Works, Book 4 · Letter 12
EPISTLE XII.
Mr. Mede's Answer to Mr. Hayn's Fourth Letter, about several passages in Daniel and the Revelation.
NOW I have obtained a Release, that you might not think I shook off this Collation 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 Apocalyps 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, Matth. 24. 34.then prophesied, should be fulfilled. I answer, 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 foreign signifies not only aetas, but gens, natio, progenies, and so ought to be here taken; viz. Gens Iudaeorum non in…eribit, usque dum omnia haec implentur, The nation of the Iews should not perish, till all these things were fulfilled. For so signifies foreign in the Hebrew notion, as you may see even in the verse following, foreign. By virtue of which Amen, verse 34. foreign, 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 Nations 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 divideth 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 admonished others to take the word foreign 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 foreign, Generatio quaerentium 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 foreign, 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 foreign, 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 foreign. Beza, à gente ista. The LXX. renders by this word foreign populus, foreign familia, foreign progenies, 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 context 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 foreign verse 25. [foreign, &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 Tribulation 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 consequent 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 continue 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 mentioned 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 Thessalonians causeless fear of the day of Christ's coming to Iudgment to be near at hand: when he tells them,2 Thess. …. 3. 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 foreign 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 foreign Dies judicii & foreign 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 approve 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 hearing 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 power, 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*I have had good occasion to know his name, and some of his notions too. 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 foreign, to say somewhat of the First, Dan. 2. v. 44.
foreign And in the days of these Kings or Kingdoms; that is, say I, during 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 usual 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 destroyed 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 destruction 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 destroyed 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 foreign typi (not foreign, 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 …ollicite the interpretation as not right, you would have foreign 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 foreign …ou…ed, the verses following would check such an interpretation, 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 foreign in the Sepulchres of his fathers, which we translate [one of the Sepulchres.] But in the mean time, till your own observation shall furnish you with more Examples, I will exscribe such as my Grammarian affords me.*… Psal. 1. 3. Erit sicut arbor plantata foreign ad rivos aqu …rum, h. e. juxta Aben Ezram, foreign 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. foreign pullo ex una asinarum. Yea and with a numeral word, 1 Sam. 18. 21. foreign per duas affinitate conjunges te mecum hodie, h. e. foreign per alteram è duabus. Et sic Targum, foreign 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 contrary to the native property of the preposition foreign so to be interpreted, (it being decurtate of foreign 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 foreign in those days when Moses was grown, &c. I say, foreign [Days] here are the days of the AEgyptian bondage and servitude. What shall we do with [After] here? The next is in the same Chap. verse 23. foreign, that is, when those days of AEgyptian servitude 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 foreign 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 begin in time, that is, the Kingdom of Christ foreign 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? Therefore the nature of the Subject will not admit foreign to be here taken for [After,] but requires 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 interpret, until the time came the Saints possessed the Kingdom, until some 200 years before 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 whereon 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 greater learning or infallibility of Spirit than ours, but as*Witnesses and Keepers of the Primitive Doctrine. Testes & Custodes doctrinae primitus 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 inconveniences 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 assaults 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 argument 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 whereof was revealed to S. Paul (though out of another Book;) the other is plentifully revealed 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 Prevailing, not to the Apostles only, but to Daniel also: why not then the Roman Empire? 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 concerning 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 Kingdom 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 neither 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 diverse.
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 Monarchy, 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 difference 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 Daniel both at odds with himself and the Angel his interpreter. If the Horn continue until 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 Opinion.
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 foreign, Heb. foreign, signifies naturally Animal. And you will not, I know, say so of the quatuor Animalia, in the*Chap. 4. Apocalyps, though we translate them also four Beasts. The congregation of Israel, as we translate it, Ps. 68. 10. is called foreign. And if foreign 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 Tenet, 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 Reply, 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.