.203 when our Blessed Saviour shall sit upon his Throne of Royalty to judge the world; I conceive a Figure to be in that expression of placing the Sheep on his right hand and the Goats on the left, borrowed from the custome of the Iews in their Tribunals, to place such as were to be absolved on the right hand, where stood the Scribe who took the Votes for Absolution; and those who were to receive the sentence of Condemnation, on the left hand, where stood the Scribe which took the Votes for Condemnation. Such a custom of theirs Drusius in his Notes upon that place observes out of Moses de Kotsi. That therefore nothing else is meant thereby, but that our Saviour should distinguish the world of men into two Orders; one of such as should receive the Sentence of bliss and Absolution, the other of such as should receive the Sentence of Condemnation. That he should first pro∣nounce the Sentence of Absolution upon such as are to be absolved; and that once finished, then to pronounce the Sentence of Condemnation upon such as are to be condemned.

  Now I suppose the Sentence of Absolution shall continue all the time of the First Resurrection, that is, all the Thousand years long; that, that once ended and finished, (and not before) he shall then proceed to pronounce the Sentence of Condemnation upon such as are to be condemned. For so the Text saith, that he shall in the first place pronounce the Sentence of bliss and Absolution upon those who are to be ab∣solved; and that done, then come to the Sentence of Condemnation upon those who shall be in statu & ordine damnandorum: that is, successively and not at one and the same time;* 1.204 though the Scripture here mentions not the Intervallum which shall be between the beginning of the one and the other. Thus you see, although my plough stand still, unless sometimes it joggs me, yet then I am not unwilling to listen unto it.

• 7. To that in the end of Esay 66. of Festivities in the Kingdom of Christ, I answer, I see no reason why the Lord's-day should not be a celebrious Day when the Lord reigneth. Yet I think the expression there is accommodated to the condition and Di∣urnial of the Church under the Old Testament ad capium Auditorum; and no more thereby to be understood, but that in that New world not the Iews alone, as then did, but all the Nations should come before the Lord to worship him in the frequent Festivities then to be, whatsoever they should be.

Thus I have, as well as I could, answered your Sabbatical number of Quaeres; if not so largely and fully as you desired, it is because there were too many of them for the narrowness of my mind to intend at one time—Thus therefore with my Prayers to the Almighty for the continuance of his blessing and favour to you and yours, I rest

Christ's College, April 18. 1636.

Your respectful and true Friend, Ios. Mede.

EPISTLE LXVII.

Mr. Mede's Second Letter to Mr. Estwick, touching the Gothick Liturgy, and the time when the Goths became Christians.

SIR,

—THE Cothick Missal is that which the Goths in Spain used till they receiv∣ed the Roman;* 1.205 which though, as all other Liturgies, it be to be supposed to have received many alterations and additions in time, yet no doubt may retain some ancient passages, whereof these Prayers pro defunctis may be some, either re∣ceived from the Spanish or African Christians, or from the beginning of their Chri∣stianity, which was before Chiliasm was condemned by Damasus, or they plundered the Roman Empire. For Theophilus Gothorum Episcopus was at the Council of Nice. Anno 360. Vlphilus their Bishop at a Council at Constantinople assented to the Formula Ariminensis, from whence the Goths became first infected with Arrianism. S. Augustine de Civitate Dei useth this argument of the Goths Christianity, against the Gentiles calumny. That the Ruine of the Empire was for their rejecting their ancient Gods and receiving the Christian Religion. For they were Christians that took and sacked Rome, saith he, and not Gentiles. Vide—

Thus with my wonted affection and prayers I rest

Christ's Coll. Nov. 9. 1636.

Your assured Friend, Ioseph Mede.

EPISTLE LXVIII.

Mr. Mede's Third Letter to Mr. Estwick, more fully treating of the Gothick Liturgy and a Clause therein of Praying for the Dead to have part in the First Resurrection; with a Passage in Methodius touching the Millennium.

Mr. Estwick,

—THE body of the Gothish Nation, or of one part thereof, had receiv∣ed the Christian Faith before they plundered the Roman Empire; as appeared by Alaricus himself, who with his Army solemnly observed the Christian Rites. Yet seems this to have been between the days of Constantine and Iulian, and not elder. Howsoever, there is no question but there were many Churches among them before, as was in other Nations long before the Faith was publickly received by them. If so, then without doubt when the Nation publickly received the Faith, they received likewise that Form of Liturgy which had formerly been used in their Countrey by those of the Christian Rite amongst them: And thence might remain those passages of Praying for the Dead to have part in Resurrectione Prima. Irenaeus Lib. 1. cap. 3. edit. Fevardent. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Tertullian Lib. adv. Iudaeos, where he tells us that Brittannorum inaccessa Romanis loca were Christo subdita, says moreover, that In Sarmatarum & Dacorum & Germanorum & Scytharum & abditarum multarum Gentium & Insularum nobis ignotraum locis, Christi Nomen, qui jam venit, regnat, &c. Why may not the Goths be comprehended under some of these? As for the Vandals and the rest of those Northern Nations, I find not that they brought any Signs of Chri∣stianity with them when they first invaded and seated in the Empire, but were alto∣gether Pagans.

As for that Form of Prayer for the Dead, Vt partem haberent in Resurrectione Prima, I believe it was usual in those Formulae for the Dead till Chiliasm was

cried down, and then expunged: namely, that it followed those words (which ap∣pear yet in most of those Forms) Vt collocet e••orum animas Deus in sinu ••brahae, unde abest doler & suspirium, as it does in this Gothish Missal. Whence it is that now in those Forms there appears no Prayer at all for their Resurrection or Consummation then; notwithstanding that in the Protasis they compellate God with Qui hominem mundi civem mortalem in constitutione sua fecisti, & promisisti ei Resurrectionem. Who can believe that in such Prayers they should not at all pray for the Resurrection? But that passage being it seems anciently specificated to Resurrectio Prima, they thought it sufficient in after-times to omit it, without substitution of any other for it: And hence comes that silence of the Resurrection.

But that you may yet see my thoughts still now and then reflect upon that Specu∣lation, (which you thought I had forgotten) I will give you a passage of Methodius Olympi Lyciae, deinde Tyri Episcopus, and a Martyr sub Decio, (alii sub Valeriano;) which passage, with a good part of his Dialogue de Resurrectione contra Originem, is preserved by Epiphanius Haeres. 74. There Proclus (cui tribuit lonquendi partes) speaks in this manner.

Et verò* 1.206 conturbatam iri Creaturam, velut in conflagratione ista morituram, ut re∣stauretur; non tamen extinctum iri exspectandum: Vt in instaurato Mundo ipsimet in∣staurati ac doloris expertes habitemus; juxta illud Psal. 103. Emittes spiritum tuum & crea∣buntur, & renovabis faciem terrae. Quòd nimirum ambientem Aerem temperatissimum de∣inceps facturus sit Deus. Cum enim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Terra adhuc perseveratura sit; habitatores in ea futuros omnino necesse est, qui nec morituri sunt ampliùs, ne{que} copulandi nuptiis, aut procreandae soboli operam deturi; sed Angelorum more 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in im∣mortalitatis statu* 1.207 optima facturi. Proindéque stultum est, Quanam vitae ratione usura sunt corpora (in Resurrectione) quaerere, si nec Aer, neque Terra, neque quicquam caete∣rorum sit ampliùs futurum.

Whether do you not think this man to have been a Chiliast? But no man desires to be acquainted with Notions that way; wherefore then should I go about to cram them? I think scarce any of you of my acquaintance knows the tenth part of my adventures that way. I can be content to satisfie my self without troubling others, unless I see them seriously desirous to be informed. But no man I find loves any Spe∣culations but such as he thinks will advance his profitable ends, or advantage his Side or Faction. Mundus amat decipi. But there will be a time one day, when God thinks fit.

Christ's Coll. Nov. 15.

I. M.

EPISTLE LXIX.

Mr. Mede's Fourth Letter to Mr. Estwick, (with part of an∣other 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 pro∣bable, 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 con∣trol 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 audi∣ret. 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,* 1.208 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* 1.209 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 Cheru∣bins 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?* 1.210 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 else∣where, it is not said, they should be together, though they be mentioned together; for there is difference between mentioning and being. As for the* 1.211 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* 1.212 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* 1.213 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 Co∣pie of an* 1.214 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 Catechume∣ni, 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 de∣fendo, ad hypothesin praestandam adigerer?

6. Concerning the* 1.215 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 de∣servedly) 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 ano∣ther 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (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.

EPISTLE LXX.

Dr. Twisse's Thirteenth Letter to Mr. Mede, wherein (after his desire to know his judgment of Mr. Potter's Book touching the Number of the Beast 666) he expostulates with him about certain Ceremonies, &c.

Reverend Sir and my worthy Friend,

HAD I stay'd longer in Cambridge, you had enjoy'd my company longer, or (to speak more properly) I should have desired to enjoy your company longer; and it would be very long ere I should be weary of your discourse. I long to hear your judgment of Mr. Potter's Discourse touching the Number of the Beast 666. I presume also you know Bishop Usher's opinion of Christ's Kingdom here on earth; I would gladly know it, and whether he doth retract his former opinion touching the Binding of Satan, which in his Book De successi∣one Ecclesiae he conceives to have been in the days of Constantine.

I have returned your Paper, and sent you a Copie of your own concerning* 1.216 The Four Monarchies, which you call The A B C of Prophecies. I have sent you also Tilenus his Synod of Dort and Arles reduced to practice, with an answer thereunto. In Oxford it's counted unanswerable, translated out of French by D. or A. from whom it was spred (as I hear) in O. and at first fathered upon one of them. But it appears by the Dutch copy and Voetius his answer in Dutch, that Tilenus was the Author. At my coming from Cambridge I found 8 Copies of them sent unto me, and 6 of them I have sent amongst you; for truly I never found better content in any friends than there with you, and with your self amongst the rest. O Mr. Mede! I could willingly spend my days in hanging upon your ears, while you discourse of Antichrist and the accommodation of his Le∣gend to the Pope of Rome, and the Whore of Babylon to Rome it self; though my studies have lain far more in their Writings than in our own Divines, and I was never found to dislike any Opinion of a Papist for the Papist••s sake who maintains it, as having pro∣fited in Divinity more by their Writings than by our own, always excepting Interpretation of Scripture: How much more to hear you discourse of the glorious Kingdom of Christ here on Earth to begin with the ruin of Antichrist? It may be you do not find many Disci∣ples more docile this way than my self.

But I would intreat you to spare me in the point of Ceremonies; in some particulars whereof you told me once in a* 1.217 Letter you were no Practitioner; but now I fear by that which I find you are a Promoter of them. In Easter-term last I heard—your good Friend, while he lived, complain not a little of a Sermon of yours which you had then lately preached, and he delivered it with much grief. After Mr. B. wrote unto you of the battel of Armageddon, inquiring whether the time thereof were not already extant, the next Letter I received from him had this passage;

I am verily of Mr. M^s. Opinion in this, that the times wherin we live are the times for the slaughtering of the Witnesses.

Whereupon I compared 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 an 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 complements, nothing more pleaseth a natural man in Religious worship, and he finds himself apt enough for it, yea far more apt than he who, knowing and considering that God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit, are most careful for the performance there∣of; whereupon while their minds are intent, they find themselves not so free for outward complements, 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 look'd for such Entertainment at your hands. My Wife••s father, Dr. M. 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 Countrey-Auditory am a mere stranger to such Ceremonies; neither do I know any order of our Church urging thereunto; neither do I know when it began and upon what grounds: it may be it was upon their pre∣vailing against the Arrians; 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 judg∣ment 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 Iudgments of God at this time in Christendom, as if it were for the neglect of that Sacrifice; 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 Sacrilege, I know not. And by Mr. B. I heard, as from your self, the practice of Bishop Andrew's Chappel 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 judg∣ment 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. That which you style your Conjectura de Gogo & 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—That Declaration of the Palsgrave's Churches, since I came home, I have seen: I remembered your Censure of it as a laxe thing: O∣thers passe other judgments upon it on my knowledge, and those Divines were accounted in those days as grave and learned Divines as most in Christendom. Indeed the matter of Bowing at hearing the name of Iesus is nothing pleasing to some in these times: But how doth B. A^s. reading in Antiquity serve his turn for that? Cornelius à Lapide is a Pa∣pist and a Iesuit: he saith ad nomem Iesu in S. Paul is no more than ad Iesum. I know it is the Father's pleasure, that as we honour the Father, so we should honour the Son, and all the world shall never bring me to shew more reverence at the hearing of the name of Iesus then at the hearing of the name Iehovah; and when we are, as we should be, in∣tent upon our religious comportment before God according to the inward adoration in spirit, that we should watch when a word comes, to perform outward obaisance, in my judgment is very strange. And I remember how faintly Mr. H. carries himself in this; and others, in pleading for it, most of all urge this, that no body is troubled about it: but now more than enough must yield or suffer—I never had experience of the practice till now, and that makes me the bolder to write as I do: Yet whatsoever we shall be put unto, I am glad that I have such liberty to confer with you thereabouts. I am lately grown acquainted with my Lord of Armagh, being encouraged to write unto his Grace about the matter of the Sabbath; which I willingly apprehended, and acquainted him with all my Grounds whereupon I proceeded: and he justifies them all. I intreated also help in Antiquity about the Notion of a Sabbath given to the Lord's-Day; and he profest unto me, that he never inclined his mind to observe that in all his reading, and added this reason, For he never thought to see such times as these to call into question Whether the Moral Law contains Ten or but Nine Command∣ments. And Dr. Reynolds being ask'd what he thought of Beza's judgment concer∣ning the Sabbath, made no other answer but this, You know the Commandment. Thus have I made bold to write freely as to my dear friend. I doubt not but whensoever I am put unto it, I shall find you the readier to afford me your best satisfaction; for certainly

I will neglect no means to keep me out of the paw of the Lion as well as I can. I commend you to the grace of God, and with many thanks for your love and free communication of precious things I take my leave, ever resting

Newbury, March 20. 1636.

Yours to love and honour you, Will. Twisse.

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 writ∣ten 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 po∣sture, 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* 1.218 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 No∣tion 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 arbi∣tris, (which I much, but in vain, desired) in all probability you had been (toge∣ther 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 Commu∣nion-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 there∣upon, 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* 1.219 Sixteen years ago in a Concio ad Cle∣rum for my Degree upon another Text.

The Text now was that of Solomon, Eccles. 5.* 1.220 Look to thy feet when thou comest to the House of God; and be more ready to obey (for so I rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 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 pre∣fer 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* 1.221 Moses in the bush, and to‖ 1.222 Ioshua, to∣gether with that Symbole of Pythagoras, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 ge∣neral, 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; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, When ye enter into a house, salute it. Why should we not think it to be a part of Religi∣ous 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 de∣termine. 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 Ejaculati∣on, (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. Intro∣ibimus 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 in∣gress 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 Observati∣on, wherewith I concluded, was, The Condition of all External Service of God in gene∣ral, 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 mode∣rate 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 Dis∣courses. 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 deser∣ved 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 account∣ed 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 pra∣ctised, lest for want thereof they might cherish some unsafe conceit. And notwith∣standing 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 be∣lieve 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* 1.223 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 fre∣quently) 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,* 1.224 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; And consider that the Question is not here (as most men seem to make it) be∣tween 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 Out∣ward may not be more acceptable to God than the Inward alone. As for that so com∣monly objected Scripture in this question,* 1.225 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 un∣to, 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 ge∣sture, 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 be∣fall the Reformed Churches, because out of the immoderation of their zeal they had in a manner taken away all Difference between* 1.226 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 Neu∣stadii 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 Sacrifi∣cii 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 Sa∣crificio 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 immedi∣ately 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 di∣cens, Hoc est Corpus meum; & Calicem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura quae est secun∣dùm 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 for∣ced Hospinian (Hist. Sacrament. lib. ••. c. 6.) to say, Iam tum primo illo seculo, viven∣tibus 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 Fa∣thers and Church Christian, and could not be perswaded but that which the Catho∣lick 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 Sa∣crifice, 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 Re∣ply, 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 Com∣memorative 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 intelli∣genti. There may be here some matter of importance.

Lastly, You may remember how much I desired to be spared from any farther wri∣ting 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 dis∣course thereabout after he had considered them, to discover any opposition or aver∣sation 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 part∣ing, 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 Para∣dox; 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 be∣lieve 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 Spe∣culations 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! Concern∣ing which and the compleat 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of both Numbers when I found such Testimo∣nies 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,* 1.227 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;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

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 go∣ing 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.

EPISTLE LXXII.

Dr. Twisse's Fourteenth Letter to Mr. Mede, touching Mr. Potter's Discourse of the Number of the Beast, viz. 666.

Worthy Sir, and my dear Friend,

YOV have communicated unto me many precious things, which makes me to acknow∣ledge my self more indebted to you than to all the men in the world. And the more glad I am when I light upon any thing that is worth your knowledge. This last week I re∣ceived a Letter from Mr. Potter, enclosing two other Letters, one of his own to Dr. Turner in answer to another of his; both which I have sent you. Therein you shall see how Mr. Potter's discovery works already like wax before it sees the light of the Press. I had for∣merly wrote unto him what your judgment was upon the Abstract I sent you, as your self wrote unto me, and as I heard also from Mr. Hall. But lately Mr. Hartlib sent me a Copy of your judgment morefull since you received the compleat Copy, wishing me to send it over unto Mr. Potter; which I did, and he is glad, as he professeth to me, to hear that you esteem so well of his Interpretation: and over and above adds, that if any man think so well of it as to translate it into Latine, he will not be sorry for it. Nay, he is willing to add something to it concerning the First Beast and the Second Beast and the Image of it. He is exceedingly desirous to know—his judgment of it, in such sort that he hath a mind ei∣ther to write or to go over unto him. I pray let him have a sight of it, and entreat him to set down his judgment concerning it—Now, Sir, concerning the occasion of these Letters, I will shew you what he writes to me.

Mr. Potter had understood from Oxford that Dr. T. (who is one of the Mathematick Professors there) had alledged against his Book, That the Root of 666 was not 25. but this was by those who told him of it accounted so slight and untrue an Objection, that Mr. Potter did not regard it. But after this being with—he told him that Dr. T. told the Vice∣chancellor that Mr. Potter was out in the Mathematical part of it. Hereupon Mr. Potter wrote unto Dr. T. and receiving no Answer wrote a second time; thereupon Dr. T. an∣swered: which Answer of his I here send you with Mr. Potter's large Answer unto him; wherein you shall find not only the vanity of Dr. T's Exception, but a strange Mystery disco∣vered even to admiration. I have sent you Mr. Potter's own Letter, for fear lest in tran∣scribing I should miss in the calculation of the Numbers. He desires to have the Letters again when we have perused them and transcribed them. I pray return them by Mr. Hart∣lib —I commend me heartily to the continuance of your love, and rest

Newbury, Aprill 30. 1638.

Yours ever in true affection and great obligation•• Will. Twisse.

I pray remember my due respect to Dr. Bain∣brigge the Master of your House.

EPISTLE LXXIII.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Dr. Twisse's Fourteenth Letter, touch∣ing Mr. Potter's Notions of the Number of the Beast, with some Observations of his own concerning his Book.

Worthy Sir,

I Thank you heartily for Mr. Potter's Letter. I confess I have an especial esteem of his Discourse; but little looked that what I wrote carelesly to Mr. Hartlib de∣maning my opinion thereof should have come to his hands.

Concerning this Letter; I am perswaded the Doctor's Exception is fully and suffi∣ciently answered, namely, That the Root of a Number ought to consist of Unities of the same denomination with the Unities of the principal whose Root it is; and that if the Unities be of another denomination, it is not the Root of that Number, but of another.

I see also a fair possibility of a discovery of new Mysteries even in the Fractions: but perhaps it will not be so safe to discover them (until they be well armed) unto those who are not well affected to the main. For it is sufficient with a great many to discredit a Tenet, if they can but find any thing not defensible brought toward the maintenance thereof. Verbum sapienti.

I care not if I acquaint you with what came into mind upon my first cursory reading of the Letter; the one an Observation, the other (as I found afterward) a mistake of Mr. Potter's meaning.

• 1. First, when I read him applying the Fractions 41/51 to the Latitude of Rome, I cal∣led to mind that the old Astronomers and most of our Maps make the* 1.228 Latitude of Rome to be 41 degrees and about 50 (or 51) minutes. The later Mathematicians promote it some minutes farther Northward: but Rome was big enough, when time was, to bear the difference of a few minutes. And if that which Mr. Gellibrand ob∣served be true, it is possible that the Latitudes of some places may be a little changed since Ptolemy's time, by some motion of the Earth, whatsoever it be. The Mistake was this:
• ...

  2. As I ruminated upon his application of the Denominator of the Fractions 51 to so many Italian miles, (which I well understood not at my first cursory reading) I fell into this conceit, that his meaning had been, that a Degree in a great Circle had con∣tained but 51 Italian miles, (whereas we suppose 60) and that therefore 41/51 was as much as 41 fifty one Italian miles, that is, 41 Degrees, a Degree being 51 Italian miles. That which led me into this conceit was his mention of Snellius, who in his Eratosthenes Batavus, (which I had sometime look'd upon, but it is many years since) as I remembred, made a Degree to contain some miles less than 60. Whether my memory fails me, I know not; for the Book I never saw but once in the Stationer's shop. But when I read the Letter the second time with more deliberation, I found his meaning to be, That Rome lay under such a Parallel as whereof every Degree contained 51 Italian miles: but this supposes, I think, that a Degree of a great Circle should be above 60 Italian miles; which how near or far off it be from Snellius his ex∣perimental definition, I know not. My skill in Mathematicks is but little, only so much as makes me able to understand a Discourse in that kind. In my younger time I studied the Grounds of those Sciences, but ever since neglected them; and therefore if I commit any Soloecisms in talking of such matters, I must be excused.

  I will add also some of my thoughts concerning his Book.

• 1. That there is no such Argument to prove the Divinity of the Apocalyps, and con∣sequently to convince an Atheist of the Divinity of the whole Scripture, (whereto this Book gives testimony) as the strange agreement between Ezekiel's Lineal and S. Iohn's Cubical measures of the city Ierusalem for the compass and Area thereof; both the numbers and denomination of Measures being so differing as they are, and those of S. Iohn besides to be derived from 12. How could this be but from Divine inspiration, when S. Iohn, as the rest of the Apostles, was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and far enough from skill in Algebraical subtilties?
• ...

• 2. That the Virgin-Company which follow and carry the mark of the Lamb, and the Synagogue of the Beast which follow him and receive his mark, are evidently 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even secundùm literam; besides, their meaning not obscure, namely, That the one represents the true Church, the other the Anti-church or Church of Antichrist. If therefore Mr. Potter had fetched the Number of the true Church from this Virgin-Com∣pany, perhaps his discovery of the Mystery of the Anti-numerus of the Beast would have appeared more evident and convincing. For though the Number of the Wall of the New Ierusalem import as much as the Number of Christ's Church, yet it doth it but remotely, (many things being first requisite to be granted by way of Postulata) and therefore obscurely in comparison of the Number of the Virgin-Company. I wonder therefore what the reason is he never mentions or alludes to this Number throughout the whole Treatise: nay he affirms twice that the Number 144 is only to be found in the 21. chap. of the Apocalyps: Which is true indeed in Unities, but in Thousands not. Was it the Thousands that would have troubled him in his way? That Solertia which with so much happiness broke through greater difficulties would soon have mastered this. Or is it some interpretation he hath of that Vision which was not compatible therewith? Thus I mused and reasoned with my self.
• 3. In his answering of what might be objected concerning the Root of 666, and in particular when he gives reasons why the Holy Ghost intending the Root 25, amongst all the Numbers which might have been taken to that purpose between 625 and 676, should pitch upon 666 rather than any of the rest; I saw a door open to save the life of mine own conceit of that Number; That the Holy Ghost would intimate thereby, that the Antichristian State should be an imitation of the Sixth head of the Roman Se∣ven-headed Beast, rather than the off-spring of the Apostles, and therefore made his Number all of Sixes. But the matter is not great whether it be saved or not, if a bet∣ter come in the room of it.

You would have me send Mr. Potter's Treatise to—'Tis true, he is skilled in Ma∣thematicks, (in which respect it may be the—named him) but so vehemently pre∣judiced and professed against that Tenet of the Pope being Antichrist, that it would be to small purpose, if he could be gotten to read it; which I believe he would hardly be. I have no confidence in the strongest demonstration against a man that is prejudi∣ced and engaged in the contrary. Nay 'tis strange how unwilling all men are to read any Discourse this way. I carried Mr. Potter's Book to some—opposite otherwise to—and no enemies to that Tenet; I commended it, desired them to peruse it, told them it was that would please them, they delighting in Mathematical Speculations, related to them the summe of the Contents and Grounds thereof, and whatsoever might allure them; I left it with them a competent time: yet when I went to fetch it and know their opinion, they had not read one leaf thereof, nay gave me less hope than that they would then at the first; and instead thereof made Exceptions against something I had told them out of it. What should I hope then of men professedly op∣posite and passionate or, if you will, impatient besides, and so less tractable? If any man would tell—of it, and that in such a manner as might work in him a desire to see it, I would be most willing to communicate my Copy with him; which I took some care to be so transcribed as might allure a reader, dividing it into certain Sections, and prefixing the Contents of them in the beginning of the Book, with other distinctions; but altered nothing in the context of the Author. I caused the Figures to be drawn according to art; the hand reasonable neat, and promising no trouble to the Reader, well pointed throughout, &c. By this you may see I was willing to have it read.

Thus I have scribled somewhat with an ill pen and an ill hand: If it be such as you can read, and will excuse, it is enough. I send back your Letters with thanks. And so with my best respect and prayers, I rest

Christ's Coll. May 23. 1638.

Yours in all friendly affection, Ioseph Mede.

EPISTLE LXXIV.

Dr. Twisse's Fifteenth Letter to Mr. Mede, about Mr. Pot∣ter's Book, and the Holiness of Times and Places; with some reflexions upon a Passage in the Inscription of his Dis∣course upon 1 Cor. 11. 22. as also an Extract of Mr. Potter's Letter relating to some passages in Mr. Mede's Letter touching the Number 666.

Dear Sir,

I Think my self happy that I am the medius Terminus to convey Passages between you and Mr. Potter. I received this Letter from him but on Friday last, which here I send you enclosed; wherein you will find him to rest satisfied with that you write concerning —as also how well he is satisfied with that of yours, having nothing to except against ought; but rather you extended that which he delivered somewhat farther than he intended it. You see he is desirous to see the division of his Book into Sections made by your hands, and marginal Annotations; and what else you can hear objected by any against it. I pray satisfie him as far as it lieth in your power. He is a very meek and ingenuous man; and now you see what way lie his studies, I would you would imploy him in ought that you shall find needful; for I find him very desirous to gratifie any friend: As I wrote to him about some things, which what they were I know not; but he hath promised to answer unto all. He is exceeding studious in his way. But is it not possible to get his Book turned into La∣tine in your Vniversity, especially this Vacation-time, and things standing as they do with you?

I have lately received a* 1.229 Book from you by the hands of Mr. Hartlib, for which I hearti∣ly thank you. The Title you give in your Dedication, Sublati discriminis inter sacrum & profanum Assertori eximio, I doubt will do you wrong with many, and make them to con∣ceive that the sacrum & profanum you speak of is in your account only in respect of Place, and not at all in respect of Time. But I know the contrary, which makes me wonder at it the more. I had recourse unto you about the Holiness of Places long ago, meerly for infor∣mation; and I was then as abrasa tabula, apt to receive ought that I saw reason for. But to this hour I am not satisfied, whether the fault be in my Understanding, or in my Affe∣ctions, God knows, or in the insufficiency of Evidence convincing. And that my Affecti∣on should sway me, I have this reason against it; I find my self naturally pliable that way which you take, even to superstition, as now I find, calling my self to examination. And to your interpretation of that in Paul, 1. Cor. 11. 22. I have been very prone; insomuch that the way others take to the contrary seemed to me at first sight wondrous strange, that I understood not so much as their meaning at the first, nor did I come to understand what they would, without some plodding: and when I did understand it, it seemed harsh unto me; untill I came to examine what it is to despise or dishonour a Place, and compared it with Dishonouring of Days. And surely neither Days nor Places are to be honoured by us, but God in them: Yet I find a vast difference between Time and Place, though you sometimes said there was the same reason of both. But I find not the same reason in the more general notions of them, much less in the special. It is true, natural actions require Time and Place for the performance of them, the unity whereof together with the unity of the Subject necessarily concur to the individuation of them, if I remember aright my old Philosophy. And the meeting of many about the same action requires set Times and Pla∣ces: But by Places you mean Churches, which are not Places natural; the like cannot be said of Times. Then as for the special consideration of them; It is apparent that propor∣tion of Time is very momentous for the advancing of Morality and Piety; as by setting apart one day in a week for God's publick and solemn service, a greater advancing of Piety is made by far than by the sequestring of one day only in a month or in a year for this: and we find nothing answerable hereunto in Place at all, least of all as commanded either by God or man.

Lastly, as touching the particularity of Time and Place compared together; will you say there is as little evidence for the particular Day to be kept holy to the Lord, as for the

particular Place? Sure I am S. Gregorie's is going down, if not altogether down, to be built elsewhere as they think good; we never yet heard the like of the Lord's-Day. Yet I would you could prevail but so far with your great Lord, to draw him to be Assertor eximi∣us sublati discriminis inter sacrum & profanum as well in Time as in Place: though I despair of ever being brought to acknowledge there is no difference between these; least of all to believe that Holiness of Place is more religiously to be observed than Holiness of Time.

But notwithstanding the difference between us herein, you shall always be as dear to me as you have been; and that not as a civil Friend only, but as my Christian Brother too; were our differences in opinion greater than these: For I manifestly perceive how easie a thing it is for good men to take your way about the Holiness of Place; and hereunto my self have been exceeding prone. But do you think indeed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was the word of Ignatius? or can you give any instance of the like, either in his time, or in an 100 years after him? I wish you all happiness as to my self, and rest

Iuly 2. 1638.

Yours ever in the Lord much obliged and most assured, Will. Twisse.

An Extract of the above-mentioned Letter of Mr. Potter to Dr. Twisse, necessary for the fuller understanding of some passages in Mr. Mede's Letters, &c.

SIR,

I Should be very glad to hear that my Treatise were translated into Latine either by your self or by any other, (if there be any such that would do it so perspicuously as I believe you would) and I should be glad if your self or Mr. Mede would add his opinion which he mentions in his Letter, why the Number 666 was taken rather than another whose Root might also have been said to be 25.

That the Number 25 is so conspicuous and remarkable in the Roman Calendar is also a thing remarkable and apposite, and a thing which I did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in a great Roman Calendar in the Library at Oxford, but did not then under 〈…〉〈…〉 of it, nor had time, at that instant, to search the reason why that Number 〈…〉〈…〉 great red Capital figures. I know there are many other things which it hath 〈…〉〈…〉 which wise and learned men, and such as are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wi•• 〈…〉〈…〉 may and will observe to the same purpose 〈…〉〈…〉

I kindly thank you for the sight of Mr. Mede's 〈…〉〈…〉 he came to know that I had his judgment of my Book sent unto me, I know 〈…〉〈…〉 hope it shall be no hurt either to him or me, but an help and furtherance of the Tru••••.

My Letter to Dr. T. was written to a pro•••••••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 hematician, and ••••••tude of matter forced me to write briefly, and therefore 〈…〉〈…〉 and therefore it i•• ••o marvel if my un∣skilful and confused expressions have caused 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things to be mist••ken at the first reading. If the Fractions of the Root of 666, being 41/51, be appliable not only to the number of De∣grees, but also to the number of Minutes of the Latitude of Rome, 'tis more than I obser∣ved, and more than I intended. I thought it a sufficient exactness that 41 is the greatest number of Degrees of Latitude of that place, being there is no City near it that can stand in competition with Rome to be the Seat of Antichrist. And if that Parallel which is 41 Degrees of Latitude, and that Meridian which is 41 Degrees of Longitude, do cross and cut each other in any part of S. Peter's Patrimony, or of those Dominions of Italy which are immediately subjected to the Pope and City of Rome, this seemeth to me to be in this respect a sufficient manifestation of that individual Kingdom and City in which Antichrist was chiefly to reign and reside. And those places and Provinces which were not immedi∣ately but mediately ruled by him, were at the time of the Council of Trent chiefly confined within that Parallel which is 51 Degrees of Latitude and that Meridian which is 51 Degrees of Longitude. For these two Numbers 41 and 51, or rather 41/51, being considered the one as

Numerator, the other as Denominator of the same Fraction, must not be understood the one of Degrees and the other of Minutes, but both must be applied to divisions of the same deno∣mination, and one be considered as part of the other, and the Numerator as the most princi∣pal part which is chiefly intended.

In the second place, Because this Fraction 41/51 supposeth oneIntegrumto be divided into 51 parts or thereabouts, I therefore observed that one Degree of Longitude in that Circle or Parallel under which Rome lieth did contain in Longitude about 51 Italian or Roman miles, and this supposes one Degree in maximo circulo to be about 68 Italian miles and somewhat more; which agrees very well and strangely with that experimental definition of Snellius, lib. 2. Eratosthen. Bat. cap. 12. where he hath with great evidence of truth and probability defined ambitum terrae in maximo circulo to be 123120000 Roman feet, that is 342000 feet to one Degree, which makes 68 Italian miles and somewhat more.

As concerning that which Mr. Mede adds in his Letter about my Book; I do believe that as Daniel understood not many Visions which were shewed unto him; so neither did s. Iohn understand the meaning of the Number of the Beast, nor the Measures of the New Ierusalem, when he wrote the Revelation. And the strange and wonderful Wis∣dom of God, in discovering so many, so different things concerning Antichrist by one Num∣ber only, and in laying a foundation for this discovery by making the Number 12 〈◊〉〈◊〉∣able in the Old Testament, in respect of the City Ierusalem and the Patriarchs and Tribes, long before our Saviour came in the flesh, hath been to me a great, if not the greatest of all ex∣ternal Testimonies for the Divinity of the Scriptures; and I doubt not but that it will be so to others that do believe it and understand it.

I should be glad to hear what those Exceptions were which Mr. Mede writeth that some made against some things which he related out of my Book. I am confident that all material Objections may be fully answered. Perhaps that which he mentioneth of the Virgin Com∣pany was one thing which was objected against it. To which I answer, That it is most true, that the Beast having two horns like the Lamb is opposed to the Lamb, and that the Follow∣ers of the Beast which receive his Mark are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Followers of the Lamb: But it is also to be observed That the Number 666 is not said to be the Number of the Followers of the Beast, but of the Beast; and it is also to be observed That the Number 144000 is not said to be the Number of the Lamb, or of that Hierarchy which is most appositely oppo∣sed to the Beast, but to be the Number of the Followers of the Lamb. Now although the Lamb be properly opposed to the Beast, and the Followers of the Lamb to the Followers of the Beast; yet the Beast is not so properly opposed to the Followers of the Lamb, nor the Lamb to the Followers of the Beast; and therefore the Number of the Beast is not so directly opposed to the Number of the Followers of the Lamb, as it is to that Number which typeth out chiefly that Hierarchy of the Lamb which is most directly and most eminently op∣posed to the Beast. Now the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of the Church of Christ is chiefly typed out by the Wall of the New Ierusalem and by the Number 144, and therefore I have said in my Book, That the Number 144 is an Idea (not of the Church in general, although that be also true and affirmed in a general sense, but) of the Hierarchy of the Church. Foras∣much therefore as the Number 144 is a type of that which is more properly and directly oppo∣sed to the Beast than the Followers of the Lamb are opposed to the Beast; I therefore conceive this Number 144 to be more directly and immediately opposed to the Number of the Beast than the Number 144000, which is a type of the Followers of the Lamb, and therefore must be opposed, not to the Number of the Beast, but rather to the Number of the Followers of the Beast. And although there be no such Number expressed in the Scriptures, yet if there had been occasion to express the Anti-numerus to 144000, I believe it would have been said to be 666000: For as the Number of the Lamb's Followers is derived from 144, so is 666000 from 666. I have more to say of this, but 'tis now time to hasten my Letter.

As for that Copy of my Book which you sent to my L. S. if you have received it, I desire you to keep it still in your hands, that it may be a witness from whence those divers Copies have proceeded which are now abroad in the world. If any Copy of my Book (having come into some malevolent hands) should be corrupted, and have any thing inserted into it which might be offensive to the State; then that Copy which you have would acquit me from it—If you had any Copy which you can spare to return unto me, I had rather it were another than the same I sent you: And of all other I should desire to see one that hath Mr. Mede's Notes upon it: it should be safely returned again unto you, and I should be thankfull to Mr. Mede for any thing which he hath added or illustrated or cor∣rected—

I kindly thank you for the sight of such Papers as I have here returned, and shall still rest

Kilmington, Iune 27. 1638.

Yours to be commanded, and for your sincere love and many kindnesses greatly obliged, Francis Potter.

EPISTLE LXXV.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Dr. Twisse's and Mr. Potter's Let∣ters. His Vindication of that Elogium in the Inscription of his Discourse upon 1 Cor. 11. 22. [viz. Sublati inter sacrum & profanum discriminis Assertori.] His Vindication of that Maxime [Eadem est ratio Loci & Temporis] from the Exceptions of Dr. Twisse.* 1.230 The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used in the first 200 years, the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not found in any Ecclesiast. Writing for 200 years. An Objection from the taking down S. Gregorie's Church answered.

Worthy Sir,

I Thank you heartily for communicating Mr. Potter's Letter with me. I under∣stand now his reason why he took not in the Number of the Virgin-Company to ground his discovery of the Mystery of the Beast's Number upon, as by an Anti-nu∣merus of an Anti-company; and I am in some degree satisfied therewith, yet so as I could still wish he had made some more use of it in his Argument, and not wholly pas∣sed by it with silence. I confess the observation of this supposed defect was mine own, and no bodies else: For those I related the Contents of his Book unto, had ne∣ver (I believe) looked so much into the Apocalyps as to be able to make such an Ex∣ception, so far as I could discover by their Discourse. Yet how this Number might be taken in, though not as a principal, yet at least to bear a part, I am yet to seek; which before I read his Letter I thought I had not been: now methinks I see some pos∣sibility only a••ar off, and am as one loth to lose it.

The Exceptions I made mention of were not worth specifying, being of the same nature with Dr. T^s, viz. want of exactness both in the Root and in the Application. Whereupon I desired them to instance in any one Prophecy in the whole Scripture, which they would affirm and could shew to be more exactly fulfilled than Mr. Potter (if his Authorities were true) had shewn this to be; yea I urged them as far as the Prophecies concerning Christ himself, the time, the place and manner of his Coming; offering to parallel one Evidence and exactness with another. To which I received no other answer, but that they doubted much I would fall short, and that howso∣ever it was not good to make such Comparisons: wherein, it may be, they said not amiss.

That observation of mine, of Rome's Latitude to be 41 degrees and 51 minutes, was upon the suddain. For looking into Stadius his Catalogus Locorum & Vrbium in his Ephemerides, I found the Latitude of Rome to be there 41 degrees and 50 minutes, but in Origanus his Catalogus 42 degrees and 4 minutes, (which is 14 minutes more) in Maginus, as I remember, 42 degrees and 2 minutes; for I have him not in my Stu∣dy, as I have the other two. I supposed that Stadius had followed Ptolemy; but when I looked some days after, I found in him but 41 degr. 40. min. 'Tis somewhat strange there should be no better agreement, if not of Ptolemy with the Neotericks, yet of the Neotericks with themselves, about so famous a City. But that of Stadius is

nearest the middle between the extremes. Whatsoever it be, I make no account of it: yet I do not very well understand what Mr. P. means in his Letter, when he saith, That both the Numerator 41 and the Denominator 51 must be applied to divisions of the same Denomination, and yet the one to be part of the other, &c. But I have no time to consider it.

I doubt that the Meridian of 41 degr. of Longitude and the Parallel of 41 degr. Latitude will not cross each other in any part of S. Peter's Patrimony, nor scarce any where upon Land; whether we count the first Meridian with Ptolemy in the Canaries, or with the later Cosmographers in the Azores; the later accounting 10 degrees more or less than the other: which uncertainty also will make that other Application of the Parallel and Meridian 51 to be the Boundaries of the Papal do∣minion Eastward and Northward at the time of the Council of Trent, to be ob∣noxious and unuseful.

Concerning the translating of M. Potter's Book into Latin, I could wish it; but I believe you mistake the possibility of getting it done in Cambridge. He that should do it must have a threefold qualification. 1. He must be ready and master of his Style. 2. He must be one that can understand it. 3. He must be well-affected to the Argument. How hard will it be, think you, to find all these concurrent in the same man here? For my self, I express my self with my pen with as much diffi∣culty, if not more, than I do with my tongue; and so I want the first qualification, though, it may be, not the other two. And for others, I know not any that are able so well affected to the Argument, that they would be willing to undertake it: you may imagine divers impediments that way, which I will not name. But were it not fit rather that Oxford, that bred it, should do this office for it? I think Mr. P. in his Letter guesseth aright.

I forgot to answer to one thing in Mr. Potter's, namely concerning my Copy of his Book. Mr. Hartlib was earnest somewhile since to borrow it of me, to tran∣scribe another conformable to it. I stipulated with him not to let it go out of his house. It is a mistake that I had written any marginal Annotations upon it. I af∣firmed only that I had written all his Margins with mine own hand, lest the altera∣tion of the pages should confound them; only perhaps I added here and there some numeral references in the Margin, where the Text refers to somewhat spoken of be∣fore or to be spoken of afterward. That which I did to it was the distinguishing thereof into 8 Sections, and prefixing in the beginning of the Book the Contents of each of them, ad leniendum taedium Lectoris, and to represent unto him the sum of the Discourse in a short view. Also by breaking of lines I distinguished each Section as it were into Paragraphs, &c.

NOW, Sir, for my Book, I sent it not to you as an Auctoramentum or Presse∣mony to bind you to be of my opinion; but only as a testimony of that honour I thought I owed you; and yet so much the more willingly, because the Argument confirmed some grounds of Mr. Potter's, if I am not deceived. It was my New-years-gift to my Lord's Grace after he had taken me under his name; which some Friends informed me was a Ceremony of decorum, that I could not now at the first omit, and would serve in stead of a journey to London to thank his Grace, &c. I had this ready, and sent it in that name, with the Inscription you see, save only that the words In novi anni auspicium gratique, &c. now appear not, being thought by some fit to be omitted when it was to go to the press: To which honour the Author (if I know his mind) had no ambition it should have been preferred.

Well, but howsoever it came about, you say that part of the Elogium in the Inscrip∣tion you doubt will do me wrong, [viz. Sublati inter sacrum & profanum discriminis Assertori] although you know the contrary to what they will be ready to conceive thereupon. 'Tis true; there be some men that will never find the true sense or reason of any thing quod dictum aut factum nollent. I have heard of the constructions of my new relation, but God forgive them; I have witnesses enough, which they are not aware of, of their Vnadvisedness, that I may give it no worse term. I am beholden, yea exceed∣ingly beholden to my Lord's Grace for his good opinion of me, (notwithstanding he well knows that in some things I differ from him) and I am bound to acknowledge it; howbeit he yet knows not his Chaplain de facie, nor his Chaplain him. But because there are some that forget there is a Ninth Commandment as well as a Second, and have given me cause to speak, I would have them know what I now say, That I defy them, whoso∣ever they or he be, that says, He is less ambitious or less discontented with his present condition than I am, or were when this happened unto me. And this by the way.

I come again to the Elogium; where I am not so narrowly pent, that I should be confined to the discrimen between sacrum & profanum in Places only, to make it true. You may remember that once upon occasion with you I made 4 sorts of things Sacred; to wit, 1. Personae sacrae, 2. Res sacrae, 3. Loca sacra, 4. Tempora sa∣cra, Personae sacrae, as the Clergy, Res sacrae, (specially so called) as Bona Ecclesi∣astica, &c. Now I think the world takes notice that my Lord is Assertor eximius of the Discrimination of the first Three from common; and I hope an Instance of One par∣ticular amongst Four against the other Three doth not make an Indefinite affirmation not true. Besides, I add the word [Sublati;] but the Discrimination of sacred Time with us was none of the Sublata, though somewhere it be as well as the rest. And the field of my defence is so much the larger, if it be considered that one of the three, Res sacrae, is capable of Subdivision. But enough of this, it being no well∣becoming Theme to dispute upon.

I said, there was eadem ratio Loci & temporis not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but eadem ratio Loci & Temporis sacri; to wit, for the Sanctification (i. e. holy and discriminative usance) due unto them both, and the formal reason in respect whereof it is due. For the reason why a thing is to be Sanctified or Sanctè habendum is, because it is Sanctum or Sacrum: Now whatsoever is appropriate unto God and his Service, is such, whether the determination thereof be by God's own immediate Ordination, or mans Devotion, it is all one in this respect, so the Appropriation or Dedication thereof be supposed lawful and agreeable to the Divine will. For this Sanctifica∣tion we speak of depends not either upon the difference of the cause or manner whereby the thing is consecrated, nor upon the diversity of Natural and Artificial be∣ing, but upon the Formalis ratio of the Object, because it is Holy or Sacred, there∣fore to be sanctified with holy usance. For to Sanctifie in Scripture is not only to make holy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but to do unto a thing as becometh its holiness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Moreover I believe the Sanctification of Place to be intended in the Fourth Commandment as well as that of Time; and that not only from the Rule observed in the interpreta∣tion of the rest of the Commandments, (by one of the kind named to understand all the rest ejusdem generis,) but especially the Lord himself hath conjoyned them as pairs, Levit. 19. 30. Keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my Sanctuary. And why not, when they are so near a-kin, being both Circumstances of Action, why may I not then say, Quae Deus conjunxit, nemo separet? And it may be (if it be well looked into) the Sanctification of the Lord's-day might be urged with far more advantage upon the ground I intimate, than upon that other which is so much controverted. But it is partialitie that undoes all.

It seems by this Objection I have now answered, you supposed the Argument of my Book to be The Reverence of holy Places, which is only The Antiquity of them.

You ask me if I believe indeed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; was Ignatius his word. I say, I do, till I hear some sufficient reason why I should not. For that of my not being able to give an instance of the like either in his time or within 100 years after, seems to me to have no force of concluding at all. When I affirmed in my Altare, That the name of Table could not be shewed given to that whereon the Eucharist was celebrated, in any Ecclesiastical Writer confessed to be genuine, before 200 years after Christ; I inferred not therefrom, that therefore the name Table was never used all that time; nor, if I had, would you have believed me. And yet to tell you the truth, when I wrote that, I had some persuasion or suspicion that that Name could not be shewed in any Writer for 3 hundred years after Christ, but durst not affirm so much as I thought, because I was not sure of Origen. But when a Friend of mine soon after wondred how I durst avouch in publick a thing so incredible, as this to him seemed to be; I discovered that I had affirmed somewhat less than I believed, and desired him to make trial whether he could find it in 300 years or not: wherein when he had spent some time, he could not. He alledged indeed Cyprian de Coena Domini but I told him that was confessed of all sides to be none of his, &c. And now see the luck of it; The week before I received yours, a Friend shewed me the New Articles of the New Bishop of Norwich (his Diocesan,) wherein (besides some other unwonted things which some body will startle at) the Bishop avouches upon the credit of his reading, That the name Table in that sense is never to be found in any Ecclesiastical Writer of the first 300 years, save only once in an occasional passage of* 1.231 Dionysius Areop agita. Now, Sir, what think you of this? Yet you see I can shew the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

oftner than once in those first 300 years. Yea if you would grant me that the Author of that Hierarchical Treatise (whosoever he were) lived but within the compass of 200 years after Christ, I could give you an instance both of the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 within the time by you limited. For this Dionysius in his Mysterium Synaxeos describes the Deacons standing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in his Theory of the same mentions the sending of the Euergumeni (at the time of the Eucharist) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. However it be, it follows not, that because I can shew it but once within that 200 years, therefore I should believe it was used never. Besides, me∣thinks I observe some unreasonableness used in this kind, viz. Notwithstanding such paucitie of Monuments remaining unto us of those first Ages, upon every unconclud∣ing suspicion to discredit those we have, and then when we have done, to require proof that such things were in those times, (which we without proof deny) when those who alone could give testimony are disenabled, and sometimes for no other reason but because they give such testimony. Is this dealing reasonable?

As for the taking down of S. Gregorie's Church; I answer, In the Law some things Sacred were unalienable even quoad Individuum, (as for example such as were con∣secrated by way of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 See Levit. 27. 28, 29.) Others were unalienable as touch∣ing the kind only, and therefore, if need were, the Individuum might be changed, so it were for the better and with the Lord's advantage, which the Law provides should be by adding a fifth part thereunto. See the rest of the Chapter quoted. But what is this to the deciding of the lawfulness or truth of what is in question, to alledge that which men do? Is not all the world full of Contradictions? I ve∣rily believe that even those who are zealous for the Sanctification of the Lord's-day, do in their practice, if not in their Theory too, overthrow the Principles whereupon it stands.

I think I have no more to make answer to, and I confess I have done this not without some tediousness. For you must pardon me, if, judging as a Stander-by, I am not persuaded you are by nature so prone and pliable, as you think, to the way which you say I take.

Yes, I now find one thing more. S. Gregorie's Church, you say, is going down, at least is to be built elsewhere; but we never yet heard the like of the Lord's-day•• No? but I have, namely, that a great man in the Reformation had once a Consul∣tation to have translated the Lord's-day unto Thursday, upon pretence to take away Superstition, and though that Consultation succeeded not, yet he is known to have been no great friend to the hallowing thereof. How true this is I know not, penes authores fides esto; but such a thing I have read, I can assure you.

Thus with my heartiest affection, which I never found my self prone to change for mere difference of Opinion, I commend you and yours to the Divine blessing, and am still

Your assured Friend, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Coll. Iuly 21. 1638.

EPISTLE LXVI.* 1.232

Mr. Hartlib's Letter to Mr. Mede, with an Extract of a Letter concerning Dr. Alting's Censure of Dr. Field's opinion.

Worthy Sir,

I Cannot but confess my self much obliged unto you for the Papers which you have been pleased to impart unto me. You do well to help us by a fuller unfolding of those excel∣lent Mysteries which divers will take for Paradoxes.—

But I return to your Letter, and assure you that I will have a special care to send back your Papers. In the mean time I pray accept of these inclosed, which concern the work of Pacification. Mr. Dury remembers his respects unto you, and will be glad to embrace your Letter when-ever it comes. He hath not yet read your Book, because he can get none for himself, the Book becoming now rare every way. When you have done with the Papers, I pray let me have them again; some of them I had not leisure to read over. The printed Treatise I got from beyond the Seas; the* 1.233 Author of it thus writes unto me: Adsui Doctori Altingo; Is maximopere optat non praemisissem meo contra Bod∣saccum Exercitio istud ex Fieldo excerptum. Ratio 1^a, Quia falsa sunt quae ille tum de Orientalium hodierna, tum de Occidentalium ante Lutherum Religione refert. 2^a, Quia Lutherani indè capient calumniandi ansam, quasi Universalem aliquam Reli∣gionum conciliationem moliamur. Intellexi simul hâc occasione Genevae imprimis No∣vum Testamentum linguâ Graecâ qualis nunc est, adeò ut non tantùm Originale Grae∣cum, sed & Versionem Graecam simus habituri; quam ad rem 1000 Imperiales Domi∣ni Ordines dederunt, ut mittantur Exemplaria in Graeciam.

Inter argumenta cur Fieldi sententiam rejicit est, quòd Witebergensis quidam olim ad Graecum Patriarcham miserit Confessionem Augustanam, ut approbaret, sed illam ut heterodoxam rejecisse. Quòd hodiernus Patriarcha alius sit, id personale esse, & facilè apparere ex quibus scriptis ille hauriat. Sepultus est hâc hebdomade noster Burgersdicius, &c.

But I would fain know your judgment about this Censure of Field, it being a thing of very great consequence. Dr. Alting, I hear, is writing an Ecclesiastical History. Thus expecting your Answer, I rest for ever

Your assured and affectionate Friend, Sam. Hartlib.

London, March 13. 1634.

EPISTLE LXXVII.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Mr. Hartlib, vindicating Dr. Field's Te∣net, and shewing in what sense it may be said that the Roman and Greek Church have not erred in Primariis & Fundamentali∣bus Fidei Articulis.

Mr. Hartlib,

I Received not your Packet till yesterday at dinner-time. I send with this in∣closed a* 1.234 Book to Mr. Dury, which I was fain to rob a Friend of, promising to give him another as good, but I send the Book and this my Letter apart, that the one may bring news of the other, if they should chance not to arrive at your hands together—

I thank you for Mr. Streso. Concerning that of Dr. Field, I have hitherto sub∣scribed to it, according as I conceived to be his meaning; though whether the par∣ticulars of his narration be every one of them true, I cannot affirm: the most, I believe

are. But it is no marvel though such a Tenet make your forein Divines to startle: That notion is almost proper to our English, to maintain that the Roman Church, much more the Greek, ••rreth not in Primariis & Fundamentalibus Fidei Articulis, because explicitely they profess them, howsoever by their Assumenta implicitely and by consequent they subvert them. This your forein Divines, and some too of our own, think to be an harsh assertion, because they rightly conceive not our mean∣ing: whereof you may be more fully informed by Dr. Crakenthorp against Spalato, cap. 47. and by Dr. Potter in his Charity mistaken. You may remember also that Bishop Davenant (in the Discourse you shewed me at London) by the name of Fundamental Articles understands the Articles of the Creed of all Christians, and no other. Take notice likewise that we say the Roman Church and Ours differ not in the Articles we account to be Fundamental: not that we differ not, and mainly too, in those which they account Fundamental: Nor do we say but by consequent they ruin too even those Articles we account Fundamental, though explicitely they profess them. In a word, we hold That all the Roman Errors consist in the Assumenta they have added to the Foundation, and not in the Foundation it self, which they profess not∣withstanding.

Besides that in the main Points of Controversie between them and us, the Truths, we affirm against them were heretofore freely maintained in their Church, as for the substance from time to time; and though for the most part the opposite Faction overtopped them, yet were not the Tenets of that Faction made the Tenets of their Church, till the Council of Trent decreed them, and condemned the other.

This is the sum of the Tenet of ours. But what do I write of these things in so tumultuary a manner? It is a point that requires a man should have his brains at home.

What though the Patriarch Ieremy rejected the Augustane Confession for Hetero∣dox, when it was sent him? It is true, that often one Sect of Religion condemns that in another which it self affirms; because it understands not its own in anothers terms and after another way. Besides, though the Patriarch rejected the Confession ••n gross, yet it follows not, he rejected it for those Points whereof Dr. Field affirms; but because it condemned likewise their Assumenta. For it is certain that in the Assu∣mentis we differ mainly from them, and they from us.

Now the clock strikes three, I must an end. So with my best affection I rest

Your assured Friend, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Coll. March 18. 1634.

EPISTLE LXXVIII.

Ioan. Duraei Epistola ad Ios. Medum.

Cratiam & Pacem.

Clarissime & Doctissime Vir,

HVmanissimis tuis Literis & praeclaro illo, quod amicitiae mecum initae pignus esse voluisti,* 1.235 Scripto, cujus priorem ante aliquot annos, posteriorem nunc primùm video partem, ità animum meum affecisti, ut sufficientes neque jam scribere, neque posthac ha∣bere gratias queam; quas quia me referre posse desper••, ideo debitorem me tibi agnosco. Sed ante omnia Candorem tuum exosculor, quo de tuo ergà mea qualiacun{que} in Pacis causa studia affectu certiorem reddis, déque cautela in colligendis Ecclesiasticae Pacis suffra∣giis adhibenda prudenter mones: Nihil praeter debitum officii erga Superiores re∣spectum à quoquam exigendum; Nihil insciis cujusque Ordinis Primoribus promiscuè proponendum; Nihil privatis temerè in publico negotio, nihil extra ordinem aggrediendum. Me quod attinet, semper ità cogitavi: attamen nescio quibus adductus tandem fidiculis hoc in me onus susceperim; aliquid ab aliorum provocatione, aliquid à mea vel simplicitate vel temeritate fateor profectum est: certè in hoc mihi Conscientia praebet testimonium, nihil à me hactenus quaesitum quod vel meipsum vel mea, sed tantum quod publi∣cum aliorum commodum•• spectar••••. Ab omnium partium legibus & dominio so∣lutus,

omnium me Servum exhibui quoad potui. Neque mihi aut ab eruditione aut rerum experientia singulari animus ad haec molimina satis instruct us vires & fiduciam sibi sump∣sit; sed invict â potiùs quadam propensitate delatus est in hunc impetum, ut experire••ur quid in praejudiciis animorum inter partes tollendis praestari divinâ benedictione posset à privatae indusiria, & quid apud alios in tam sancta causa juvanda prompti••udinis fu••u••um esset. Siquid praeter spem, non tamen ultra votum accidit, Deo qui corda hominum regit, & abjectis saepe utitur ad gloriae suae manifestationem instrumentis, laus tribuenda est. De caetero quid imposterum mihi conandum incertus sum. Extra sphaeram han•• privatae vocationis Theologicae me trahi non facilè patiar; atque ideo quoniam res jam paulatim vergit ad publicam tractationem, nihil aliud mihi propono quàm ut propensam hanc animo∣rum inclinationem in tempus usque praestituti Conventûs fovere annitar, & occasionibus sim intentus quibus Belgarum (siquidem haberi facilè potest) publicus in hoc Concilio con∣sensus obtineatur. Vidisti jam ex narratiuncula à Lomino Hartlibio missa quid apud Ecclesias Batavicas transactum sit. Tua singularis Prudentia & mihi rem gratam & suâ humanitate dignam fecerit, si non grave••ur suum de meis illis conatibus judicium expone∣re; An scilicet nimiâ parrhesiâ peccatum non fuerit; Quantum nobis liceat ab illis Ec∣clesiis exspectare; & Quâ ratione posthac, (quoniam de responso Synodico jam solicitus sum) sive non concedant, sive concedant meis postulatis, causa haec cum illis tractanda est. Certum mihi est per Dei gratiam nihil agere quod animorum irritationi ant justae suspicion•• praebere possit occasionem: Pacis enim studia cum omni lenitate, humilitate & patientia pacificè sunt tractand••: neque privato mihi aut expedire aut licitum esse judic••, à quo∣quam effiagitare vel importuniùs extorquere velle quidquam quod non suâ sponte, Consci∣entiâ duce, Charitate comite, quilibet praestare paratus sit. Hâc lege tecum, Cla••••ssime & Spectatissime Vir, familiaeriter agam, ut cuique nostrùm liceat suo jure uti, libere & loqui & tacere. Ità Divinae gratiae te tuáque studia animitus commendo. Vale, & favore ••uo amplectere illum qui est

Pietati tuae addictissimus, Ioannes Duraeus.

Westmonasterii, 9 Kal. April. 1635.

EPISTLE LXXIX.

Mr. Mede's Answer to Mr. Hartlib, excusing his not giving his judgment of Mr. Dury's manner of Address and Treaties with those of the Batavian Churches.

Mr. Hartlib,

I Received yours on Saturday, with the Copy enclosed, and Mr. Dury's courteous Letter. To which yet I doubt I shall make no answer, but use the liberty he there vouchsafes me; Vt ••uique nostrûm liceat suo jureuti, liberè & loqui & tacere: For he desires me to give my judgment of his manner of Address and Treati•••••• with those of the Batavian Churches; What may be expected from them, and What ••••••se were best to be taken in case they grant, or deny. But what were this but for Phormio to teach Hannibal Stratagems of war? Ego verò ità usu rerum non valeo, ut hoc vel cogitare au∣deam, nedum scribere. For the place I live i••, I could perhaps tell something; but the condition of those Churches and their humors I know not farther than by hear-say, and much of that too I learned by the Papers you last sent me. And for my part, rebus sic stantibus, I cannot conceive any way better than what Mr. Dury there relates he took; whose wisdom and ability therein I am fitter to receive knowledge and in∣formation by, than to censure or give direction unto. And in particular methinks the deferring of them to the last, and not dealing with them till all other Churches had declared themselves, will, if any thing, bring them off, at least in some degree, to shew their concurrence. For in such a case Singularity cannot be without a blur; which perhaps they will consider, though their home contentions have made them, I believe resty enough. But, Lord! is there any hope of a Pacification, whilest each party studies to maintain their advantage against the other entire? A Ioyner cannot set two pieces of Timber together, without paring something from either. I pray remember me most kindly to Mr. Dury.

I send home herewith the Copy of his Epistle ad Batavos; which I shewed only to Dr. S. to whom I had communicated the former. Dr. W. and the rest are from home this Easter-time, and I thought not fit to keep it till their return.

And do the affairs in Germany, say you, begin to turn? Lord! what will the Scene be then that is now to come upon the Stage? It is an intricate business, so full of windings and turnings, that no man can yet guess what is the way that Providence aims at to accomplish its end.—

Thus in haste, with my affection and Prayers, I rest

Your assured Friend, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Coll. April 1. 1635.

EPISTLE LXXX.

Another Letter of Mr. Mede's to Mr. Hartlib, shewing his Reasons why he refused to declare himself concerning the Acta Lipsiaca.

Worthy Mr. Hartlib,

—IT grieves me not a little, yea perplexes me, to hear that Mr. Dury is come off with no better success from my L.—I am loth malè augurari; but I like it not. I fear it is mali ominis, and that our State and Church have no mind to put their hand to this Work: Deus avertat omen. But our Church, you know, goes upon differing Principles from the rest of the Reformed, and so steers her course by another Rule than they do. We look after the Form, Rites and Discipline of Antiquity, and endeavour to bring our own as near as we can to that Pattern. We suppose the Reformed Churches have departed farther there-from than needed, and so we are not very solicitous to comply with them; yea we are jealous of such of our own as we see over-zealously addicted to them, lest it be a sign they prefer them before their Mother. This, I suppose, you have observ'd, and that this disposition in our Church is of late very much increased. Well then; If this Union sought after be like to further and advantage us in the way we affect, we shall listen to it. If it be like to be prejudicial, as namely to give strength and authority to those amongst us who are enamour'd with the foreign Platform, or bring a yoke upon our own by limiting and making us obnoxious; we'l stand aloof and not meddle with it, lest, we infringe our liberty. This I have always feared would be no small Remora on our part, and I pray God it may fall out beyond my expectation.—

Now for my self; The Acta Lipsiaca I never saw, nor did I find the Extract you mentioned in your Letter: I suppose it was forgotten when you seal'd.

But I am afraid you have made Mr. Dury take me for another man than I am: I pray therefore, let him know that I am a private man, one that the Church never took notice of, having no place or dignity in the same, nor any condition or means of living but a poor Fellowship, not known to any of the greater Clergy, nor acquain∣ted with those that are of note in any special manner; in a word, one of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as* 1.236 S. Paul speaks: and therefore see not how my verdict should be of any moment in this cause.

2. I live in the University, where we move only ad motum Primi mobilis; and that discretion is expected at our hands, who are of the inferior Orbs, as not to move without our Superiors. If any one transgress this rule, and offer to meddle in ought that concerns the Publick, before the State and those in place declare themselves, he is taken notice of for Factious and a Busie-body; and if he be once thus branded, all the water of the Thames will not wash him clean, if it be objected to his prejudice, though many years after: as we see by daily experience, and of late in the business of—College, if some body say true. For this cause, I am afraid, Mr. Dury will find our University-men more shy and nice than others, now—hath refused to declare himself, and—to give such encouragement to the business as was expected.

3. That for my self, I am so far inclinable to Peace, that I can yield to a Christian Communion at as great a distance of Opinions as any Protestant whatsoever. For I

hold Communion is not to be broken but for Fundamentals: of which kind I take none of the differences between the Calvinists and Lutherans to be. Yet am I not so well versed in the subtilties of those Controversies, as I think fit to adventure my judgment to the publick view by an examination and censure of particulars, wherein my unskilfulness would too soon appear. Nor do I think this Union, which every true Christian ought so much to desire, will ever be brought to pass by a full decisi∣on of the Controversies; but only by abating of that vast distance which conten∣tion hath made, and approching the differences so near, as either party may be in∣duced to tolerate the other, and acknowledge them for Brethren and Members of the same Body.

To Mr. Dury's request therefore I answer, That if Mr. Dr. Ward here, or Mr. Dr. Potter at Oxford think fit to declare themselves concerning the Acta Lipsiaca, when I have seen either, I shall not be unwilling to give my general suffrage with reference unto theirs. But to go farther than thus, the Reasons above-mentioned will deter me.

Thus hoping to receive the Extract you mention with your next, and praying Al∣mighty God to remove all obstacles, and to afford Mr. Dury all means of success in this so holy a business, I rest

Your assured Friend, Ios. Mede.

Christ's College, April 9.

EPISTLE LXXXI.

Ioan. Duraei Epistola ad Ios. Medum. Gratiam & Pacem.

IAM in procinctu sum,* 1.237 Reverende Vir, ut in Belgium iter faciam. Vale-dixi Domi∣no Archiepiscopo Cant. & amicis in Aula, & in eo sum ut & caeteris valedicam: Tu mihi praetereundus non eras, cujus non ità pridem humanitatem prolixè expertus sum. Dici non potest quàm grata tuae apud me haereat & haerebit conversationis memoria; quoties enim sermonis tui doctissimi, prudentissimi & utilissimi capita apud animum, quod fit multoties, revolvo, fateor nullam mihi à multis annis horulam tam fructuosè, tam ju∣cundè effluxisse, quàm illa fuit quâ tuo usus sum consortio. Nunc brevibus accipe itineris mei scopum. In Belgio nihil urgebo, nihil instanter affectabo, praeter id quod sponte suâ facturi sunt nihil postulabo; id quicquid futurum est in Ecclesiae Germanicae commodum convertetur. Sed apud Germanos haec mihi erunt proposita suasionis & tracta∣tionis capita.

• 1. Decreto ab Ordinibus facto contineri saluberrimum componendis Ecclesiae dissidiis cons••lium.
• 2. Ad hujus Decreti executionem pro virili promovendam omnes & Magistratus & Theologos junctis suffragiis, studiis & conatibus, teneri in conscientia: atque ideo Conventûs indictionem non ulteriùs differendam.
• 3. In Conventu hoc ad abolitionem Schismatis indicendo opinionum minutias & difficultates Scholasticarum controversiarum spinosas resecandas à Pacis tractatu; neque de aliis capitibus disputandum, sed explicandum quid utrinque receptum & in con∣fesso est.
• 4. Concordiam in Ecclesiae Primitivae Symbolica, & Christianae Religionis Fundamen∣tali veritate, atque in ea Fraternitatis contesserationem, certis canonibus Ecclesiastieis esse confirmandam.
• 5. Symbolicam veritatem illam quae continetur Apostolico, & explicatur Athanasiano Symbolo, & quae confirmata fuit in Nicaeno, Ephesino primo, Constantinopolitano, Chal∣cedonensi, Milevitano & Arausicano contra Pelagianos Conciliis, quibuscum Confessiones Protestantium & inter se harmonicè & subordinatè cum sacra Scriptura consentiant, per se solam ad animarum salutem sufficere iis qui ex Verbo Dei in Fidei simpli∣citate

• illam haurientes, de caetero voluntati ejus sine admixtione cultûs Idolatrici obedi∣unt.
• 6. Omnes extra hunc Fidei tenorem Scholarum controversi••s in utramque partem salvâ charitate inter Doctos agitari; à simplicioribus tutò & utiliter ignorari, atque ideo pro concione nequaquam contentiosè tractari debere: atque hoc Patribus Ecclesiae Primitivae in more positum fuisse constat.
• 7. Causas Schismatum & inextricabilium in Ecclesia Christiana confusionum oriri hoc seculo, partim ex neglectis rerum Fundamentalium & Non-fundamentalium in Fide & Praxi limitibus; partim ex nimis curiosa Mysteriorum perscrutatione, & promiscua privatarum de iis opinionum evulgatione; partim ex spreto Antiquitatis Primaevae de Sacrae Scripturae sensu judicio; partim ex praepostero & amarulento refutandi potiùs alienam sententiam, quàm inoffenso veritatem ex proprio sensu explicandi studio; partim ex usurpata unius in alterius conscientiam & intellectum tyrannica definiendi potestate & censura; partim ex amissa pristinae disciplinae regula; partim denique ex neglectis Sanctae Communionis officiis, fraternaeque Communicationis inter Ecclesias di∣stinctas sopitis super mutua in rebus spiritualibus aedificatione affectibus. Hinc obortam Opinionum & Rituum omnimodam diversitatem; indè multiformem Ecclesiarum in Fidei fundamento alioquin consentientium faciem emicuisse; haec rerum imperitis aestimatori∣bus speciem contrarietatis, atque indè dubitationis, disquisitionis, dissidii & Schismatis ansam praebuisse.
• 8. Hisce malis remedium hoc tempore calamitoso nullum accommodatius excogitari posse hoc Protestantium praestituto Conventu; cujus effectus hic expetendus est, Vt in Doctrinalibus utrinque concessis Fraternitas, in dubiis & utilibus commoda explicatio, in reliquis sentiendi libertas & tolerantia communibus suffragiis sanciatur; in publico autem Cultu ac Ritibus Ecclesiasticis ea conformitas quae necessaria ad mutuae aedifi∣cationis & commercii sacri affectus confirmandos videbitur, certis legibus circumscri∣batur.

Hîc vides institutum meum: cui assequendo licèt me imparem agnoscam, nihil tamen pro tenui virium mearum demenso reliqui faciam ad summum & sincerum conatum. Multum tribuo, idque meritò, tuae eruditioni, pietati & prudentiae. Ergò si quid visum fuerit super hisce monere, feceris amico & conservo Christi tui observantissimo rem gra∣tam, & forsan publico non inutilem. Exspecto etiam ut me tuis vel ad Dominum de Dieu, vel alios quosvis, aut literis aut mandatis, siquid nunciandum est, perferendis ad∣hibeas. Si quid autem sequenti Septimanâ huc deferatur quod mihi traditum volueris, praesentem adhuc me, & tuis, Reverende Vir, paratissimum obsequiis invenies.

Vale.

Dabam Londini, 14. Kalend. Iul. 1635.

Vestr•• Rever. Dignitati omni cultu & obsequio devotus, Ioannes Duraeus.

EPISTLE LXXXII.

Ios. Medi Epistola ad Io. Duraeum.

IMò verò,* 1.238 Reverende & Ornatissime Vir, me potiùs nimiae & inconsuetae loquaci∣tatis meae veniam petere decuit, quàm hanc gratiam à te reportare. Poenitebat fa∣teor, & pudebat, postquam tu discesseras, & ego me recolueram, dissertationis apud te tam tumultuariae & nusquam cohaerentis. Sed mirae tu humanitatis homo es, qui etiam Amicorum errores & vitia in gratiae & amoris Argumentum vertis.

Tuas ad Dominum Doctorem Wardum ipse propriis meis manibus reddidi, sed negotiosum reperi, ut solet, Comitiis Academicis instantibus. Has quas vides mitto tuâ curâ ad Dominum Ludovicum de Dieu perferendas.

Perlegi & con••ideravi diligenter Tractationis tuae futurae capita & scopum; in quibus omnia mirificè probo, neque in mentem mihi venit quicquam quod addi vellem. Nihil enim desiderari videtur. Et certè non erat ut ab eo qui rerum usum non habet multum exspectes: votum tamen quoddam meum tibi aperiam.

In Articulos Fundamentales optârim equidem fieri posse ut paulò altiùs inquire∣retur, útque non enumeratione solâ, (quod hucusque factum) sed Rei ipsius de∣finitione aliquid statuatur; quâ nempe oftenderetur, in quo demum Articuli Funda∣mentalis ratio & naturae sitae sit. Admodum enim dignum est consideratione, nemi∣nem ferè nostrorum reperiri qui hac in parte quidquam decernere ausus suit, imò nè aggredi quidem: cùm tamen ab ejusmodi aliquo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 omne de Articulis Fun∣damentalibus & Non-fundamentalibus judicium pendere necesse est. Ratio in aperto est; Cavet quisque suae Sectae placitis, metuitque nè dogmata sua, hoc pacto è Fundamentalium numero excidisse videantur. Hoc enim partium studiis in religione innatum est, ut dogmata, pro quibus cum parte adversa contendunt, Fundamenta∣lium numero omnino inseri vellent, saltem non ex professo eliminari. Cavent etiam prudentiores, nè mitiori sortè errorum censur•• damnatae alicui Sectae aut Haeresi patrocinari aut favere viderentur.

Sed quoniam exigua est spes, fore ut in hac parte quicquam communibus suffra∣giis unquam definiatur; ideo fortè priscae Ecclesiae ejúsque Symbolis acquiescendum. Certum enim est, qui tunc Fundamentalis Articulus non fuerit, neque hodie haberi debere.

Haec habui, nec quid amplius, Vir Clarissime, quae ad tuas responderem. Iam illud solum restat, ut votis te abeuntem prosequar, Deúmque venerer, ut scopo tuo piissimo benignus adesse velit, te ubicunque terrarum protegat, & conatibus tuis felicem succe••••um largiatur. Ità vovet

Nominis & Virtutis tuae studiosissimus, Ios. Medus.

E Coll. Christi, Iun. 24. 1635.

EPISTLE LXXXIII.

Mr. Mede's Letter to Mr. Hartlib, touching 2 sorts of Funda∣mental Articles, viz. Fundamentals of Salvation and Fun∣damentals of Ecclesiastical Communion: His Censure of a Book written against the Ecclesiastical State.

Mr. Hartlib,

I Received your last, with the continuation of Mr. Dury's progress and success. I gave it to read first to—, then to some others of lower rank, lastly, to—. I know not whom I shall communicate it with besides; yet I'le keep it a week lon∣ger to that purpose. But I'le tell you, so unwilling are ours here to acquaint them∣selves with any such business, that you shall scarce get them to read any thing that way without much entreaty. Yea I found—himself, when I carried him this, in somewhat a like disposition. Fain he would have declined the reading of it; You can tell (said he) the substance of it, &c. One Dr. a great Calvinist for the points of Predestination, being shewn it by a friend to whom I had lent it, could not be gotten, after he had read a leaf or thereabouts, to read one jot more, but cried out, It is a thing simply impossible, and never can or will be—I know one in the world, otherwise a wise, discreet, understanding man, to whom discoursing historically about Mr. Dury's negotiation and hopes, he commended it for a good and pious endeavour: But I pray God (saith he) he doth not much hurt, as things now stand at this time. He meant, as I supposed, give advantage to the Arminian party, whereunto he is a great opposite. Yea I'le tell you, but sub sigillo, that I have heard—himself say as much hereto∣fore. You see how hard it is for men who have once drawn bloud in these Contro∣versies, I mean have publickly engaged and declared themselves in them, to listen to any overture of Peace. But enough of this.

You long, you say, to hear my Answer to the particulars of your Letter. Which do you mean? I suppose chiefly that of Fundamental Articles. But if such great Prelates and learned Doctors (as you mention) detrect the defining of the Ratio of a Fundamental Article, or designing the Number of them, as a mat∣ter not only difficult, but inconvenient and dangerous; Quid ego miser

homuncio facerem? I confess I am in part guilty of advising Mr. Dury to urge men to think of such a Definition, as a ground to examine the points of difference by, of what nature they are: But I intimated withal how likely they would be to detrect it, and wherefore; namely, lest by that means they might either declare some dar∣ling Opinion of their own not to be Fundamental, and thereby prejudice their own cause; or else exclude out of that number some Articles formerly determined by the Church, and so incur a suspicion or be liable to be upbraided with favouring some condemned Heresie.

But what if, to avoid the aforesaid Inconveniences, we should go this way to work, Make two sorts of Fundamental Articles, Fundamentals of Salvation, and Fundamen∣tals of Ecclesiastical Communion? one, of such as are necessarii cognitu & creditu ad Salutem simply and absolutely, and therefore no Christian soul that shall be saved uncapable to understand them; another, of such as are necessarii creditu ad Commu∣nionem Ecclesiasticam in regard of the predecision of the Church.

The first not to be of such Truths as are merely Speculative, and contained only in the Understanding; but of such only as have a necessary influence upon Practice: and not all those neither, but such as have necessary influence upon the Act and Function of Christian life, or whereon the Acts without which a Christian lives not necessarily depend.

Such, namely, as without the knowledge and belief whereof we can neither invocate the Father aright, nor have that Faith and reliance upon him and his Son our Mediator Iesus Christ, which is requisite to Remission of sins and the hope of the Life to come.

How far this Ratio of a Fundamental Article will stretch, I know not; but be∣lieve it will fetch in most of the Articles of the Apostles Creed. And by it also those two main Errors of the Socinians, the one denying the Divine Nature, the other the Satisfaction of Christ, may be discerned to be Fundamental. For without the belief of the first, the Divine Majesty cannot be rightly, that is, incommunica∣bly, worshipped, so as to have no other Gods besides him: For he that believes not Christ to be Consubstantial with the Father, and yet honours him with the same worship, worships not the Father incommunicably; which is the Formalis ratio of the worship of the true God, from whom we look for eternal Life. And without the belief of the Second (the Satisfaction of Christ) there can be (I suppose) no saving Faith or reliance upon Christ for Forgiveness of sin. After this manner may other Articles be examined. Thus much of the first sort of Fundamental Truths, measured by the necessitude they have with those Acts which are required to Salvation.

Concerning the second sort of Fundamentals, viz. necessary ad Communionem Ec∣clesiasticam; It is not fit that the Church should admit any to her Communion which shall professedly deny or refuse their assent to such Catholick Truths as she hath an∣ciently declared, by universal Authority, for the Symbol and Badge of such as should have Communion with her.

And this sort of Articles without doubt fetches a greater compass, and compre∣hends more than the other, as being ordinate and measured by another End, to wit, of Discipline; and so contains not only such Truths, the knowledge whereof and assent whereto is necessary unto the being of Christian life, but also to the well-being thereof; and therefore not needful to be understood of every one distinctly and explicitely, as the former, but implicitely only and as far as they shall be capable or have means to come to the knowledge thereof. This is the Sum of my thoughts con∣cerning Fundamentals: If I have not expressed my self so dilucidly as I should, I pray help it with some intention of your conceit in the reading.

For the Book you speak of, I like it not; I knew by hear-say much of the Au∣thor and his condition some years before the High-Commissi••n took notice of him, and wondred he escaped so long. For in every company he came, he took an in∣tolerable liberty of Invectives and Contumelies against the Ecclesiastical State, when no occasion was offered him. Such Books as these never did good in our Church, and have been as disadvantageous to their Party who vent them, as they have been preju∣dicial to the common Cause. I durst almost affirm, that the alienation which appears in our Church of late from the rest of the Reformed hath grown for a great part from such intemperancy and indiscretion as this is, and will be still increased more and more, if those who seem to be the chief favourers of them go on in this manner. He hath too ready a Faculty in expressing himself with his pen, unless he would employ it better. For who can excuse him from a malignant disposition towards his own Mother,

thus to publish her faults in Latin, of purpose to discover her shame to strangers, and to call her Sisters to see it, as Cham did his Brothers? Think what kind of crime it is for a man that is Civis and a Member, to traduce the Rulers of his people among foreiners; and what little good affection they are like to expect from ours, who are made partisans in such a kind.

—Thus with my best affection I rest, and am

Your assured Friend, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Coll. Febr. 6.

EPISTLE LXXXIV.

Mr. Mede's Letter to Mr. Hartlib, expressing his Opinion touch∣ing Mr. Streso's Book, and his distinguishing of Three sorts of Fundamentals.

Mr. Hartlib,

I Read over your Streso with some attention, and find many learned and conside∣rable passages and discourses therein: But for my Animadversions which you look for, it were against my Genius; for I am one that had rather give my opinion by much, (though the world hath taught me even there to be somewhat nice,) than censure another man's. But in general, I conceive his way to be somewhat ambiguous and intricate, more than needs.

He distinguisheth Three sorts of Fundamentals. One he calls Fundamentum ipsum: The other two he measures by their relation to it, either à parte antè, and such he terms Sub-fundamentales; or à parte Pòst, which may be called Super-fundamentales. The one, of such Truths quae substernuntur Fundamento; the other, such as follow by immediate consequence from the same. This I take to be the Sum of his opi∣nion.

Now for that which is his Fundamentum ipsum or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I make no doubt but the acknowledgment of the truth thereof is Fundamental ad Salutem: So I believe also are his Ante or Sub-fundamentals; though the most of them not proper to Christianity, but common to it with Iudaism. For the Church of the Gospel is built or graffed upon the Iewish, the common Foundation remaining the same in both. But as for the third sort of Fundamentals, or Super-fundamentals, which he makes such as are by immediate or necessary consequence deducible from the Fundamentum Sa∣lutis; I make some question whether all such are necessaria cognitu & creditu ad Salutem simply. First, because the necessity of such consequence may not be apprehended by all who hold the Fundamentum. Secondly, because I am not yet perswaded, that to de∣ny or be ignorant of a Truth which is merely Speculative (such as some of these Conse∣quences may be) is damnable; but only of such Truths, the knowledge and acknow∣ledgment whereof hath necessary connexion with some practical requisite unto Sal∣vation; I mean, whereon depends necessarily the acquiring of some Act necessary, or the avoiding some Act repugnant to Salvation.

So that still, it seems to me, the readiest and easiest way for resolution in this mat∣ter is, To enquire and examine what those Acts are wherein consists our Spiritual life, or that Union and Fellowship which we have with the Father and his Son our Me∣diator Iesus Christ. That which is necessarium cognitu & creditu unto these is Fundamental ad Salutem, i.e. cujus agnitioni Salus tanquam Fundamento innititur: That which is not so, is not Fundamental ad Salutem. For example, He that comes unto God (saith S. Paul) must believe that God is: So likewise, He that comes unto Christ, or unto the Father by him, (as every one must do that will be saved) must believe that Christ is, and that he is constituted the Mediator between God and us. He that comes unto and relies upon Christ for remission of sin, must believe that Christ suffered, and was offered a Sacrifice for the sins of men, and thereby pur∣chased that power to confer remission unto all that should repent and believe in his Name. He that bids a true farewel to sin, and savingly buckles to the works of a

new life, must believe there is a life to come, and a Day wherein God by the Man he hath ordained shall judge both the quick and dead, and give unto every one according to his works; according to that of S. Paul, Acts 24. 15, 16. I have hope towards God; that there shall be a Resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.* 1.239[For this cause] do I exercise my self to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men. According to these examples you may examine more.

The difference between Mr. Streso's way and mine is this: He measures his Funda∣mentals by their relation to one Fundamentum; I measure all by the relation they have to Eternal life, in regard of those Acts and Dispositions whereby we are capable thereof.

Take this Similitude; In a Creature indued with animal life are many Members or Organs, whereof though none can be wanting, hurt or wounded, without some de∣formity, defect or detriment of the whole; yet all are not essential unto the Life of the Body, but such only from whence those Faculties and Functions flow whereon Life necessarily depends; such as are Respiratio, Nutritio, Gustus, Tactus, Pulsus, Somnus, and the like: Therefore the Organs whereon these depend can neither be wanting, nor notoriously hurt or wounded, but the Body presently dieth. Without Legs, Arms, Tongue, Eyes, Ears, Nose, a man may live, though a most pitiful, ugly and loathsome spectacle, and more fit for the Spittle than the publick society of men: But without Head, Heart, Lungs, Stomach, and the like, he cannot; namely because these Members, and the sound and good temper of them in some degree, are necessary to those Faculties and Functions which are requisite unto Life. Apply this, and im∣prove it by your Meditation. Vale.

Yours, Ios. Mede.

February 27.

EPISTLE LXXXV.

Mr. Mede's Letter to Mr. Hartlib, touching the Acta Lipsi∣aca, as also touching a Confession of Faith and the way of de∣termining Fundamentals, that it should be short, easie and evident.

Worthy Sir,

I Have received the Acta Lipsiaca, but if I could have given you notice in time, I would have saved you that labour, and borrowed of Dr. W. for he had promised to lend me his. When I had read it over, Lord! me thought, what little differences are these to break communion for? viz. for one or two Speculative Subtilties, for some Logical or Metaphysical Notion. So I believe much of these disputes (when the wisest and moderatest of both sides have expounded themselves) is (I will not say mere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—For your Extracts, I read them presently, and laid them by; and to confess the truth, some business following presently took me so much up, that I had almost forgot I had them, till your admonition put me now in mind of them.

That George Francis his way Degradibus necessitatis dogmatum Christianorum, quibus Fidei, Spei & Charitatis officia reguntur, methinks by the Title should come some∣what near that fansie. 'Tis true that he says, Some men have such an unhappiness of Logick, that by an affected following their methods and Technological artifices they make things more obscure and intricate, which in the true use of Logick should be made more easie and perspicuous.

I have not yet attentively read Mr. Dury's Consultation: which I will do, and then send it back: For mens minds here are so remote from thoughts of this nature, that it is to little purpose to communicate it to many. The way to determine Fundamental Articles must be made very short, easie and evident; or it will breed as many Contro∣versies as are about the Points themselves in question. I can gather that by what I sometimes meet with. It is not fit that a Confession which concerns all that will be

saved to know and remember should be any long or tedious Discourse. The Ten Commandments given by God are an Epitome faciendorum; The Lord's Prayer is Sum∣ma or Epitome petendorum: According to which Pattern the Confession we seek for should be but Summa credendorum.

Thus with my prayers and best affection, I rest

Christ's Coll. Iuly 24.

Your assured Friend, Ios. Mede.

EPISTLE LXXXVI.

Mr. Mede's Letter to Mr. Hartlib touching the defining of Fun∣damental Articles.

Mr. Hartlib,

I Have received yours. It seems strange to me that men should hold, that those who erre in Fundamentals cannot be saved, and yet maintain it scarce possible to set down the Ratio of a Fundamental Article, or any 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whereby to know them.

What though Fundamentum & Fundamentalia be Metaphorical terms? yet may they soon be turned into proper ones, namely, Articuli cognitu & creditu necessarii ad Salutem. Here is no Metaphor: Whether therefore may there any Ratio or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be given to discern these?

I believe not that Canon of the Council of Ephesus intended to prescribe to any other Council of like Authority, not to explicate or improve the Creed of Nice, as they did that of the Apostles; but that no private Bishop should compose any other Formula Fidei, to be a Rule and Symbolum of Communion, than that of Nice.

Thus with my Prayers and best affection, I remain

Christ's Colledge ult. Iuly 1637.

Your assured Friend, Ioseph Mede.

EPISTLE LXXXVII.

Another Letter more fully treating about the defining the Ratio of Fundamental Articles.

Mr. Hartlib,

YOU wish I had declared my self more largely: But what needed it? you had the substance of all I had to say. But if you would have it more fully, then thus.

• 1. By Fundamental Articles in the inquiry we mean such as are Necessarii cognitu & creditu ad Salutem; that is, Fundamenta Salutis, Fundamental to Salvation; not Fun∣damenta Theologicarum Veritatum, Principles whence Theological Verities are dedu∣ced. For these, though they may be sometimes coincident, are not the same.
• 2. What then though the Term Fundamental be Metaphorical and improper? yet we see it may easily (if we understand our own meaning) be expressed in clear and proper terms. And therefore this can be no impediment to the finding or defining the Ratio of such Articles, whereby they may be known and distinguished from others.
• 3. And what though the whole Scripture be Fundamentum or Principium Veritatum Theologicarum or Dogmatum Fidei? Yet is not every content in Scripture necessary to be known and believed explicitely unto Salvation; and therefore this Notion of Fundamentum nothing to the purpose; since (as I said) Principia Theologica, or Fun∣damentalia dogmatum, and Fundamentalia Salutis are not the same, but differ formally, though some of them may be materially coincident.
• ...

• ...

  4. But the Definition of such Fundamental Articles would be dangerous, inconvenient, and subject to much reprehension, yea, in respect of the diversity of mens judgments, is in a manner impossible. This methinks is very strange, That any who acknowledge there be some Truths necessary to be known and explicitely believed unto Salvation, should yet deny there can be any Ratio or Character given whereby to know them; yea affirm it to be unsafe to determine any such, if it might be found, or that any enu∣meration of such Articles should be made. What? Cannot or may not those Truths be defined and known, without an explicite belief whereof we cannot be saved? What will follow upon this?

  Neither when we speak of defining here, do we mean any such matter as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or exactness of a Logical definition, (which might entangle us in School-niceties and janglings,) but any description or designation of that Ratio or distinguishing Cha∣racter whereby such Truths as are cognitu & creditu necessaria ad Salutem might be known from others. And this sure might be done without any such engagement in Logical scrupulosity.

• ...

  5. As for the Objection of the Canon of the Oeeumenical Council of Ephesus;* 1.240 Cer∣tainly that Council never intended to restrain the power of any Council or other pub∣lick Ecclesiastical Authority like it self, but only private Persons, from attempting to make any such Creed, Formula, or Confession of Faith, besides that of Nice. This I suppose may be gathered from those words, Si Episcopi, &c. Si Clerici, &c. Si Laici, &c. and the Censure to be laid upon them. Nor does it seem simply and alto∣gether to forbid them neither, to compose any such for private instruction or use; but only for a publick intent, to be tendered as a Form of Confession of Faith to Pagans or Iews at their Baptism, or to Hereticks when they were again received into the Church.

  For why should not the Churches now, as well as then, have the like power, upon the like occasion, further to explicate or make more explicite the former Symbols of Faith, as the Council of Nice did that of the Apostles, yea or any Church or Churches that are or would be of the same Communion, to do it for themselves? For then we know the Churches were all of one Communion; now they are not, and therefore may provide for themselves according to their condition.

  Besides, how came the Creed of Athanasius to be since publickly received in the Church, or the Council of Chalcedon, after this of Ephesus, to make a new Exposition of Faith, (unless this Canon were understood as aforesaid,) since neither of them are the same with that of Nice? Or how could the Reformed Churches make such publick Confessions for themselves as they have done?

  Thus I think I have declared my self largely enough now; and perhaps more large∣ly than befitted me, when I consider to whom it hath reference. But my hope is, you will conceal the Author's name from any man, and not reveal it save to Mr. Dury alone. And so, with my best affection, I remain

Your assured Friend, without subscription of my name.

EPISTLE LXXXVIII.

Mr. Mede's Letter to Mr. Hartlib, containing his advice for framing a Fundamental Confession agreeably to the practice of the Ancient Church in composing their Creeds or Symbols of Faith.

Mr. Hartlib,

WHen I read over Mr. Dury's Consultation, (before his Discourse ad Dominum Forbesium came to my hands) I perceived he aimed at the self-same ground for the discovery and discerning of Fundamental Verities from not-Fundamental that I had formerly done in mine to you, though in a differing way of expression, as men that conceive apart are wont to do. I made them to be such Truths as have necessary influence upon the Acts and Functions of Christian life, or without the explicite knowledge whereof those Acts and Functions cannot be exercised. He goes further, and specifies wherein this Christian life consisteth: namely, As Natural life consists

in the conjunction of the Soul with the Body; so doth Spiritual life in the conjuncti∣on of Men with God, that is, in being in Covenant with him. All those Verities therefore, the knowledge and belief whereof is necessary to the Acts and Functions re∣quisite to the being and continuation in the Covenant with God in Iesus Christ, are Fundamental Verities, without the explicite knowledge and belief of which a man cannot be saved.

But for the framing or composing such a Fundamental Confession as is sought for, let me discover my Opinion, Fancy, or whatsoever it be. I observe, That the Confessi∣ons or Creeds of the Ancient Church (which were their Symbols of Communion) were always the former Creeds or Confessions enlarged with such further additions or expla∣nations subjoyned to the former Articles respectively as the Heresies of the Times made requisite for the distinction of Orthodox Believers. So the Nicene Creed was the Creed of the Apostles enlarged in the Articles of the Father and Son, and one or two other. The Creed of Constantinople added to the Article of the Holy Ghost in that of Nice those words, The Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son,] who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; against Ma∣cedonius. This is the Creed we say at the Communion in our Church. That of Atha∣nasius yet more enlarges that of Nice, as doth that of Chalcedon also the Article of the Son, against Eutyches.

Were it not fit therefore that we should tread in their steps, and frame our Confessi∣on or Symbolum in like manner? to wit, not making the Form of our Confession wholly new, but taking the former Creeds or some of them for our ground, to en∣large their Articles with such further additions and explanations as the state of the Times requires; that so our Confession might be the Creeds of the Ancient Church specified only to the present condition of the Churches, and no other. Thus we should both testifie to the world our communion and agreement with the Ancient Catholick Church, (a matter of no small moment, that we may not seem to have made a new Church or Religion, as we are charged,) and yet withal distinguish our selves from the Sects, Heresies and Apostasies of the Times.

To which end it were fit the words of the Ancient Creeds should be retained as much as could be; and for the more easie reception thereof, that the additions and in∣sertions should be made in the express words of Scripture, as near as the nature of the composure would suffer it, and not otherwise. As for the meaning of them, their application to the several Articles would specifie it as far as were needful to the end aimed at by such a Confession.

Compare the Creeds of Nice, Athanasius and Chalcedon with that of the Apostles, and you will understand my meaning. And consider that in such a business as this we must not be too much in love with Methods of our own devising, (though perhaps they seem better,) but follow that which all the Churches will most easily yield un∣to, and cannot except against. I believe our own (as may by some passages be al∣ready guessed) would hardly be brought to subscribe to any other Form than of such a mould.

Take this also before I conclude; That my meaning is not, we should do as the Council of Trent hath done, by adding Twelve more Articles to the Creed: but that our Additions should be inserted into the several Articles of the Ancient Creed, as sub∣ordinate to them, and farther Explanations of them. Which those of Trent indeed could not well do, those which were added being the most of them incompatible and inconsistent with the former Articles according to the true and original meaning of the same, and therefore not to be incorporated with them.

I send you home the Consultation; I will keep the Discursus a while longer. For Comenius his Praeludium I thank you, but I have not had leisure to consider so much of it as were needful to give a censure. I believe such a thing is fecible; but for the way, Hic labor, hoc opus est.

So with my best affection I rest

Christ's Colledge, Aug. 14. 1637.

Your assured Friend, Ios. Mede.

EPISTLE LXXXIX.

Mr. Hartlib's Letter to Mr. Mede, for a sight of his Papers about the Millennium.

Worthy Sir,

—I Had occasion to exchange some Letters of late with Dr. Twisse: In his last he writes thus unto me; [As for Regnum Sanctorum & Christi in terris, Resurrectic prima, &c. Passages there have been between me and Mr. Mede thereabouts, and I am but his Scholar therein: and I know full well, you are so well acquainted with him, that you may have any thing from him, who is my Master in this. I have yet no liberty to take into consideration the matter of Fundamentals, neither have I any affection to it, as finding no sure footing in that argument.] Thus far he. I pray let me reap the fruit of his confidence in the enjoying of those Papers which have passed between you on the fore-mentioned Subject. Truly I shall count it a great favour, if you shall be plea∣sed to communicate them; and having perused them, I will be careful to return them safely into your hands with my hearty thanks. Thus craving pardon for my freedom, I take my leave, remaining always, Worthy Sir,

London, Octob. 19. 1637.

Your most assured and willing Friend to serve you, S. Hartlib.

EPISTLE XC.

Mr. Mede's Answer, with his judgment upon a Discourse arguing from some Politick Considerations against the composing a Fun∣damental Confession.

Mr. Harlib,

I Answered not your first Letter, because I had not wherewith to satisfie you. For that which Dr. Twisse says he had of me concerning the Millenary opinion, the grounds and stating thereof was only in Letters between him and me, whereof I kept no Copies; and now it would be tedious to me to renew what I then wrote. In con∣ference I could do it with ease, but writing is very tedious to me; and my notions and wit too die presently, when I intend my mind to express them by writing.

Concerning the Paper you now send; what judgment should I give but that I like it not? It favours methinks of too much averseness from that business. I believe you think so. The Gentleman (whosoever he be) seems himself to be one of those he speaks of, that hath in his eyes to preserve his own opinions from iudemnity: But if every man do so, what hope of conciliation?

Besides, the matter aimed at in this business is not that either side should presently relinquish their opinions of difference; but only take notice that, notwithstanding these differences, both sides do so far agree in other Points, that they may and ought to acknowledge each other as Brethren; that so their Affections being united, and ex∣asperation abolished, they might be the better disposed and fitted to judge of the Points of difference between them. And whereas he objects, That such Points being declared not Fundamental, would lose part of their strength, and be shaken, this in∣convenience would be recompensed, in that the Opinions of the opposite party will suffer as much; and so what we lose at home, we should gain abroad.

Howsoever it seems to me no very warrantable policy, That for the better strengthning and propagating a Truth, men should be born in hand that the belief thereof is Fundamental, when it is not; that is, that a Truth should be maintained by a Falshood. I cannot believe that Truth can be prejudiced by the discovery of

Truth; but I fear that the maintenance thereof by Fallacy may not end with a bles∣sing.

I would know whether the Author of this Letter thinks that the Lutherans and Cal∣vinists agree not in so much as is necessary unto Salvation. If they do, would not a Confession composed of such things wherein they agree contain all things necessaria cog∣nitu ad Salutem; and yet no necessity that this or that particular Tenet should be defi∣ned by such Confession to be or not to be Fundamental?

I would know also whether he thinks it fit that particular Churches should have par∣ticular Confessions, whereunto their Members should profess their assent. If so, I would have it considered, whether some of his Inconveniences be not as incident to such Confessions towards the members of a particular Church, as would be from a ge∣neral Confession towards the members of several Churches.

All such Inconveniences are per accidens, but the good and benefit is per se; yea prevents far greater evils, with which such contingent and casual Inconveniences may not stand in competition. What greater evil can befall the Church than Schism and breach of Charity between her Members, and the woful effects that do inevitably fol∣low thereof? Shall we then to avoid the lesser, and such as perhaps may not be, che∣rish the greater, which threaten ruine to the whole Body? that I say nothing of the dan∣ger of the spiritual estate of those who are engaged therein, if they are not so much as willing to be at Unity. This is a great piece of Practical Divinity, and to be more considered than it is.

Moreover it is to be considered, that many of the Evils he supposes would follow of such a Confession are already in being in most Churches, whilest there is no such Con∣fession: Therefore the declining of such a Confession is not the means to avoid them; they will be whether there be any such or not. Those who will seek for pretences to do amiss, will always find them.

Some of the Evils he alledges are such, as the contrary to what he fears seem every whit as like to follow. For why should not such a declaration and limiting of Fun∣damentals rather introduce a greater liberty and indulgence in particular Churches to think what men list in other points, than an oppression or further bondage to be impo∣sed upon the Members thereof? Yea a Confession cannot descend far in particulars, but some mens Consciences or other will be wronged by it: And a man in this case should not have respect to his own Conscience only, but as well to other mens who may scruple the contrary to his.

He seems to me to confound Points of Faith with matters of Practice and Manners. But the question is not, what is Licitum or Illicitum in Practice, or what is Necessari∣um factu; but what is Necessarium creditu ad Salutem.

Lastly, the whole Discourse, methinks, moves rather upon the hindges of Policy than of Divinity; as is too manifest in that he would have the forein Churches to la∣bour such a Confession, and ours to lie at the advantage to approve or not to approve is, as we shall find it makes for or against our particular Tenets.

All this I write tumultuously and confusedly, without order, without deliberation. It is sufficient if you can guess my mind thereby, or get any hint to think more accu∣rately how such Objections are to be answered. To shew it any body I would not; it is not fit: If any thing be to purpose, make it your own. So with my best affecti∣on I rest

Christ's Colledge, Ian. 22.

Yours, I. M.

EPISTLE XCI.

Mr. Hartlib's Letter to Mr. Mede, touching the Manuscript decyphering the Number of the Beast, 666, and other Books newly set forth.

Worthy Sir,

I Thank you for your Answer and solid judgment which you have returned to the enclosed Paper: you need not fear the miscarrying of these your Notions. Mr. Dury will easily smell them out, though I should convey them in my own name unto him. By these enclosed you will see a fuller character of that Gentleman, and what entertainment some Extracts out of your Letters concerning Fundamentals have found with Mr. Dury. You do not tell me the name and your opinion concerning the Anonymous Book in folio, called Bestia Apo∣calyptica. There is great commendation of a Manuscript decyphering the Number of the Beast, 666. I would fain learn of you wherein the excellency of that Treatise principally consisteth. I hear Cluverius, a very profound Historian and Divine of Denmark, hath written an excellent Commentary upon the Revelation, which is not suffered to come forth, by reason of many Paradoxical passages which the Times cannot brook as yet. I make no question you have seen a Book which Dr. Brochmand of Denmark hath written, which is not unfit for our Times, wherein he answereth the Motives for which the Administrators of Hall did fall off from Protestancy. It was published Regio jussu Hafniae, 1634. One writes that this Book doth answer largely many of the particular Arguments which are used in Mercy and Truth against us, and doth it solidly and well in most of them. He wishes also that it were more common amongst our Court-Divines.—

Return the Copy of the Order of the Knighthood, when you have sufficiently perused it. Thus I rest

London, Ian. 24. 1637.

Your most affectionate and willing Friend to serve you, S. Hartlib.

EPISTLE XCII.

Mr. Mede's Answer, with his judgment of Mr. Potter's Discourse of the Number of the Beast, 666.

Worthy Mr. Hartlib,

I Received yours with the Ordo Beatae Virginis, which with the rest I will send back next week; for now I have no time to make them up.

That Discourse or Tract of the Number of the Beast is the happiest that ever yet came into the world; and such as cannot be read (even of those that perhaps will not believe it) without much admiration. The ground hath been harped on before; namely, That that Number was to be explicated by some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Num∣bers of the Virgin-Company and New Ierusalem, which types the true and Apostoli∣cal Church, whose Number is always derived from XII. But never did any work this Principle to such a wonderful discovery as this Author hath done; namely, to make this Number not only to shew the nature and property of that State which was to be the Beast, but to design the City wherein he should reign, the figure and compass thereof, the number of Gates, Cardinal Titles or Churches, S. Peter's Altar, and I know not how many more the like. I read the Book at first with as much prejudice against such Numerical Speculations as might be, and almost against my will, having met with so much vanity formerly in that kind; but by the time I had done, it left me as

much possessed with admiration as I came to it with prejudice. He meddles with no more of the Apocalyps than what concerns this Number. 'Tis a Mathematical ground he builds upon, and will not be so well understood by one that hath not been a little versed in Arithmetick, in that part which is called Extraction of Roots.

If the Scrivener, whom I hired to write me out a fair Copy thereof, had not disap∣pointed me, I could ere this have lent you a Copy, it may be, as good as the Au∣thors; I believe somewhat more distinct, by such directions as I gave my Scribe. If it were in Latine, it would make some of your German Speculatives half wild.

Bestia Apocalyptica I saw and had above a dozen years since; but some 6 or 7 years after it came first out, our London Stationers, to make it the second time a New Book, (because some of them lay upon their hands) printed the Title-leaf anew with the then present year of our Lord at it, and at Delph, as before. This knavish trick I observed, and compared the Books at that time. But the Author I never heard, nor know who it was, but I believe a Laick Gentleman, and so I think I have heard.

By your last piece, that Divine whose it is seems not to understand what we mean by a Fundamental Confession and Fundamental Articles. For he takes them to be such as are instar Principiorum, out of which all other Theological Verities or Articles are deducible; wherein he is wide: for the question is of Fundamentalia ad Salutem, i.e. Cognitu & creditu necessaria ad Salutem, not of Fundamenta veritatum Theologicarum.

—Thus with my best affection, I rest

Christ's Colledge, Ian. 29, 1637/8.

Yours, I. M.

EPISTLE XCIII.

Mr. Mede's Letter to Mr. Hartlib, with his Censure of Grebner's Prophecy, in a MS. in Trinity Colledge Library in Cambridge.

SIR,

ON Saturday I received yours dated March 14, that is the Wednesday fortnight before.—

The Prophecy (which I here send you again) I would not have you make too much of. It is taken out of Paulus Grebnerus his Prophecies, a Manuscript in Trinity Colledge Library. It was left them by Dr. Nevil their Master, had been presented it seems to Queen Elizabeth, (whom part of his Prophecy concerned) and so came to Dr. Nevil's hands, whilest he was Clerk of the Closet to her Majesty. 'Tis now al∣most 28 years since I first saw and turned it over, the rather because of the fine pi∣ctures therein in colours, &c. When the Wars began in Bohemia, (which was eight years after I had first seen it) remembring something I had seen therein, I had a desire to survey it anew, and borrowed it to my chamber, to see if there were any thing therein worth taking notice of. But I found nothing but vanity and fancy, and the whole series thereof and many of the particulars manifestly then confuted by the con∣trary Event; as you may guess by this one thing I shall tell you.

The beginning or Epocha of his Prophecies he makes from the year 1572. when the new Star appeared in Cassiopeia, and ends the whole series of his Vexillai (so he terms them) at the year 1613. which he supposed should be The Day of Iudgment, having no other ground for the same than the Numeral Letters of the Latine word IU∣DICIUM (as they are all) which makes that Number. What think you now? He prophesied great matters of Henry the IV. of France, (which pro∣ved clean contrary,) of Queen Elizabeth and other Princes, which never came to pass. I have, I know not how often, to satisfie one or other, told them as I now tell you; and yet every five or six years it comes up again, as if it had never been discredi∣ted. Men are prone to believe any thing they would have, and any words that seem that way they lay hold on; never regarding though the ground be foolish, and the

coherence with the rest repugnant to their construction. I'le tell you what Paul Grebner meant or dream'd by that you sent me.

Know, he lived in the time of King Iohn of Sweden, who married a Popish Lady: This is his Hujus temporis Rex Sueciae, (i. sui temporis) which he supposed should be invited by the Catholick party to take their part and to invade Denmark, &c.

The Carolus he speaks of was Carolus Sudermanniae Dux, King Iohn's Brother, with whom he threatens King Iohn, that if he joyned with the Popish League, he should leave his Kingdom unto him; who should of Carolus become Carolus Magnus, that is, of a Duke be made a King, and be in respect of his Dominions and Conquests another Charlemaign of the North: Et sic (saith he) è Carolo Carolus Magnus regnum capessit, (for so it should be read) qui magno successu & fortunâ, &c.—

It follows, Deus autem Regis conjugem Papisticam ex hac vita evocat. This is King Iohn's Wife. What should it mean else? This he dream'd should happen to King Iohn assoon as he should have declared himself for the Popish League, and that then pre∣sently Charles his Brother should take the Kingdom, &c.

By this time I doubt not but you understand it, and how little they heed Circum∣stances and other Connexions who would interpret it of any other Charles. Howso∣ever Grebner was for a great part deceived concerning even that Charles he meant.—

I think my Letter be now long enough; therefore with Prayers and best affection, I rest

Christ's Colledge, Apr. 3. 1637.

Your assured Friend, Ios. Mede.

Post-script.

I had written yesterday, but that partly other writing, partly Molesti homines rob∣bed me of my time. Would you have me send back Mr. Dury's Letter or not? Vale.

EPISTLE XCIV.

Mr. Hartlib's Reply, thanking him for that Censure.

Worthy Sir,

I Thank you for your last of the third of Aprill. I never made much of Grebner's, or any of those Prophetical fancies. I approve fully of your judgment which you have given upon it. I hope it will work some good upon those who are used to be carried away with these Dreams. Some weeks ago worthy Dr. Twisse communicated unto me Mr. Potter's MS. of 666. Certainly our Germans will be wild when they shall see it in a more known language. If you please to let me have your Copy also, I shall take it as a special favour. I am very confidently assured that my Lo. Gr. of Cant. himself hath written a Book in an∣swer to some Popish Points, as it were a second part of Chillingsworth, composed chiefly upon the point of Fundamentals and Non-fundamentals; which Book is almost ready for the Press: only because in his quotations he hath trusted to his memory, he is revising and ex∣amining them, and then it comes forth. In the mean time I rest

London, 6. April 1638.

Your most willing and affectionate Friend to serve you, S. Hartlib.

EPISTLE XCV.

Mr. Mede's Letter to Mr. Hartlib, concerning the Number 25. the Root of the Beast's Number, viz. 666. with his judg∣ment of an Analytical Table of the Apocalyps which was sent him; his differing from the Author thereof in four particulars.

Worthy Mr. Hartlib,

—COncerning your Mathematician's Letter about Mr. Potter's interpretation of the Beast's Number, I like his Observation of the Roman Calendar, that of all the Numbers of the Epact they should chuse XXV. for the AEquation with the Gol∣den number; and I think it (as far as I understand it) worthy to be added to the rest of Mr. Potter's of that kind. But that of T. L. 1666, I have known long, but never had any fancy to, and I think it not worthy to come in collation with that of Mr. Pot∣ter's. Yet it is pretty, I confess, what your Author observeth of the Roman Numeral letters CDILMVX, idest, MDCLXVI.

I would willingly send you my Copy of Mr. Potter's Book, but by a sure hand, for the Carrier I dare not trust. It cost me—to be written out to my mind, besides mine own pains in distinguishing it, and dividing the whole into 8 Sections, and pre∣fixing the Contents of every Section at the beginning, and writing the margins with mine own hand: and therefore I would not willingly lose it. If I light upon a con∣venient messenger, I shall send it.

The Analytical Table of the Apocalyps, if you had not charged me therewith, I should not have believed it had been still in my hands; for I verily thought I had sent it back long before this, and was a while very much afraid I must have sent you word it was lost: yet at length I found it, and have sent it herewith.

The Author of the Analytical Table differs from me wholly in the 20. Chapter, and follows Mr. Brightman. What I conceive, you may find in my Commentationes Apo∣calypticae. My difference will appear by these particulars.

• 1. I hold but one Millennium, and that to begin at the destruction of the Beast: He holds two, one beginning at Constantine, another at the destruction of the Beast.
• 2. I deny that Satan was ever yet tied up, much less at the time of Constantine. 'Tis one thing to be dethroned and thrown down from Heaven, (that was at the time of Constantine;) another thing to be bound and close prisoner, and not so much as peep out of his dungeon. See my Synchronisms, Clav. Apocal. Part. 2. Synch. 4. * 1.241 pag. 22, 23.
• 3. I take the Resurrection, both of them, First and Second, to be proper and real; he Metaphorical. 'Tis not safe to deprive the Church of those Texts whereon her faith of the Resurrection is builded. For this interpretation will necessarily rob us of that of Daniel Chap. 12. also, whereon I believe the Church of the Old Testament built her faith of that Article; there being no such evident place besides in all the Old Testament.
• ...

  4. He seems to appropriate the Second Millennium (which I think the only) to the glory of the Iews only: I extend it to the whole Catholick Church of the Gentiles, when the Iews shall come into the fold; and that the Apocalyps is properly and prima∣rily the Gentiles Prophecy, I mean of the Church of the Gentiles, and of the Iews but by accident and coincidence only. The Iews have prophecies enough of their own in the Old Testament.

  In my Books and the papers I once sent you concerning this Point all this is easily to be seen.—With my best and wonted affection I rest

Christ's Colledge, April 16. 1638.

Your assured Friend, Ios. Mede.

EPISTLE XCVI.

Mr. Mede's Letter to Mr. Hartlib, modestly excusing his own abi∣lities, and intimating what cause he had to decline coming forth in print; with his Observation touching the Latitude of Rome.

Mr. Hartlib,

TOuching the Letter you sent me, De necessitate Textualis interpretationis S. Scrip∣turae, I so fully agree with the Author in the former part thereof, that I could not have expressed mine own thoughts thereabouts in mine own words better than he hath done in his. But for the latter part, alas! it is nothing so. I know my self better than any man else, and I am conscious that I am infinitely far from any such ability as he collecteth out of a little diligence perhaps in a Discourse or two. If I have hit upon any Truth, it is wholly to be attributed to my indifferency in such searches, to embrace whatsoever I should find, without any regard whether it were for the advantage of one side or other, and not to any ability beyond others. Free∣dom from prejudice, studium partium or desire to find for this side rather than that, (which I confess I endeavour as much as I can possibly to subdue my self unto) is sufficient with a little diligence to discover more than I have yet done, without any such great learning. I confess I know my self to have so little of that this Gentleman supposeth me to have, that the very reading thereof hath made me more than half melancholick ever since. I am bound to love him, and take it kindly that he hath any good or favourable conceit of me or ought of mine: But no man can make me be∣lieve that I have those abilities I have not; yea 'tis somewhat burthensome and unwel∣come to me to bethought to have: Ex animo loquor. Yea I am almost so uncharitable as to suspect this is some stratagem to work me to something I know not what. But let it go.

I could tell some tales of my Altare of another strain, that would make you think I have no great joy to come in publick; as, I think I can safely say, I did never yet plenâ voluntate, but yielding to other mens importunities or desires: yet I know not whether I shall yet rest, and keep my thoughts and my self in my Cell. In a word, Mundus amat decipi magis quàm doceri, and will never entertain any man well that shall deal ingenuously with them. He must look to have Micaiah's luck: He must say true, and yet not prophesie against Ahab: If he does, he must to Pound and to hard meat for it.

For mine to Dr. Twisse, there is something wherein I had not fully informed my self, about the Latitude of Rome, as having not Ptolemy by me. I said, the old Astro∣nomers made the Latitude thereof 41. 50. minutes; the later promoted it some mi∣nutes more to the North. When I wrote so, I trusted to Io. Stadius, who makes it so; and supposed he had derived it from those before him. But after looking upon Maginus his Ptolemy, I find that Ptolemy, according to him, makes it but 41. and 40. min. and some others and some Maps less. The sum is this; Ptolemy 41. 40. Stadius and others 41. 50. Maginus himself 42. 2. Origanus 42. 4. The Middle is about 41. 51. I have no time to enquire further, nor Books at hand. I pray transcribe this in yours to Dr. Twisse, lest he send my notion or mistake to Mr. Potter without this correction, though it be not material. For by his words to you I suspect he means to do it; which occasioned me to add this. Thus with my wonted affection I rest, and am

Christ's Coll. Iune 4. 1638.

Yours, Ioseph Mede.

EPISTLE XCVII.

Mr. Mede's Letter to a worthy Friend, touching some Papers of his printed without his privity.

Worthy Sir,

I Thank you very heartily for your Book and kind Letter, as I should have done long ago for another Book you sent me. But I have entangled my self a long time with so much needless writing to no purpose, as it makes me sometimes glad of any pretence to be idle, when I should not. For what you say of a Scribe, it was I that took order to have such a one sent to you, not you to me. I'le assure you, you have performed more than I durst have thought of doing, though you please to profess yourself my Disciple. But it is no unwonted thing for Scholars thus to outgo their Masters.

There are some Papers of mine walking I know not where, concerning Bowing towards the Altar: which were written by way of Answer to some body (and a man of note) demanding of me what I thought thereof. One was my first Answer: Another more large, replying to the Exceptions he made against that first, and the whole opinion and practice, being somewhat larger than I use to write Letters, and written with some intention of mind (after my thoughts that way had been long asleep.) I by chance kept a Copy of it, which how it came to be so much dispersed, I pro∣fess I know not.

That so-long-since-written Discourse of mine, De Sanctitate Relativa, &c. savours too much of my infancy in Divinity, and first thoughts, and affection of style, ever to see the publick light.

And indeed I had resolved to enjoy my self, and such contentment as I could find in my Cell, and never to have come in print again, either to please or displease any man; but only to vent such Notions as I had conceived privately by a new way I took of Common-placing, changing my Theme qualibet vice: When now on a sudden be∣fore I was aware, and little expected any such matter, one of my Straglers is perkt in∣to the Press, telling the world he was one of those Common-places. What his destiny is, I know not; but if it be good, some body can say, He hath flung many a stone in his days, but never hit the mark till now; and that too by mere chance, and not so much as intending it.

For writing to Sir W. B. I think it is not tanti upon this occasion. 'Tis a Pamphlet, and I had rather it should come to his hands with a kind of neglect on my part, than with too much pomp. But I thank you for what you have done, and for your further offer.

Thus with my best affection I commend you to the Divine blessing, and am

Your old and assured Friend, Ios. Mede.

Christ's College, Iuly 3.

EPISTLE XCVIII.

Mr. Mede's Letter to Mr. Hartlib, touching some Socinian Books and Tenets: together with his resentment of the Difficulties which Mr. Dury's Pacifick Design met with, and of the Evil of Pre∣judice and Studium partium.

Mr. Hartlib,

I Received yours with the Discourse inclosed of Schism—That Extract of the Letter to you is but a Symptom of Studium partium; of which kind he that will be an indifferent and moderate man must look to swallow many: Therefore Transeat.

Only thus much; to be nearer or further off from the Man of sin is not (I think) the measure of Truth and Falshood, nor that which would be most destructive of him always true and warrantable. If it be, there be some in the world that would be more Orthodox and Reformed Christians than any of us. The Socinians, you know, deny That Souls live after death, until the Resurrection; or That Christ hath carnem & sanguinem now in Heaven; both as most destructive of the idolatrous errours of the Man of sin: the first of Purgatory and Invocation of Saints, (which they say can never be solidly everted, as long as it is supposed Souls do live;) the other of Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ. Is not this to undermine Antichrist with a vengeance, as they say?

I have not been very obtrusive unto men, to acquaint them with my notions and conceits in that kind, (for some of them that are but lately known have lien by me above these twenty years, and not shewn to any) unless they urge me and ask me what is my opinion: and yet my freedom to utter my mind than to such as are pre∣judiced the contrary way, does neither them nor me any good. Therefore Cupio defungi, if it would be, and to be troubled no more either with Quaesita or Recipro∣cations in that kind.

For the Discourse you sent me; It proceeds from a distinct and rational Head, but I am afraid too much inclined that way that some strong and rational wits do. It may be I am deceived. The Conclusions which he aims at I can more easily assent to, than to some of his Premisses. I have yet looked it but once over. But any more free or particular censure thereof than what I have already given look not for, left I be censured my self. 'Tis an Argument wherein a wise man will not be too free in discovering himself pro or con, but reserved.

Thus with my wonted affection and prayers, I rest

Your assured Friend, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Coll. Aug. 6. 1638.

[After this Mr. Mede wrote another Letter (the last Letter he wrote to Mr. Hartlib, about a month before he died) wherein (besides matters of News, and his repeating what he had said in the foregoing Letter concerning the great Learning of the Au∣thor of that Discourse of Sschism,) he expresseth his resentment of the Difficulties which Mr. Dury's design of Pacification met with, in these words.]

—Mr. Dury and such as wish well to his business must comfort themselves as the Husbandman doth, who though he sees no appearance of his Seed awhile after it is sown, (especially in dry weather) yet despaireth not but as soon as the Rain from above shall water the ground, to see it begin to spring up. You see what an invincible mischief Prejudice is and Studium partium; It leaves no place for admission of Truth that brings any disadvantage to the side: That's the Rule which they examine all by. Will so many Rents of the Church as we see ready to sink it never make us wiser?

Thus with my prayers and best affection, I rest

Your assured Friend, Ioseph Mede.

Christ's Colledge Aug. 28. 1638.

The End of the Fourth Book.

Notes

• * 1.1

  This Ep••stle contains the Author's thankful ac∣knowledgment of the L. Pri∣ma••e's favours and enc••urage∣ment in his A p••cahptical ••u∣dies, a•• a•••• his judgment of th•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tr•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 Of which see also EPIST. XX.
• * 1.2

  He means his Clavis Apoca∣lyptica, seven Copies where∣of he sent into Ireland.
• ‖ 1.3

  Viz. Dissert. Le Numeri•• Dan. cap. 12. v. 11, 12. & Spe••••men in∣terpret. Millen, Apocalypt.
• * 1.4

  That the Se∣vent•• M••••na∣ry is by the whole School of the Cab••a∣lists call'd The Great Day of Iudgment.
• * 1.5

  namely such as Moses Law had prescribed for their Feasts and Solemni∣ties.
• ‖ 1.6

  namely them of old about Sacrificing and Circumcision, &c.
• * 1.7

  Rev. 10. ••.
• * 1.8

  2 Thess. 2. 8.
• * 1.9

  Rev. 13. 1.
• * 1.10

  Object.
• * 1.11

  Answer.
• * 1.12

  Object.
• * 1.13

  Answ.
• * 1.14

  Object.
• * 1.15

  Answer.
• * 1.16

  Dan. 8. 23. See the last Discourse but one in Book III. Regnum Romanum est Regnum quar∣tum Danielis. Argum. 3.
• * 1.17

  Rev. 10. 7.
• * 1.18

  Rev. 11. 15.
• * 1.19

  See this Pro∣phesie of Tobit explained in pag. 579.
• * 1.20

  For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 25. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, T••en shall be Signs: So the Hebrews use that copu∣lative, and the Greek Testa∣ment with them.
• * 1.21

  Acts 1.
• * 1.22

  Repl.
• * 1.23

  B••••••. Iu••. 7. 12.
• * 1.24

  Ioseph. 15. 5. Xiphil.
• * 1.25

  Ioseph. Bell. 1. 13.
• * 1.26

  S. Ier. in Dan. c. 11.
• * 1.27

  Isocrat.
• * 1.28

  Al••••ed.
• * 1.29

  Object.
• * 1.30

  Answer.
• * 1.31

  Ch. 11. 15.
• * 1.32

  V••d. D••n. Weeks, Dan. 9. v. 25.
• * 1.33

  I••••••. 12. 7.
• * 1.34

  Dan. 7. 22.
• * 1.35

  Matth. 24. 34.
• * 1.36

  2 Thess. ••. 3.
• * 1.37

  I have had good occasion to know his name, and some of his notions too.
• * 1.38

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.39

  Witnesses and Keepers of the Primitive Doctrine.
• * 1.40

  Chap. 4.
• * 1.41

  the little Book, Revel 10.
• * 1.42

  Vixit ••ndre•••• circa annum Christi 500.
• * 1.43

  Revel. 11. verse 12.
• ‖ 1.44

  Verse 13.
• * 1.45

  Verse 14.
• * 1.46

  Verse 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.47

  Verse 13.
• * 1.48

  Verse 8.
• * 1.49

  Verse 9.
• * 1.50

  Verse 2.
• * 1.51

  Rom. 11. 11.
• * 1.52

  See this more fully re••ed of in Ep. XVII. See als•• in Book V. a•• Tr••ct styled The Myst••ry of S. Paul's Con∣version.
• * 1.53

  Vulgar. Lat. Donec throni 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sunt; LXX & Th••∣odotion. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cha••d. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & sic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 usurpatum de Solo inveniat apud Chald. Paraph ••••••. ••. v. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ubi in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sep••uag. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.54

  Verse 10.
• ‖ 1.55

  Verse 13.
• * 1.56

  1 Cor. 6. 2.
• * 1.57

  2 Thest. ch. 2. ver. 2, 3.
• * 1.58

  See Epistle VIII.
• * 1.59

  Chap. 11. 9.
• * 1.60

  Matt. 24. 29.
• * 1.61

  Because.
• * 1.62

  Therefore.
• * 1.63

  Or I could say, This appariti∣on might be vouchsafed to some chief ones of them, whom God should chuse; and they as wi••nes∣ses make it known to the rest.
• * 1.64

  A remarkable story of a great conversion of Iews wrought by Christ's ap∣parition and voice from hea∣ven.
• * 1.65

  according to that, Apocal. 5. 10. W•• shall reign o•• the earth.
• * 1.66

  N. B.
• * 1.67

  See Book III. pag. 664.
• * 1.68

  See Book III. pag. 664.
• * 1.69

  See in Book III. pag. 710. ••rist, ad Amicu•••• de Resurrestion•• prima.
• * 1.70

  That the word [Day] in Scripture some∣times implies a long times or many years.
• * 1.71

  See Dr. Twisse his First Letter to Mr. M••de.
• * 1.72

  [In a MS. of Dr. Twisse there is a third Answer added in the Margin; but whether it was added in the Paper of his Answers sent by Dr. Medd•••• to Mr. Mede appear•• tur. Answ. 3. It ap∣pears by Esa. 65. 20. that they who are sound alive at Christ's coming shall be ••bnoxio••s unto death; but after death th••y shall rise ere the 1000 years be e••p•••••• and reign 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christ.]
• * 1.73

  1 Thess. 4.
• * 1.74

  1. Thes•• 4. verse 16, 17••
• * 1.75

  In Ge••••ra Abodah Zarah, c. 1.
• * 1.76

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mutabitur, though we here translate it, be moved, mov••∣bitur.
• * 1.77

  See this [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] explained by the Author in his Paraphr. on 2 Pet. 3. ver. 16. The expli∣cation of which verse was writ∣ten by Mr. Mede in Dr. Twisse's Manu∣script, and not extant in the former Editi∣ons,
• * 1.78

  See Book III, pag. 612.
• * 1.79

  See Epist. VIII.
• ‖ 1.80

  See Epist. XV.
• * 1.81

  Revel. 17.
• * 1.82

  Dan. 7. 24.
• * 1.83

  Vid. Gen. 22. 13.
• * 1.84

  Exod. 14. 19.
• * 1.85

  Iosh. 8. 2.
• * 1.86

  2 King•• 9. 18.
• * 1.87

  2 Chro. 13 13.
• * 1.88

  Ezck. 3. 12. & alibi.
• * 1.89

  See Book III. pag 463. & pag 661.
• * 1.90

  In another 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Mr. Tho•• Iohnson, of Rochdale in Lancashire, Novemb, 9. 1636. (••here much of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 letter is trans••rib••d, in answer to the like D••ubt) is ••••is added [The A••••i∣christian H••rn with eyes and mouth, that is, qui cum revera Comu tant••m sit, pro Cap••e tamen sese ••erit, cujus est proprtum o•• & oculos ha∣bere]
• * 1.91

  In the Letter to Mr. T. I. this is add d, [now ••fter the division and di∣laceration of the Empire, but one of the Kingdoms.
• ‖ 1.92

  [The Horn.]
• * 1.93

  [this proud domineering Horn.]
• * 1.94

  [and invest∣ed]
• * 1.95

  Verse 4, 5, 6.
• * 1.96

  [This and the two short Letters that follow, though written at some distance of time, are in this (as in the former) Edition joyned together, as being preparatory to the better understanding of the large Letter immediately following.]
• * 1.97

  Ezek. 4. 6.
• * 1.98

  An••al. Ec∣cles. Tom. 4.
• * 1.99

  See also chap. 5. 11.
• * 1.100

  Ia the rest is no tittle difference throughout.
• * 1.101

  For no where else is Messiah so termed, but there.
• * 1.102

  See the Scheme in pag. 430. of this Editio.
• * 1.103

  erias.
• * 1.104

  Iconis••is
• * 1.105

  This Latin Epi∣stle is of the same import with Epistle XXXVII.
• * 1.106

  This Letter contain•• Mr. Mede's thanks returned to M. Testard for his great respects•• wi••hal his rea∣sons why he cannot concur with him in his notions a∣bout the Num∣ber of the. Beast's name.
• * 1.107

  Vid. pag. 710.
• * 1.108

  Vid. pag. 713••
• * 1.109

  Wh••••h I de∣sire, when you have used it, to send me back again.
• * 1.110

  Ezek. 38. 17. explained.
• * 1.111

  Ezek. 38. 2.
• * 1.112

  Micah 5.
• * 1.113

  Dan. 11. 35, 36 explained.
• * 1.114

  Namely, of the end of the Greek Monar∣chy, which in the holy ac∣count is not extended be∣yond Antiochus Epiphanes
• * 1.115

  i. primi••
• * 1.116

  ••on caeditur populus, usque∣dum caed••tur princeps ejus in excel••o. R. Sol. ad Esaiae 34. 5.
• * 1.117

  See Mr. Mede's Conjecture of Gog and Ma∣gog in Book III. Pag. 713.
• * 1.118

  Th•• Terra Australi•• yet incognita might in part be peopled through that fry of Islands lying between it and Camboia in the Oriental Sea. But of that Continent we know no∣thing, whether it be fully inha∣bited or not.
• * 1.119

  Our Saviou•••• proof of the Resurrection from Exod. 3. 6. I am the God of Abraham, &c. explained.
• * 1.120

  Exod. 6. 4.
• * 1.121

  Deut. 11. ••1.
• * 1.122

  Vid. Luc 10. 5•• In the Old Te∣stam••nt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 See Gen. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 12. 49.
• * 1.123

  Iudg. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.124

  Mark those words well, The land of thy pilgrimage, The land whereon thy headlies, Gen. 28. The land which thou seest, Gen. 13. and the like. And in S. Paul, The place which he shou••d after receive for an inheritance, Heb. 11.
• * 1.125

  1 Cor. 15.
• * 1.126

  Of which this Great Author hath given a Specimen, in his prefecting and more fully expressing such pieces of that Treause as he had occasion to exce••p and make use of in sen••e Writings in this Volume, as the judicious Reader may observe.
• * 1.127

  [Hu••us 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pag. 476.]
• * 1.128

  This Letter contains Mr. Dury's great respect to Mr. Mede, and withal sollicits him to impart his thoughts about the best method of pur∣suing the design for a Pacifica∣tion amongst the Protestant Reformed Churches.
• * 1.129

  This Letter sig∣nifies Mr. Mede's hearty well-wishing to Mr. Dury's Pacifick design, but withal inti∣mates his rea∣sons why he judgeth himself not so fit and able to serve him herein. Thus out of his great modesty he wrote at first to Mr. Dury, but was afterward prevailed with to communicate what he thought most adviseable in this affair; as appears by several Letters of his in Answer to Mr. Dury and Mr. Hartlib, which the Reader will find toward the end of this Fourth Book.
• * 1.130

  Matth 5 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.131

  This Letter contains Lud, de Dieu his Reply to that one part of Mr. Med••'s Letter which treated of some vari∣ous Readings in the Hebrew Text. See that Letter of Mr. Med••'s in Book III. pag. 569.
• * 1.132

  Vers. 35.
• * 1.133

  Z••ch. 11. 13.
• * 1.134

  This Letter returns Mr. Med••'s thanks to Lud. de Dieu for the Book he sent him, viz. his Notes upon the Acts of the Apostles; with some Observa∣tions upon the foregoing Re∣ply.
• * 1.135

  Rev. 21, 2••.
• * 1.136

  See 〈◊〉〈◊〉 XXI. XXII.
• * 1.137

  In the M••. there seems some mistake in the writing.
• * 1.138

  Rom. 8.
• * 1.139

  For how should a man interpret that Parable, Luke 19. 11. and so forward, with satisfaction, and other like passages? as Matth. 19. 28. Heb. 11. 8. &c. and that a little before quoted Apocal. 5. 10. And how little footing will be found in the Old Test. of the Life to come, unless we go this way to work?
• * 1.140

  Apocal. 10. 2 Thess. 1. 10.
• * 1.141

  N. B.
• * 1.142

  Simile quid habet Irena••u•• lib. 5. c. 36. lin. 6.
• a 1.143

  cap. 7. 18.
• b 1.144

  Psal. 27. 13.
• c 1.145

  Matt. 5. 5.
• d 1.146

  Esai. 26. 6.
• * 1.147

  Mark this last, I beseech you whether he could mean it otherwise than on earth.
• * 1.148

  The Sixth (as also the se∣venth) Letter of Dr. Twisse's are not entirely to be found a∣mong the M••s. but only some pieces of them: there was in the first Edition some confusion in the printing of them.
• * 1.149

  Dan. 11. 45.
• * 1.150

  Vers. 44.
• * 1.151

  which I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you to send back, when you return my o∣ther papers.
• * 1.152

  N. B.
• * 1.153

  Sic vocat quod in terris tu••urum asserit, utpose de coelo sive coelitus, vel in quo coelesti & Angelicâ vivetur vitâ.
• * 1.154

  Vide. n. de Spectaculis. c. 30.
• * 1.155

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1. 5. 6. 10. 30.
• * 1.156

  Dan. 11 44, 45. explained. See the forego∣ing verses ex∣plain'd in Book III. p. 674.
• * 1.157

  ch. 16. 12.
• * 1.158

  Dan. 12. 11, 12.
• * 1.159

  [At what time the Author wrote these lines, it seems he had not perfected his thoughts concerning the meaning of these Numbers and the Epocha thereof: but after∣wards he wrote an elaborate Discourse expressing his last and more concocted thoughts concerning this Argument: which the Reader may find in Book III. page 717.
• * 1.160

  Upon that Text, Sanctua∣r••••m meum re∣veremini, Le∣vit. 19. 30. See Book II. p. 398.
• * 1.161

  So yet among the Lutheran••e.
• * 1.162

  See this in page 579.
• * 1.163

  Herein you have satisfied me already, as anon I observe.
• * 1.164

  See Book 1. Discourse 9.
• * 1.165

  See Book 1. Discourse 14.
• * 1.166

  A••••ic. 3. Sect 26. Hostin. de Origine Alta∣r••••m.
• * 1.167

  So Hippocra∣tes sometimes call•• a bur∣ning-Fever, as also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, other∣wise called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vid. Apoca. 16. 8. 9.
• * 1.168

  This was prin∣ted at the end of the Remain, upon the Apoca∣lyps, but wanted both the begin∣ning and the latter part of this Letter.
• * 1.169

  Whence Luke 2. 23. for that in the Law, Whatsoever o∣peneth the Womb is mine•• is quoted, Eve∣ry Male that openeth the Womb shall be called Holy un∣to the Lord.
• * 1.170

  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.
• ‖ 1.171

  Vers. 23.
• * 1.172

  Vers. 24.
• * 1.173

  Note that the LXX perpetually render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Tabernacle of meeting) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ta∣bernacle of the Testimony, as it is called in the N. T. and sometimes in the Old, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Ark 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherein were the Tabl••s which contained the Articles of the Covenant, and Manna which was the Bread of the Covenant.
• * 1.174

  So he hears them whensoe∣ver they are made; yet is there one day in the week set apart for his solemn wor∣ship. Eaden•• est ratio Tempe∣ris & Loci.
• * 1.175

  The Iew•• re∣port 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.
• * 1.176

  S. Hierome im∣plies as much in that speech of his,Vt scia∣mus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas ex Ve∣teri Testamen∣to: quod Aa∣ron & filii ejus & Levitae in Templo fue∣runt, hoc sibi E∣piscopi, Presby∣teri atque Dia∣coni vindicant in Ecclesia.
• * 1.177

  That which we usually in our Translati∣on 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 with∣out bread and drink, which therefore were concom••••nts of them.
• * 1.178

  Iustin in Apolog. 2.
• * 1.179

  Apoc. 21. 2••. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ma••th. 12. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.180

  Viz. his Letter of Iuly 21. at what time he was very sick. The Letter contains his thanks for the foregoing large Letter, and also for some other Papers Mr. Mede sent, par∣ticularly that about the Sab∣bath and the Lord's Day, (printed now in Book 1, pag. 55.) on which argument he exspatiates in that letter, which need not be printed, there appearing no Answer to it among Mr. Mede's. MSS.
• * 1.181

  He means Mr. Mede's Discourse on Zach. 4. 10. (printed now in Book 1. pag. 40.) and his Objection was this, Do not the Olive ••r••es by the oyl which they drop main∣tain the Lamps? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 surely they maintain not those Seven Angels, they rather main∣tain u••.
• * 1.182

  See this printed in Book III. pag. 569.
• ‖ 1.183

  ••See Book III. pag. 571. and Book IV. pag. 786.
• ‖ 1.184

  ••See Book III. pag. 571. and Book IV. pag. 786.
• * 1.185

  Concerning the 7 Lamps.
• * 1.186

  See the Dis∣course about the seven Arch∣angels in Book I. pag. 41.
• * 1.187

  And what if he be the St••ne with the seven eyes in Zach. 3. ••. Dedi coram Iosualapidem, i. e. dedi ei in successorem Pontificatûs. R••gem Pontific••m? For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in Scripture a King, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as appears by Gen. 49. 24. (where Iosua is firstly meant, and Ephraim challenged much from the Prophecy, as appears by their ambition) and by Esa. 28. 16. where the Chaldee for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but in Genesis they translate to another sense, out of envy to Ephraim.
• * 1.188

  Mat. 27. 9. 10
• * 1.189

  The Discourse upon this No∣tion was soon after finisht by him, as appears by the follow∣ing Epistle. See the Discourse it self in Book III. pag. 717.
• * 1.190

  See Epistle XLIII.
• * 1.191

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.192

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.193

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.194

  In this Letter of Mr. Mede'•• was enclosed •• his Latina Discourse De Numeris Dan. or Revelatio•••• Antichristi, which he pro∣mised to finish, in the forego∣ing Letter.
• a 1.195

  See Epistle 41. and Aposta∣sy of the latter times, ch. 16, 17
• b 1.196

  viz. 1290 and 1335 in Dan, 12.
• * 1.197

  This Letter of Mr. Mede's is in answer to some other Let∣ter of Mr. E. not to the fore∣going Letter, the Answer to which is not yet come to our hands. T•••• to the like Doubis pro∣pounded by o∣thers, what Mr. Mede answered may be seen in his Epistola ad Amicum, Book III. page ••71. and in Book IV. Epistle 22. and Epistle 66. Sect. 6.
• * 1.198

  2 of the 7 Precepts of Noah. See Book I. page 19.
• * 1.199

  It may be con∣firmed out of the Acts, where the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who were of the order of those Prosehtes of the Gate, are found to fre∣quent the Syna∣gogues dili∣gently every Sabbath-day, as the Iews did Acts ••3. vers. 14, 42, 43. & ch. 17. vers. 1, 4, 17. & ch. 16. 13, 14. & ch. 18. 4.
• * 1.200

  2 Kings, c. 4.
• * 1.201

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tuns sequitur orandi forma.
• * 1.202

  Out of conformation to the times of Worship and Prayer in the Iewish Church, whose custome and practice herein gave opportunity and freedom at the beginning to exercise the like in the Christian there residing; yea even sometimes in the chambers of the Temple it self, which were wont to be taken up by Fraternities and Companies coming thither to worship. But this could not be so regularly observed among the Gentiles without much difficulty and danger. Consider Acts 2. 46. with Acts 3. 1. & Ch. 4. 3. For the ninth hour answers our Evening-prayer, and then began the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the Iews.
• * 1.203

  This Sixth Se∣ction contai∣ning T••e de∣scription of the great Iudge∣ment accorded with Apocal. 20. was in the former edition of Mr. Mede's Epistles printed at the end of his First Letter to Dr. Meddus.
• * 1.204

  Ka••rat ••••∣junllim quae tempo•• di••••sa sorent. N••••∣dum cum Ag∣nus L••••rum su∣tur••••m•• m••∣nu sedentis su∣per Thronom resignandum acceperat; quo tem••ore ••ec omnia particie∣lati•••• & di∣stinctnis pote∣facienda crant.
• * 1.205

  The former part of this, (as also of the fol∣lowing Letter) contains mat∣ter either of News or of pri∣vate concern.
• * 1.206

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.207

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.208

  Rom. 10,
• * 1.209

  See Book III. page 571.
• * 1.210

  2 Chron. 34.
• * 1.211

  1 Cor. 15. 52.
• * 1.212

  Vers. 51, 52.
• * 1.213

  See this clear∣ed in Epistle IXVI. Sect. 6.
• * 1.214

  This is that Epistola ad A∣micum, &c. beg••••••ng with C. ••on••ocie. See 〈◊〉〈◊〉 printed in Book III. page 571.
• * 1.215

  viz. The Holy Table, Name and Thing.
• * 1.216

  See Epistle VIII. page 743
• * 1.217

  See Epist. LVI.
• * 1.218

  Dan. 7. 25.
• * 1.219

  See this printed in Book II. pag. 398.
• * 1.220

  See this printed in Book II. pag. 340.
• * 1.221

  Exod. 3. 5.
• ‖ 1.222

  Ios. 5. 15.
• * 1.223

  Chap. 2. 10,
• * 1.224

  Mat. 23. 23.
• * 1.225

  Iohn 4.
• * 1.226

  I meant, Be∣tween Sacred Things, Per∣sons, Times and Places, and Prosane. The neglect or vio∣lation of the respect due to all which may in a large sense be termed Sa∣criledge. And then consider whe••her that of S. Paul [Thou that ha∣tist Idols, dost thou commit Sacriledge?] God may not in time up••raid the Reforma∣tion w••th. This was that I reached at.
• * 1.227

  But the Sancti∣fication of Holy Time cannot possibly be maintained, unless we admit the like for Ho∣ly Places. Things, Persons. All move upon the same prin∣ciples.
• * 1.228

  This he cor∣rects in Epist. LXXV.
• * 1.229

  viz. his Dis∣course about Churches, &c. 1 Cor. 11. 22.
• * 1.230

  In the first Edition page (660) was only printed a piece of this Letter, (which was all that could then be found) or the rude draught of an Answer written in haste upon the back∣side of Dr. Twisse's Let∣ter. But in this is presented the whole Letter, as it was per∣fected by the Author, and copied ou•• of the Original MSS.
• * 1.231

  Ecclesiast. Hi∣••••arch. cap. 2. De Mysterio Baptismi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He adds to this the two places in the New T. and so affirms it is found but thrice in all. But for my part I doubt whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in those places of the New T. at least both of them, can be evinced to be used in that sense, if a man should deny it.
• * 1.232

  [The following Letters (though some of them are of an ancienter date than some of the foregoing Letters) are here placed together, because most of them treat of the same Arguments, viz. The right Notion of a Fundamental Article, together with The best Method of pursuing and Procuring Peace amongst the Protestant Reformed Churches.]
• * 1.233

  Casp. S••••eso.
• * 1.234

  His Clavi•• and Commen∣tary upon the Apocalyps.
• * 1.235

  This Letter (after thanks to Mr. Med•• for his Book upon the Apo∣calyps, as also for his well-wishing•• to the Pacifick design among Protestants) represents Mr. Dury's ma••ner of Addre•••• and Treating with the Ba••avian Churches, and withall desires Mr. Mede's judgment thereof.
• * 1.236

  1 Cor. 6•• 4.
• * 1.237

  In this Letter Mr. Dur•• repre∣sents the Heads of his design for a Pacifica∣tion amongst the P••••••••••ants, particularly in Germany; and withal intreats Mr. Mede's Ad∣vice thereupon.
• * 1.238

  In this Letter Mr. Mede ap∣proves the Heads and me∣thod of Mr. Dury's Pacifick design, and ad∣vises him to urge men to de∣fine the Ratio of a Funda∣mental Article; but withall in∣timates the rea∣son why many are and will be averse from thinking of any such Defi∣nition.
• * 1.239

  So should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be rendred: not In hoc, nor In hac re, as the Valg. and E∣rasmus; nor Interea, with Beza; but, with the Syri∣ack and Ara∣bick, Propterea. H••bra••smus est, ubi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in sape val•• propter.
• * 1.240

  Ce••••. I••p••••. 1 Can. 7.
• * 1.241

  In this Edi∣tion pag. 427.