Works, Book 4 · Letter 20
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 Nations 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 therein, 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 another 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 explication of the Oeconomy of God in the restitution of Mankind as cannot be comprised 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 20th 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 ordinarily-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 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 thousand 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) 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 timeaccording to that, Apocal. 5. 10. W… shall reign o… the earth. 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 departed 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 Paraphrase 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 Iudicii magni, N. B.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 accompany it.
Lastly, This was the Opinion of the whole Orthodox Christian Church in the Age immediately following the death of S. Iohn, (when yet Polycarp. and many of the Apostles Disciples were living) as*See Book III. pag. 664. Iustin Martyr expresly affirmeth; whose passage to that purpose, when I return again to Cambridge, I will send you, illustrated with some*See Book III. pag. 664. 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 knowledge 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 Resurrectione 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 priviledge 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 Resurrectione 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:See in Book III. pag. 710. …rist, ad Amicu… de Resurrestion… prima. 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 deliver 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 wrongfully) 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 foreign The Day of Iudgment, and from whom our Saviour and his Apostles took it, never understood thereby but a Time of many years continuance, yea some (mirabile dictu) of a thousand years: and the name of foreign 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]That the word [Day] in Scripture sometimes implies a long times or many years. is in the Hebrew notion used ordinarily for tempus, yea longissimum: as in the Prophets, for the seventy years Captivity; 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 expression) It is foreign, dies aeternitatis.
There came forth that year I conceived my Specimina of that Millennium, a Discourse by a Lutheran with this Title, Vero-similia historico-Prophetica de Rebus in novissimo die eventuris, pio studio cujusdam foreign. He conceals 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 Catalogue, 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.