book of the New Testament so strongly attested, or commented upon so
early, as this of the Apocalypse.” _Observations on Daniel_, &c. page
249.
Thus, these two incomparable men. What some minute critics have said,
or insinuated to the contrary, is not worth mentioning; farther, than
just to observe, that, if the authority of this momentous book be
indeed questionable, the church of Rome could hardly have failed long
since to make the discovery, or to triumph in it.
_Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridæ._
[164] Mal. i. 11.
[165] Lament. i. 15.
[166] Isaiah xl. 20.
[167] Ezek. xx. 47.
[168] Isaiah ii. 2.
[169] Chap. xvii.
[170] The learned Bishop Andrews says expressly—“You shall scarce
find a phrase in the Revelations of St. John, that is not taken out of
Daniel, or some other prophet.” _Vix reperias apud Johannem phrasin
aliquam, nisi vel ex Daniele, vel ex alio aliquo prophetâ desumptam._
Resp. ad Bellarm. Apol. p. 234.
[171] An eminent writer gives an exact idea of it, in these words—“The
style [of the Revelations] is very prophetical, as to the things
spoken: And very hebraizing, as to the speaking of them. Exceeding
much of the old prophets language and matter adduced to intimate new
stories: And exceeding much of the Jews language and allusion to their
customs and opinions, thereby to speak the things more familiarly to be
understood.” Dr. LIGHTFOOT, _Harm. of the N. T._ p. 154, London, 1655.
[172] I have heard it affirmed, on good grounds, that the late Dr.
Samuel Clarke, being asked in conversation by a friend, whether, as
he had taken much pains to interpret the other books of Scripture, he
had never attempted any thing on the Revelations, replied, _He had
not; but that, notwithstanding, he thought he understood every word of
it_: Not meaning, we may be sure, that he knew how to apply every part
of that prophecy, but that he understood the _phraseology_, in which
it was written; which a man, so conversant as he was in the style of
scripture, might very well do.—Calvin, indeed, has been commended for
making the opposite declaration: And, it may be, with good reason:
For (not to derogate in any respect from the character of this great
man) the language of the Scriptures, and especially of the prophetical
scriptures, was in no degree so well understood in his time, as it was
in that of Dr. S. Clarke.
[173] “As for me, I am conscious of my weakness and unworthiness;
being, when these kind of thoughts first possessed me, looking another
way with a prejudice incompatible to this.” _General Pref. to Mede’s
Works_, p. 20, from a MS Letter.
[174] He printed only a few copies of his _Clavis Apocalyptica_ in
1627, at his own expence, and for the use of his friends. _Pref. to his
Commentary._
[175] His Commentary, on the principles of his _Clavis_, did not appear
till 1632.
[176] “I am by nature _cunctabundus_ in all things, but in this [his
Exposition] let no man blame me, if I take more pause than ordinary.”
MS Letter in _Gen. Pref._ p. 22. And again, in a Letter of reply
_ad animadversiones Ludovici de Dieu_, “Eo ingenio sum (delicatulo,
an moroso) ut nisi ubi interpretatio commodè et absque salebris
eat, nunquam mihi satisfacere soleam.” WORKS, p. 569. Yet of this
_sage_ man, could the Bishop of Meaux allow himself to speak thus
negligently—_Il s’est rendu de nos jours célébre en Angleterre_ PAR
SES DOCTES REVERIES _sur l’Apocalypse_. _Hist. des Var._ l. xiii. p.
257. But M. de Meaux knew what he did, when he _affected_ this contempt
of Joseph Mede. He was then at liberty to turn himself from the ablest
advocate of the Protestant cause, to the _weakest_; I mean, M. Jurieu,
whose indiscretions afforded, indeed, ample scope for the raillery of
this lively prelate. Mr. Mede was not a man to be confuted in this
way, and still less by a fanciful and ill-supported _Exposition of the
Apocalypse_.
[177] As appears from his backwardness to publish his discoveries, and
from his unconcern about the reception of them. But see his Letter to
Mr. Hartlib, Ep. 96, p. 881; and compare with his answer to Dr. Twisse,
Ep. 51, p. 811. See also Ep. 98, to Mr. Hartlib, Aug. 6, 1638, not long
before his death, in which are these words:
“I have not been very obtrusive unto men, to acquaint them with my
notions and conceits—for some of them that are but lately known have
lain by me above these twenty years.” P. 883.
[178] _The point of the Pope’s being Antichrist, as a dead fly, marred
the savour of_ THAT OINTMENT—meaning the merit he had of being
known to entertain some opinions; then much cherished by the ruling
clergy. Ep. 56, p. 818. He says afterwards of himself, in the same
Letter, _I thank God, I never made any thing hitherto the caster of my
resolution, but reason and evidence, on what side soever the advantage
or disadvantage fell_.
[179] His friends speak much of his chearful disposition.—But I draw
this conclusion from the tenour of his _life_ and _writings_; and,
above all, from that famous declaration which he made in confidence to
a friend, that, _if he might but obtain a Donative sine curâ, of so
much value as, together with his fellowship_ [of Christ’s College in
Cambridge,] _should enable him to keep a horse, for his recreation, he
would set up his staff for this world_. _App. to his Life_, p. 40.—The
simplicity of this declaration, makes one confident of its truth. And
a man of so moderate desires, was in no danger of having his temper
_soured_ by disappointments.
[180] Siquidem, quæ isti tuo Vaticinio jam, ut dixi, cognito,
cætera contemporaverint Vaticinia, iisdem procul dubio temporibus
sunt applicanda; quæ autem præcedunt, non nisi de præcedaneis; quæ
succedunt, pariter de succedaneis eventibus sunt interpretanda.
_Clavis Apocalyptica_, in Mede's _Works_, p. 432.
[181] From ch. iv. to the end of ch. ix: And from ch. x. to the end.
[182] The sounding of the seventh trumpet.
[183] Ch. x. 7.
[184] Ch. xi. 15.
[185] The reader may form a distinct idea of the method, in which the
_whole_ book of the Apocalypse is disposed, by observing that it is
resolvable into THREE great parts.
The FIRST part, is that of the EPISTLES to the seven churches,
contained in the three first chapters, and is not at all considered by
Mr. Mede.
The SECOND part (with which Mr. Mede begins his commentary) is that of
the SEALED BOOK, from ch. iv. to ch. x; and contains _the fates of the
Empire_, or its civil revolutions, yet, with a reference, still, to the
state and fortune of the Christian Church.
The THIRD part, is that of the OPEN BOOK, with what follows to the
end; and exhibits in a more minute and extended view, _the fates of
the Christian Church_, especially during its Apostacy, and after its
recovery from it.
This THIRD division may, further, be considered as consisting of TWO
parts. The FIRST contains, in ch. xi, a summary view of what should
befal the Christian Church, contemporary with the events deduced in
the _second_ part concerning the Empire; and is given in this place,
in order to connect the _second_ and _third_ parts, and to shew their
correspondence and contemporaneity. See Mr. Mede’s Clavis, p. 424; and
Comment. Apocalypt. p. 476.
The SECOND part of the last division, from ch. xii. to the end, gives a
detailed account of what should befal the Christian Church in distinct,
and, several of them, synchronical visions.
It has been thought by some an objection to Mr. Mede’s scheme, “That
the prophecy of the _open book_, (which contains, according to him, all
the remaining visions to the end of the Revelations) is not only, for
the _subject_, more considerable, but, for the _size_ of the volume,
larger, than the Prophecy of the _sealed book_; whereas, the name given
to it, βιβλαρίδιον, or _little book_, seems very clearly to express the
contrary.”
If this objection be thought material (for I do not find that Mr. Mede
condescends to take any notice of it) it _might_, perhaps, be obviated
by supposing, That the _little book_ contains the xith chapter, only,
being a compendium of the _third_ division, and inserted in this place
to shew the contemporaneity of the _two last_ and principal parts;
and that all which follows to the end, is to be regarded as a sort of
_comment_ on the little book, or larger explication of its contents:
As if the design had been to consult our weakness, in presenting us,
_first_, with an abridged view of a great scheme, and _then_, in
drawing it out at large, for our more distinct information.
But the _truer_ answer to the difficulty I take to be, That the _sealed
book_ is represented under the idea of a _book_, properly so called,
which, upon being opened, presents to the eye the several objects
and schemes of the prophecy, distinctly delineated on the _roll_, or
volume, when it comes to be unfolded, and which, therefore, must needs
be considered as a _large_ one. The _open book_, on the other hand,
is to be regarded, not as a real, but _metaphorical_ book; and is not
produced to be read or contemplated, after a gradual evolution of it,
but to be _eaten_, at once, by the prophet; like that book, to which
it alludes, and from which the imagery is taken, in the visions of
Ezekiel [ii. 8. and iii. 1, 2, 3.]—to _eat a book_, being, in the
hieroglyphics, to _meditate upon_, and to _digest_, its contents.
So that this book, to distinguish it from the other, is named a
_little book_: not, that the revelations, conveyed by it, are less
considerable, or less numerous, than the other, but that the _use_,
to which it is put, required only that it should be spoken of, as a
_book_ simply; the diminutive form being here suggested in the term
βιβλαρίδιον, that the metaphor of _eating_ it might seem the easier;
and (because the former _sealed_ book was of an immense size) might,
under this idea, present itself the more naturally, and give less
offence, to the imagination.
[186] I am not ignorant that many interpreters have thought otherwise.
But possibly they have not enough attended to the advice, which
Mr. Mede used to give to such of his friends as did not enter into
his ideas—EXPENDE. My meaning is, that, if they had possessed the
patience, or the sagacity, to understand this great Inventor, before
they objected to him, they would perhaps have seen cause to acquiesce
in the _Method_, pointed out by him, instead of attempting in various
ways, and to little purpose, to improve upon it.
[187] Dan. vii. 7, 8.—I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth
beast—had _ten horns_. I considered the horns, and behold, there came
up among them _another little horn_—Compare with ver. 24.—The ten
horns out of this kingdom are _ten kings_ (or kingdoms) that shall
arise: and _another shall arise after them_.
[188] Mede, p. 712.
[189] Sir Isaac Newton, p. 31.
[190] Dan. vii. 11, 12.—Concerning the rest of the beasts, they had
their _dominion taken away_: yet their _lives were prolonged_ for a
season and a time.
[191] Rev. xvii. 3, 4. 9. 12. 18.
[192] Martial. l. iv. ep. 64.
[193] Propert. l. III. ix. 57.
[194] Georg. l. ii. ver. 532.
[195] Compare Æn. vi. ver. 776. &c.
[196] Rev. xvii. 1.
[197] Ibid. ver. 15.
[198] _Septem_ BESTIÆ _capita_, duplex typus: primò, septem montes seu
colles sunt, super quos urbs Bestiæ metropolis sita est; deinde, septem
quoque, idque in iisdem (quod unitas typi denotat) Collibus, Regum seu
Dynastarum successivorum ordines. Works, p. 524.
[199] The whole passage in the original stands thus—αἱ ἑπτὰ κεφαλαὶ,
ὄρη εἰσὶν ἑπτὰ, ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ κάθηται ἐπ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ βασιλεῖς ἑπτά
εἰσιν—of which the following is the literal translation—The SEVEN
HEADS are _seven hills_, where the woman sitteth upon them, AND are
_seven kings_—Every one sees that the connective particle, AND, refers
to _heads_, and not to _hills_.
[200] Dan. vii. 24.—The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings
that shall arise: and another shall arise after them, and He shall be
_diverse_ from the first—
[201] 2 Thess. ii. 4.
[202] See Grotius, on the place: who applies this prophecy to Caius
Cæsar, and thinks it was fulfilled when that Emperor commanded his
statue to be placed in the temple of Jerusalem. A strange conjecture!
which many writers, and very lately an excellent prelate, has well
confuted. Bishop Newton’s _Diss. on the Prophecies_, Vol. ii. p. 375.
[203] _Hierosolyma_ in scriptis prophetarum occurrit ut emblema
alterius cujusdam _Hierosolymæ_, mysticè sic dicendæ; quæ _Hierosolyma_
non potest esse urbs quædam in montibus Zione & Acra constructa, qualis
fuit antiqua illa; sed oportet esse _rem spiritualem_, in quâ attributa
antiquæ Hierosolymæ _mysticè_ demonstrentur.
VITRINGA, _Apocalyps: Exp. & Illustr._ p. 762.
[204] Rev. xiii. 11.
[205] John i. 29.
[206] Dan. vii. 8. 20. Rev. xvii. 1. 16, 17.
[207] Dan. vii. 21. Rev. xvii. 14. xiii. 7. 16.
[208] Rev. xvii. 5.
[209] Le saint apôtre a bien pris garde de ne pas nommer la prostituée,
dont il parle, une adultere, μοιχάδα, μοιχαλίδα, mais une femme
publique—sans jamais avoir employé le mot d’_adultere_; tant il étoit
attentif à éviter l’idée d’une épouse infidelle.—Loin de marquer la
Prostituée, comme une _Eglize corrompuë_, nous avons montré clairement
qu’il a pris des idées toutes contraires à celles-là, puis qu’au lieu
de produire une _Jerusalem infidelle_, ou du moins une _Samarie_,
autrefois partie du peuple saint, commee il auroit fait s’il avoit
voulu nous représenter une eglise corrompuë, il nous propose une
_Babylone_, qui jamais n’a eté nommée dans l’alliance de Dieu. Nous
avons aussi remarqué qu’il n’avoit jamais donné à la Prostituée le
titre d’épouse infidelle ou repudiée; mais que par tout il s’étoit
servi du terme de _fornication_, et de tous ceux qui revenoient au
même sens. Je sçais que ces mots se confondent quelquefois avec
celui d’_adultere_, mais _le fort du raisonnement consiste en ce que
de propos deliberé_ Saint Jean _evite toujours ce dernier mot_ qui
marqueroit _la foi violée, le mariage souillé, et l’alliance rompuë_,
&c.—_L’ Apocalypse avec une Explication; par Messire Jaques Benigne
Bossuet, Evéque de Meaux_. PREF. 26, 29. AVERTISEMENT, p. 321-323. Par.
1690, 12^{o}.
[210] The reason I take to be, That _fornication_, that is, vague
lust, and general prostitution, served best to express the unbridled
and indiscriminate passion of the Jews for the dæmon-worship of their
neighbours: Whereas the crime of _adultery_, though of a blacker
dye, and, in that view, more proper to expose the malignity of their
offence, does not convey the same ideas of universal pollution, being
usually committed, _because_ it is so criminal, with more distinction
and restraint.
[211] Isaiah xxiii. 16, 17. Nahum iii. 4.
[212] —_for it is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon
their idols._ Jer. l. 38. Again: _Babylon hath been a golden cup in the
Lord’s hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken
of her wine, therefore the nations are mad_. Jer. li. 7. Compare Rev.
xvii.—_the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine
of her fornication_.
[213] Mr. Mede. Works, p. 49.
[214] Deut. xxiii. 17.
[215] Rev. xvii. 6 ἐθαύμασα θαῦμα μέγα.
[216] Not held of the civil power, or acknowledged to be so held, but
usurped upon it, and insolently directed against it; as is well known
from ecclesiastical history. _The Pope is not Antichrist: God forbid!_
(says the good Abbé Fleury, with a zeal becoming a member of the Papal
communion.) _But neither is he impeccable, nor has he an absolute
authority in the church over all things both temporal and spiritual_—_Le
pape n’est pas l’Antichrist; à Dieu ne plaise; mais il n’est pas
impeccable, ni monarque absolu dans l’eglise pour le temporel et pour
le spirituel_ [4^{eme} _disc. sur l’hist. ecclesiastique_, p. 173. Par.
1747, 12^{o}.]
The Pope, he says, _is not an absolute monarch in the church over all
things temporal and spiritual_: That is, he _ought not_ to arrogate to
himself the power of an absolute monarch; for that the pope assumes to
be such a monarch, and, in fact, exercised this supreme monarchical
power in the church, through many ages, the learned and candid writer
had indisputably shewn, in the discourse, whence these words are
quoted. But now this _monarchical sovereignty in all things temporal,
as well us spiritual_, is certainly one prophetical note or character,
by which the person or power, styled Antichristian, is distinguished.
Let the Pope, then, be what he will, we are warranted by M. Fleury
himself to conclude, that he hath, at least, this mark of Antichrist.
[217] In the _persecution of heretics_; which M. Bossuet regards as
so little dishonourable to his communion, that he thinks it _a point
not to be called in question_—calls the use of the sword in matters
of religion, _an undoubted right_—and concludes, that _there is no
illusion more dangerous than to consider_ TOLERATION, _as a mark of the
true Church_—_l’exercise de la puissance du glaive dans les matieres de
la religion & de la conscience; chose, que ne peût être revoquée en
doute—le droit est certain—il n’y a point d’illusion plus dangereuse
que de donner_ LA SOUFFRANCE _pour un caractere le vraye Eglise_. _Hist.
des Var._ l. x. p. 51. Par. 1740, 12^{o}.
Thus, this great doctor of the Catholic church, towards the close
of the last century. And just now, another eminent writer of that
communion very roundly defends the murder of the Bohemian martyrs
at Constance, and (what is more provoking still) the _fraud and
ill-faith_, through which the pious and tender-hearted _Fathers_ of
that council rushed to the perpetration of it. _M. Crevier, Hist.
de l’Université de Paris_, t. iii. l. vi. p. 435, &c. Par. 1761,
12^{o}.—Can it be worth while to spend words in fixing this charge of
_intolerance_ on the church of Rome, when her ablest advocates, as
we see, even in our days, openly triumph in it? But, then, hath she
forgotten who it was that the prophet _saw, drunken with the blood of
the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus_—Rev. xvii. 6?.
Alas, no: But she wonders, by what figure of speech _heretics_ are
called _Saints_; and _rebels to the Pope_, _Martyrs of Jesus_.
[218] See Vitringa _Apocalyps. Exp._ p. 603, and the authors cited
by him: But, above all, see Mr. Mede’s exquisite and unanswerable
discourse, entitled, _The Apostacy of the latter times_.
’Tis true, the Bishop of Meaux is pleased to divert himself with one
part of this discourse; I mean, that part, which contains [ch. xvi.
and xvii.] the learned writer’s interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy,
concerning the Gods _Mahuzzim_. He finds something pleasant in this
idea, or rather in this hard word, which he repeats so often, and in
such a way, as if he thought the very sound of _Mahuzzim_, was enough
to expose the comment and Commentator to contempt. _Hist. des Var._ l.
xiii. p. 260, 261. But, after all, the ingenious Prelate would have
done himself no discredit by being a little more serious in discussing
an interpretation, which Sir Isaac Newton adopts without scruple [_Obs.
on the prophecies of Daniel, &c._ p. 192]; and which, in mere respect
to the prophet, he should, at least, have condescended to replace by
some other and more reasonable interpretation. But it is the infirmity
of this lively man, to be jocular _out of season_. Thus, again, he
raillies Luther, for an assertion of his, delivered, it seems, with
some assurance, and, in the form, as he pretends, of a prediction,
_That the Papal power would speedily decline and come to nothing, in
consequence of the Reformation_. The event, he says, has belied the
prophet; the Pope still keeps his ground; and then (in an unlucky
parenthesis) laughs to think, _how many others, besides Luther, will be
dashed to pieces against this_ STONE—_bien d’autres, que Luther, se
briseront contre cette_ PIERRE [_Var._ l. xiii. p. 244]. Now, if the
glory of saying a good thing had not infatuated this Catholic Bishop,
could he have helped starting at his own comparison of a _stone_, as
applied to Luther and the Reformation, when it might so naturally have
put him in mind of that prophetical STONE, which shall one day _become
a great mountain_, and _break in pieces a certain_ IMAGE, _and stand
for ever_ [Dan. ii. 35, 44.]?
[219] L’Eglise, en nous enseignant qu’il est utile de prier les
Saints, nous enseigne à les prier dans ce même esprit de charité, &
selon cet ordre de société fraternelle qui nous porte à demander le
secours de nos freres vivans sur la terre; & le Catechisme du Concile
de Trente conclut de cette doctrine, que si la qualité de Mediateur,
que l’ecriture donne à Jesus Christ, recevoit quelque préjudice de
l’intercession des Saints qui regnent avec Dieu, elle n’eu recevroit
pas moins de l’intercession des fideles qui vivent avec nous.
M. BOSSUET, _Exposition de la doctrine de l’Eglise Catholique_, p.
17, 18. Paris, 1671.
[220] Vitringa, p. 603, 604.
[221] Heb. x. 24.
[222] 1 Thess. v. 25. 1 Tim. ii. 1. and elsewhere, _passim_.
[223] Coloss. ii. 18.
[224] Heb. vii. 25.
[225] Page 228-231, and p. 255.
[226] “Whatsoever time of Messiah’s appearing Almighty God pointed out
by Daniel’s LXX Weeks, yet I believe not that any Jew before the event,
could infallibly design the time without some latitude; because they
could not know infallibly where to pitch the head of their accounts,
until the event discovered it: yet in some latitude they might.” _Mede,
Works_, p. 757.
And so in other instances. “I do not believe that the Jews themselves
could certainly tell from which of their _three captivities_ to begin
that reckoning of LXX years, whose end should bring their return from
Babylon, until the event assured them thereof.”
_Mede, Works_, p. 662.
[227] Dan. vii.
[228] 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7.
[229] P. 182-184. But see especially Mede’s Works, p. 657.
[230] Rev. xvii. 7.
[231] Rev. i. 1.
[232] Rev. ii. 8. xxi. 6.
[233] Heb. ii. 3.
[234] Hab. ii. 14. Is. xxvi. 9.
[235] Rev. v. 10.
[236] Ibid. xix. 6.
[237] Rev. xviii. 6.
[238] Rev. xviii. 4.
[239] M. de Meaux: _L’Apocalypse avec une explication. Avertisement aux
Protestants_, p. 303, &c. Par. 1690.
[240] Sermon VIII.
[241] M. Daillé.
[242] Lord Falkland, Lord Digby, Dr. Jer. Taylor, &c.
[243] Serm. I. II. III.
[244] Serm. IV.
[245] Serm. V. VI.
[246] Serm. VII. VIII.
[247] Serm. IX. X.
[248] Serm. XI.
[249] Sermon XII.
[250] Verum non est desperandum. Fortasse, _non canimus surdis_. Nec
enim tam in malo statu res est, ut desint sanæ mentes, quibus et
veritas placeat, et monstratum sibi rectum iter et videant et sequantur.
_Lactant. Div. Inst._ l. v. p. 417. _ed. Sparke_.
[251] Ἐγελᾶτο δὲ τὰ θεῖα, καὶ τοὺς τῶν προφητῶν θεσμοὺς ὥσπερ ἀγυρτικὰς
λογοποιΐας, ἐχλεύαζον·
Fl. Joseph. B. J. l. iv. 6.
[252] Gal. v. 1.
[253] 2 Tim. iii. 16.
[254] Acts xiii. 40, 41.
[255] Judith iii. 8.
[256] See his Posthumous Works, published by Lord Sheffield, 2 vols. in
4to. Lond. 1796. Vol. I. p. 463.
[Transcriber’s Note:
Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.
Greek words beginning with ϖ have had the character replaced with π.]