Paralipomena Prophetica Containing several Supplements and Defences OF Dr HENRY MORE HIS EXPOSITIONS OF THE PROPHET DANIEL AND THE APOCALYPSE, WHEREBY The impregnable Firmness and Solidity of the said EXPOSITIONS is further evidenced to the World.  
Whereunto is also added Phililicrines upon R. B. his Notes on the Revelation of S. John.  1 Esdras Chap. 4. v. 38, 40. As for Truth it endureth and is always strong, it liveth and conquereth for ever.— Blessed be the God of Truth. 
LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Sign of the Bishop's Head in S. Paul's Churchyard, 1685.   

The ERRATA correct thus.  

Paralipomena Prophetica.   For Read PAg. 3. l. 9 to many of so so many and of so p. 30. l. 2. Quintiliaeus' Quintilians p. 50. l. 33. certainty, ass. certainly ass. p. 54. l. 13. perusing phrasing p. 60. l. 24. Juliano 13. Juliano 3. p. 61. l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 70. l. 13. Muserius Mulerius p. 85. l. 23. Sextius Sentius p. 89. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 104. l. 23. Saturninus. How Saturninus; How p. 128. l. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 143. l. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 145 l. 28. Bossus Bassus p. 151. l. 6. taketh taketh place p. 156. l. 4. Scribes, esp. Scribes esp. p. 179. l. 13. Prophecy Prophecies p. 181. l. 6. that that what p. 220. l. 15. that 'tis that when 'tis Ibid. l. 17. that it p. 243. l. 1. and v. And v. p. 257. l. 26. fall till p. 261. l. 22. for a year to a year p. 270. l. 15. Pharos Pharas p. 290. l. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 298. l. 29. past put p. 336. l. 1. higher lighter p. 351. l. 18. made of of p. 419. l. 24. Witness Witnesses p. 420. l. 18. through after thorough; after p. 421. l. 22. this that p. 429. l. 30. the Fanat. his Fanat. p. 444. l. 13. Genius a Genius p. 469. l. 6. taketh takes off 
Phililicrines' Parrhesiastes.   For Read Pag. 3. l. 20. Corruption Corruptions Ibid. l. 29. Chap. V 1. Chap. I. v. 5. Ibid. l. 29. conceive receive p. 4. l. 18. Names Pains p. 6. l. 12. no not p. 9 l. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. l. 11. to have to have made p. 13. l. 3. obnoxious to obnoxious; to p. 18. l. 32. welome welcome p. 19 l. 22. the World this World   

IMPRIMATUR.  
Guil. Needham Reverendissimo in Christo Patri ac D no D no Wilbielmo Archiepisc. Cantuar. à Sacr. Domest. Ex Aedib. Lambeth. Sept. 23. A. D. 1685.   

THE PREFACE.  
Reader,  
BEing firmly assured in my own Reason and Judgement of the truth of my Expositions of the Visions of Daniel and the Apocalypse, especially for the main; that the assurance of this Truth might also appear to others, I was desirous that those who have a Genius to these studies, should freely and diligently search and examine these Expositions if they could find any flaw in them. And how unexceptionable they are, may appear from the Answer to S. E. the Remarker, to any unprejudiced Peruser of the Answer and Remarks. But these were but from one hand. But in this present Treatise which I call Paralipomena Prophetica, there are Answers to Objections from more and more skilful hands, than that of the Remarker, who have exercised their Wits in objecting what they could. Whereby he that has a Genius and leisure to peruse what is written, I hope, will discover how sound, solid and unexceptionable my Expositions are throughout.  
Concerning the Acceptance whereof in the World I should not have the tenth part of this solicitude, were I not as fully persuaded of the weighty Usefulness of the Expositions, as I am of the Truth of them. For it being so incredible a thing, since the Visions as well of Daniel as the Apocalypse (which were written and recorded for the use of the Church) do reach, the former higher, the other from the beginning of the Church to the End of the World, that they should omit the Prefiguring of that great Degeneracy which would come into the Church, those corpse Corruptions in Doctrine and Worship and bloody Persecutions of them that could not submit to them; And being the Visions are so easily interpretable that way, nor any cunningly distorted Glosses able to hid their genuine sense from him that has but half an eye to discern what is true; And this grand Truth being, as too often others are, abused to popular Faction and Tumult, to Dissensions and Schisms even in the Reformed Churches themselves, some brooding in their Fanatical minds vain conceits of a Rising of the Witnesses to come, whenas that Vision most certainly has had its accomplishment many years ago, and joining with the ruin of Antichrist, the abolishing of Monarchy, if not of all Political Government, and interpreting grossly those Victories which the true Apostolic Church is to have against the Man of Sin (who is to be destroyed by the breath of Christ's mouth and the Sword of the Spirit) as to be obtained by an arm of flesh and most fierce and savage Wars and Bloodshed; And that they may thereby avoid that noble Testimony to the Reformation (especially to this of the Church of England, which is so tightly and professedly reformed according to the Pattern of the Primitive Times while the Church remained Symmetral) they minting also false Glosses touching the measuring of the Temple, Apoc. 11. and pretending the Witnesses are not yet risen, nor will be till such a Reformation come as will fit their unaccountable Humours; I say therefore, my Exposition of the Apocalypse being so diametrically opposite to this Enthusiastic Frenzy, and I being not only assured of the Truth, but of this apparent Usefulness thereof, for the general Peace of Christendom, for Loyalty to Sovereigns, whether they be of the Reformed or Unreformed Religion, for securing to Monarches their Crowns, for the preventing barbarous Bloodshed in the Christian World, and for the extinguishing Sects and Schisms, especially here in our own Nation, I thought I could not be over-diligent in evidencing the truth of my Expositions, and in publishing my NOTES at the same time with my Paralipomena Prophetica, they serving to both these and other weighty Purposes which I have mentioned in my Prefaces to the said Expositions. Where, in that to the Visions of Daniel, Sect. 36, 37, 38. I have set down a lively Description of the Philadelphian Spirit, which is the only Weapon whereby the Reformed Churches will be able to run down their Adversaries, and the Conquest and Victory of such will prove even the Joy and Advantage of them that are vanquished and overcome. So little harm can come to the Christian World, or indeed Universal Mankind, from the right understanding of those admirable Records of Providence, Daniel and the Apocalypse.  
But what a peculiar aptness and efficacy it has to reconcile the Sectaries to the Church of England, and to shame them for separating from so Authentic a Constitution to follow the Guidance of private Spirits; I cannot better express it than I have already done in my Advertisement on Jos. Glanvil his Letter to myself, printed with the last Edidition of Saducismus Triumphatus. It is upon the occasion of his Converse with a certain Gentleman who had followed all the sorts of these Private-Spirit-Guides, which at last plunged him into downright Atheism. The Harangue is something long, but I hope not of so lazy a strain but it will keep the Reader attentive, especially it being so useful and seasonable.  
To forsake the sentiments of the ancient Apostolic Church (for such are the Reformed Churches freed from the filth of the predicted Apostasy, and such in a special manner is the Church of England) to follow any private Spirit, is such a piece of Folly and Giddiness, that the Extravagance thereof is above expression, and the danger so obvious, that they must be very blind and stupid that discern it not at first sight. All are not born to be Philosophers or Theologers, and to have a faculty to decide Controversies by the edge of their own Wit and Reason. Wherefore it is both their duty and safety to adhere to the sense of the Church Catholic before the Apostasy, such as it was for about four hundred years after Christ. Within which time the Divinity of Christ and Triunity of the Godhead was professed as public Articles of the Church, and the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters owned. Whence it is demonstrable how innocent the one is, and how Orthodox the other. For if the Articles of the Divinity of Christ and Triunity of the Godhead were false, they had also been Idolatrous, and the Apostasy had begun much sooner than it is predicted to begin in that admirable Book of Prophecies the Apocalypse. Nor was the late Reformation, which yet certainly it is (and I have undeniably demonstrated it in the second Part of the Appendage to my Exposition of Daniel's Visions) the Rising of the Witnesses. For they had been strange Witnesses that should still profess the Divinity of Christ and Triunity of the Godhead, if those Articles were false, since it necessarily follows, that they were ipso facto grossly Idolatrous; or retained Episcopacy, if it had been Antichristian. These things are so exceeding plain, that no man can deny them, that has parts and leisure, and without prejudice considers them. And if the Sectaries that pretend so much to the Spirit above others, had the Spirit of interpreting and understanding Prophecies aright, it would convince them of their Error and Schism. But if this slowly goes down with them, they are to examine themselves if it be not an humour with them to deny any such Symmetral Times of the Church for about four hundred years, that they may still find matter for eternal Cavils and Schisms.  
But now the main Articles of our Faith being thus redoubtedly assured to us both from the Symmetricalness of the Primitive Times for about four hundred years and the Testimonies of the Risen Witnesses, of which Political Resurrection neither Quaker, Familist, nor Socinian partook of, as appears by the Harmony of Confessions of the Reformed Churches, no Reformed Church owning their Opinions; how just, how sober and Christian a thing is it for every private man to adhere to this common Faith touching these main Articles, and not to commit himself to these Ignes Fatui of private Spirits, which may lead him so about as at last to plunge him into the Dregs of Atheism, as it happened to the  Gentleman.  
That Spirit which leads from the Communion of the ancient Apostolic Church (which is a Light set upon an Hill, and so certainly to be known by those Characters ) and carries men into the dark Holes of Schismatical Conventicles, is most assuredly, let them pretend to what they will, the Spirit of Error and Delusion of the Devil, and a certain Symptom, that such men are carnal, as highly as they think of themselves, having not the Spirit; most assuredly having not the Spirit in that measure, whereby they become such living Members of the true Catholic Church, which is the Body of Christ, that they plainly feel what hurts it, at lest what palpably stops its growth, what wounds it, what hazards the very life and being of it. Can they pretend to the Spirit of Christ in any due measure that are devoid of this necessary Sympathy and sense of the common good of his Body and the Interest of his Kingdom, which is Reform Christendom? The Enemies whereof what do they desire? What do they endeavour more than to divide and subdivide us? to hurry us into Opinions and Practices as unlike the ancient and Apostolic Church as may be, to make us appear as whimsical and ungovernable as they can, thereby to expose us to contempt and loathing, and to harden the hearts of the Princes and Prelates of Christendom against a just Reformation, and those that have reform to make them sick and weary of the Reformation, by reason of the unsetledness and distraction of the people. Does the Spirit of Christ then lead to the destroying and laying waste his own Church and Kingdom? Certainly that Spirit that hinders the growth, and hazards the being of the Kingdom of Christ, must be, not the Spirit of God, but the Spirit of Giddiness, of Error and of Delusion.  
Wherefore the ancient Authority of the Church, while it was Symmetral, is to be acknowledged, and those main Points touching Faith and Worship to be adhered to and professed, the Holy Ghost having set his Seal thereto in those Divine Prophecies of the Apocalypse, and this detestable Pride and loathsome Ingratitude (whenas yet things are so well settled by lawful Authority in the late Rising of the Witnesses) in thus breaking from so Authentic a Constitution, and setting up Schismatical Congregations, is hearty to be repent of; nor are we any longer to be deluded by that false Spirit, that under pretence of bringing in a more pure and spiritual Dispensation, undermines and hazards the very Being of the true Kingdom of Christ by this odious spectacle of multifarious Schisms.  
It is not the breath of any mere Man that can convey the Spirit of God to us, and it is a false pretence of those highflown Spiritualists, that think in their Schismatical Worship they have nearer Communion with God than those that adhere to the way of the ancient Apostolic Faith and Practice. For they in their Meetings are but taught by men, and those speaking the sense of a private Spirit, they being Stragglers from the Fold of Christ, as having bid adieu to the ancient Catholic and Apostolic Church; of which yet the Church of England, which they have forsaken, is a genuine part, and therefore its Ministry more safe and Autoritative, they speaking the sense of the ancient Apostolic Church, not any blind Conceits and Fancies of their own. And for the saving Operations of the Spirit, nothing is more inculcated than that in our Public Service. Nor is the Ministry of man so much the conveyer of it, as the sincerity of the Party who desires to partake of it. It is the gift of Christ to the sincere, who has told us from his own mouth here upon Earth, That blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.  
It is not the hearing of a gracious man once or twice a week, or being present sometimes in the Meetings, whether silent or vocal, of a Company of sullen Melancholists or Histrionical Mock-Prophets, but a firm and unshaken Faith in the power of the promised Spirit of Christ for the subduing our Corruptions, a fixed and continued Resolution of not offending the God of Heaven in any thing, small or great, a close Guard upon our Words and Actions, as having a sense of the Presence of the Divine Majesty all the day long, a perpetual exercise of mortifying the impetuosities of our own Will, and of extinguishing all the sweet Relishes of Self-interest and vainglory, and a constant endeavour of wholly resigning ourselves to God and his Service, who has wholly made us Body and Soul, and strictly and conscientiously walking according to His Will revealed in his written Word, that is the Method of attaining to a more near Communion with God, and the only way of more fully participating of his Spirit. And this certainly may as well be done holding still Communion with the Church of England, as in any new-fangled way, that either the cunning of man or subtlety of Satan can invent. And therefore it is rather a wanton kind of Hypocrisy in men, or Insincerity to true Religion indeed that makes them break from the established Religion of the Church of England reform according to the old Symmetral and Apostolical Pattern, than any colour of Necessity driving them thereto.  
And thus much briefly to those highflown Spiritualists. But what I now shall utter is still more weighty, forasmuch as it concerns a greater number of men that have an honest inclination to Religion, but their Education, Parts and Calling do not capacitate them to make so strict inquiry into the Doctrines thereof, as others may make, but seek some external Authority to support their Faith, and thereby lie obnoxious to the solicitations of the Emissaries of Rome, who boast so much of the safe Anchorage of their Church. To these men therefore I appeal, what can be more safe for them than to adhere to the Authority and Profession of the ancient Apostolic and truly Catholic Church, such as it was found before the Apostasy, and is boar witness to in the Oracles of the Holy Scripture, as I have above declared; To adhere, I say, and keep close to this steady Rock, and stop their ears against the vain pretences of any idle Fanatical New Lights or bold Enthusiasts? Now he that adheres to the Church of England, does adhere to this ancient Apostolic Church, the Church of England being reform according to that Pattern, as to the frame of Government and Articles of Faith; And for the Precepts of an holy Life, besides what occurs in our Liturgy, Litany and Catechism, they are so plain in the Scripture, and so fully and effectually declared by those in our own Church in printed Sermons and several other Writings, to say nothing of the good Preaching up and down, that no well-minded Christian can want any due Instruction.  
This is a consideration the best accommodate that I know to keep us all in one, which is to acknowledge the Authority and Undeceivedness in matters of any moment, though not Undeceivableness or Infallibility of the ancient Catholic Church before the Apostasy came in. Which true and just ground will give us all the Advantages and more than that false Boast of the Roman Church, as if she forsooth were infallible, and therefore irrefragable; whenas that one Tenent of Transubstantiation alone sufficiently demonstrates it to be a groundless Pretence, that Doctrine being plainly a Fardel of Impossibilities and Contradictions; to say nothing of their infinite Superstitions, Impostures and gross Idolatries, and barbarous and bloody Persecutions and Murders for not submitting to them. So that she is a Church all over besmeared with sordidly-gainful Superstitions, Idolatries and Blood. And therefore she being deprehended so grossly and enormously erroneous, or imposturous and deceitful, and supporting all her absonous Opinions upon that single pretence of her Infallibility, she has manifestly forfeited her Credit before all the World, and most justly lost her Authority, that no man that has leisure and freedom to examine the Truth, can easily be persuaded to rely or lean upon this broken Reed of Egypt; which is a fictitious and certainly false Pretence to Infallibility by an Apostatised Church, shamelessly obtruding upon those they can deceive, all the Abominations that are declared against in Daniel and the Apocalypse, where the Visions represent the state of those Times, into which this grand Apostasy fell. How unsafe therefore is it for any one to repose himself on the Authority of such a Church! God open the eyes of all that mean sincerely in Religion, that they never fall into such a dangerous Ditch as this. But the Church of England keeping to the ancient Symmetral Church, to whom the Divine Oracles bear witness, is in truth infallible in the main Points , and in all things else material to Salvation, and therefore all sorts of people, learned and unlearned, may safely embosom themselves in her, so long as she continues, which I wish may be for ever.  
In the mean time we see what a mighty advantage it would be, if that, as our own Church in particular, so all the Reformed Churches would jointly exhibit the same unexceptionable Pattern of Antiquity to be followed that bears a just Authority with it, which the generality of men may safely rely on, and that Independency and the guidance of private Spirits seducing men from the National Churches, framed to that ancient Platform, were quite out of fashion in all Reformed Christendom, and that all men with alacrity of mind and sincerely loyal affections, would show themselves morigerous to their Supreme Governors. For this is the only effectual and warrantable way that I can conceive for the enlarging the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus, and the overthrowing the Kingdom of Antichrist.  
The other Scene of things, as I noted above, hardens the hearts of the Princes and Prelates of Christendom, who cannot but think it a sorry exchange to accept of Presbytery, which would prove but a Democratical Papacy, for the Order of Episcopacy, or a dismal Spectacle to see the Body of Christ mouldered into an infinity of Sects and Schisms, as a dead Carcase dissolved into a multitude of crawling worms, and the decent grandeur and splendour of the Church to dwindle into dispersed Companies of obscure Conventicles, and the just and honourable Revenues of it to shrink into the poor arbitrarious Pittances of either the appointment of the State, or uncertain benevolence of the fickle People. That Scene of things, I say, cannot but harden their hearts against listening to never so just a Reformation for the further enlargement of Christ's Kingdom, and hazard the very Being of the Reformed Churches. Whenas this way, I wish may obtain, would silence Atheism and Fanaticism at once, and be the readiest means of bringing on those happy Times of the Church which God has promised and predicted by the mouth of his holy Prophets.  
But this is the gross iniquity and madness of the Sectaries, that they think so goodly and choicely every one of their own Party, that they think it worth the while to hazard the safety of Reformed Christendom to support any how and keep up for the present the small freaks and conceits of their own self-chosen Way and Sect. Than which nothing can be conceived more enormous and outrageous amongst the deal of the Sons of men, to bring into imminent danger so solemn and sacrosanct a Constitution as the Reformation, for the Dreams and Opinions of private Spirits, which no sober Christian would hazard for small indifferent dispensable things, though they had the stamp of public allowance upon them, which, it is and aught to be, in the hand of the Sovereign Power to alter for the common good. And verily this Fanatical distemper is so heinous and abominable, that they that are on the right side ought to take heed how in the least show they imitate it. For a man may be factiously affected in a right Cause, and bear an over-proportionated zeal for things of smaller concern out of an over-heightned Animosity against the present Sects, to the hazarding the quiet settlement of the whole. And if any one be so affected, I appeal to the sober, if he may not justly be reputed to play the Sectarian himself, though it be against the Sectaries. No such Cure for our Breaches and Wounds as the most profound Humility in all Parties, and unfeigned mutual Love and Charity. Of which Virtues or Graces, whosoever is found destitute, let him call himself (of whatever denomination) Christian, as loud as he please, be has really in him not one spark of saving Christianity.  
This (or to this sense at least, and most what in the very same words) I wrote and published about two or three years ago (to fence People's minds from Popery, and reclaim them from Schism, and persuade them to adhere to the ancient Primitive Church, according to which our English Church is reform, and whose Principles she professes, and hath ever practised, as to the point of the Primitive Christians their not resisting the Sovereign Power, though with undaunted Courage they professed the Truth of Christianity against the Vanities and Idolatries of Paganism) and now for its present seasonableness and usefulness I have here transcribed it, if the sincere vehemence wherewith I writ it may but have a suitable effect for the persuading the Sectaries to leave off their Schism, and reconcile themselves to the Church of England. Whereby, besides the Purity and Decency of Divine Worship and soundness in the Faith, Loyalty and Monarchy may be secured, and they become good Christians and good Subjects at once.  
Thus much I thought fit to write by way of Preface to intimate the more particular Usefulness of this present Treatise. Other things are taken notice of in the Introduction, in which then I was not ware that I should have so much to do with those affected Rationalists, who pretend that Prophecies, especially those of Daniel and the Apocalypse, are utterly unintelligible. In which conceit, though they may applaud themselves as more special Admirers of dry Reason, yet I cannot see how their Opinion can well comport with serious Piety and a sound Mind. For in their thus oddly adhering to their imagined Reason in this thing, they point-blank contradict the Scripture, which declares, Dan. 12. That the wicked indeed shall not understand, but the wise shall understand. And that is but a sorry Triumph of Reason that is pretended to be over true Wisdom. And then for the Apocalypse, let us but consider what Pomp and Applause the Communication of the Visions of the Book-Prophecy to our Saviour from his Father is set out by; Apoc. Chap. V and then judge of the unreasonableness of this Imputation of Unintelligibleness.  
And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the Throne a Book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven Seals. And I saw a strong Angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the Book, and to lose the Seals thereof? And no man in Heaven nor in Earth nor under the Earth was able to open the Book, neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the Book, neither to look thereon. But at last the slain Lamb, v. 7. came and took the Book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the Throne, and thereupon the four Beasts and four and twenty Elders fall down before the Lamb, and to their Harps chant out this new Song, v. 9 Thou art worthy to take the Book, and open the Seals thereof, for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, etc. And immediately upon this, v. 11. there is heard the voice of many Angels about the Throne, even of ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, etc. Let us therefore in the fear of God consider not only how ridiculous, but how blasphemous a thing it is to think that this pompous Introduction (than which nothing can be contrived more highly solemn and pompous) should be to a Book of Prophecies that are utterly unintelligible; As if the incarnate Wisdom did not only sport with the Children of men, but delude and mock them. What can be conceived more horrid and impious? Wherefore without doubt the Visions of the Book-Prophecy are clearly intelligible.  
And for the Epistolar Prophecy, the Epistles to the seven Churches, that they are also clearly intelligible, may appear from the Introductory Vision there also. For Christ in his Pontifical Habit there dictates them. And therefore they are as so many Oracles given out from the Urim and Thummim of our Highpriest Christ Jesus, which the Seventy interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, clear declaration and certain Truth, in counterdistinction to the obscure and ambiguous Answers of the Heathen Oracles, and the Uncertainty of their Event.  
And this is an Argument for the Intelligibleness and Truth of the whole Book of the Apocalypse, it being all the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the true Highpriest with his Urim and Thummim, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, clear Declaration to them that understand the Prophetic Style, Synchronism and History, and such as will be accompanied with Truth and certainty of Event. And it is a flat Contradiction to the very Inscription of this Book the Apocalypse or Revelation, if it were not intelligible, for than nothing thereby would be revealed. Wherefore to admit the Apocalypse to be a Book inspired and not intelligible, that the Church of Christ may be edified thereby, is plainly to reproach Christ and the Spirit of Prophecy, and to set the Title of the Book and the Book itself at odds.  
Nor is this Argument from the Urim and Thummim of our Highpriest to be confined to the Apocalypse, but it will reach into Daniel's Visions also. Forasmuch as in the Introduction to the Prophecy of the Scripture of Truth, Chap. 10. Christ appears there also in his Pontifical Habit, and imparts the whole Prophecy (Chap. 11, 12.) of the Scripture of Truth unto Daniel. And as Palmoni, Christ our Highpriest, employs the Angel Gabriel to make Daniel understand the Vision of the Evening and Morning, Chap. 8. so questionless all the Prophetic Visions in Daniel are from the direction and illumination of Palmoni our designed Highpriest from everlasting and for ever after the order of Melchizedeck, and who has ever had the Archetypal Urim and Thummim with him, and therefore imparts no Oracles or Prophecies but such as have both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, certain intelligible sense and signification and Truth or Assuredness of Event.  
Nor does what the Reverend and Learned Dean of Ely has writ in his De Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus touching Aaron's Urim and Thummim at all clash with this Interpretation of the Seventy, in their translating it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if he had but made Thummim to signify Angels as well as Urim, which latter there is no question but it does. For Teraphim and Seraphim being the same words, and differing only in Dialect, and signifying the same that Urim, viz. Ignes splendentes; and the Teraphim and Ephod, though at first used lawfully by the ancient Patriarches, being after perverted into an Idolatrous way of Divination by the Heathen, whereby these Names may seem to have contracted a pollution as to this use; therefore Urim was put in lieu of them, viz. of Teraphim or Seraphim, which have the same signification, as I noted before, denoting Angels who are of a fiery Nature.  
But now, being several bad Angels as well as good are so, Thummim is added to denote their Holiness, Uprightness and Perfection: As it is said in Daniel, Chap. 4.13. And behold a watcher and an holy one came down, etc. Which is spoken of one and the same Angel, denoting that it was a good Angel. And there is the same reason of joining Watchers and Holy ones, v. 17. Wherefore hence it may appear, that Urim and Thummim are not two kinds of things, but one kind of Being, viz. the holy Angels of God, of whom the Cherubims over the Ark in the Holy of Holies is the symbolical Presence, and from betwixt them He gave his Answers when he was consulted by Moses. Whence that most Holy place was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which word the Seventy leave untranslated, and called it Dabir, which signifies Locutorium, as the High-Priests Breastplate is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Verbum, as Dabir is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verbum, because the Answer or Oracular Word was heard from betwixt the Urim and Thummim in the Breastplate as well as from betwixt the Cherubin, in the Sanctum Sanctorum. Which was the larger Dabir or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they both signifying the same thing. But Aaron's Breastplate was the lesser Dabir, and answers tightly in Analogy to the greater.  
For in all likelihood the Urim and Thummim were no other shapes than those of the Cherubin, nor were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Philo seems to intimate, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one Cloth-contexture artificially wrought with gold and silk, representing two Angelical Images over an Ark in imitation of the great Dabir where the work is statuary; but were both a symbolical Representation of the Divine Presence, and therefore thither to be resorted to, to hear the Answers of God: But in neither to be seen by him that consults the Oracle.  
This seems to me infinitely more credible than that Conceit of Christopher Caster, that makes two statuary Poppets of the Urim and Thummim, which must needs bear out Aaron's Breastplate, very uglily and ill-favouredly while they are there, besides the scandal of bringing them out into view, and of conversing so with visible vocal Images, which was the degeneracy of the ancient Ephod and Teraphim, as I noted above. But this square Cloth-texture of gold and silk was placed handsomely and easily within the Breastplate, and remained invisible, but a Voice was heard coming forth as from before the Breastplate, and was the sure and true Oracle of God, and uttered haply by the Ministry of some inspired good Angel, as Urim and Thummim put together signify, and therefore carried with it both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both clearness of sense and certainty of Truth, as I noted before. And all Oracles and Prophecies our Highpriest Christ Jesus is entitled to we may be sure are such, which was the thing I drove at.  
Nor do I, I hope, rashly descent from the Opinion of that Reverend Author, who has so much obliged the World by his Learned pains in giving an Account of the Ritual Laws of Moses, quà Politicus; If either he or any one else would take the like pains to give an account of the said Laws of Moses, quà Propheta, it would be a very useful and commendable work. For I must confess I am prone to think, that the main of the Mosaical Constitutions and frame of things is one wonderful and illustrious Prophecy of Christ and his Church; that kind of Prophecy which is called Prophetia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as other Prophecies are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that this is the chief scope of the Mosaical Rites and Ceremonies, as appertaining not to one Nation, an handful of people in comparison, and but for a small time, but to the Church of Christ which is to fill the whole World, and to last to the End of Ages. Besides that the Resolving of the Ritual Laws of Moses into his Political skill, only testifies he was a prudent Lawgiver and a wise Governor of the People, but the showing they are easy, natural and lively Types of Christ and his Church demonstrates that Moses was a singular Prophet indeed, and illustrates the stupendious Foreknowledge of God and his Providence over his Church that he has so lively and tightly prefigured the state thereof in the Oeconomy of Moses so many Ages before.  
As the Crucifixion of Christ and the benefit thereof is lively set out by the Erection of the brazen Serpent in the Wilderness. To say nothing of the Paschal Lamb, the red Heifer, and the like. And in the Feast of Expiation, though it was not fit nor could be, that Aaron (who yet doubtless was a Type of Christ) should die and rise again, and ascend into Heaven, of which the Sanctum Sanctorum is a Type even of the highest and purest part thereof; yet instead of his own Blood, he entered into the Sanctum Sanctorum with the blood of a Bullock and Goat, which was a Type of the Bloodshed of Christ, of whom Aaron was also a Type: which therefore plainly implies the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, who outdid the Type: and with his own Blood entered into the Holy of Holies. And whereas both the Spiritual or Immortal Nature of Christ, and his Terrestrial and Mortal could not be set out by one thing; two Goats are made to typify them, the sacrificed Goat his crucified Flesh or Body on the Cross, which likewise lay dead in the Grave while the Scape-Goat (an Emblem of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Plotinus somewhere calls it) his Immortal part was sent free into the Wilderness the Won of Spirits and Ghosts, to Azazel, (if that be a proper Name) a mighty Prince in those Regions of the Dead, according to that Clause in the Creed, if rightly understood, He descended into Hell: Or that of the Apostle, 1 Pet. 3.18. Being put to death in the flesh, but alive in the Spirit, by which he also went and preached to the Spirits in prison. These were the weighty Negotiations of the Scape-Goat, the Immortal part of Christ, till his visible Resurrection by resuming his Body out of the Grave. And there is the like reason of the two Birds, one killed and the other let fly into the fields, Levit. 14.4. These the more we search into them, the more easy and natural Types they will be found of those Passages touching Christ his Death and Resurrection, as the entering of Aaron with the blood of the Goat (a Type of Christ (as to his Suffering) as well as Aaron was a Type of him) into the Sanctum Sanctorum, is a plain Type of his Ascension into Heaven, and Intercession there, in virtue of his own Blood shed on the Cross in his Crucifixion.  
But it is besides my present Scope to insist on these things. I will only give one Instance more, and that is of Aaron in his Priestly Habiliments: In which Spectacle we may so plainly read not only those three Offices of Christ (whose Type he is) King, Priest and Prophet, his golden Diadem denoting the first, his Vestments in common with other Priests, the second, and his Urim and Thummim the last: (The durable effect whereof is discovered in those Visions, especially of Daniel and the Apocalypse, that run through all the conditions of the Church to the End of the World) but there is yet a further Mystery discernible, viz. the Divinity of Christ, in that he is clothed with the Universe, which is a Vestment cannot belong to Aaron as a man, but as he is a Type of the Eternal Logos that made the World. See the Appendix to the Defence of my Philosophic Cabbala, Chap. 5. Sect. 3, 4. And the Name Jehovah, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 engraven on his golden Diadem, an Orthodox Cabbalist will be prone to conceive, and not without better reason perhaps than any can bring to the contrary, that the Triplicity of those Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) denote the Trinity of Hypostases in the Godhead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Platonists also term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and we Christians call Father, Son, and Spirit. Which Spirit (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is set after (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as well as after (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as if we were to be instructed thereby, that the Spirit proceedeth as well from the Son as from the Father: Though I do not hope that such a Cabbalistical Notion will suddenly end the Controversy betwixt the Greek Church and the Latin.  
But I must beg my Reader's pardon for this not altogether (I hope) useless Digression. I had before made a competent Supply for my not bestowing one entire Chapter in my Paralipomena to prove the Intelligibleness of the Visions of Daniel and the Apocalypse, without which all endeavour to interpret them is ridiculous and vain. And I need the less here expatiate on this Argument, Phililicrines' Parrhesiastes in his Reflections on R. B. having done so much of that work to my hand, but in a way that partakes much of Mirth and satire, for which he may haply incur the Censure of the more grave and sour, and it may be more for being merry than Satyrical. And the first I must confess is the greatest infirmity I have observed in that Party. But it is a sign he has all this time served a good Master, and that it is not the deepness of Melancholy (as some superficial Souls may be prone to fancy) that has plunged his mind into such serious studies, as the searching out the right sense of inspired Visions and Prophecies, and the like, but that there is such a Life and Spirit in him that loves the exercise of Reason, Wit, and Divine Speculation at once.  
And if by that of satire any contempt fall upon R. B. for his contempt of the ancient Primitive Times of the Church, and for his presumption of making himself a Guide to People upon his private Spirit against the wholesome Instructions of the Homilies of the Church of England and Authority of both Crown and Mitre, and for his foul slurring, as much as in him lies, the peculiar Privilege and Glory of the Christian Religion, as to have its state from the beginning to the end so certainly prefigured by Divine Visions and Prophecies, he hypocritically pretending the Apocalypse to be altogether unintelligible, now it is so clearly to be understood against Fanaticism and Bloodshed, thus cancelling the seasonable usefulness thereof, and casting dirt upon the pious and learned Labours of the best Writers of our Church: I say, if any contempt fall upon him from what of satire is found in those Reflections of Phililicrines' Parrhesiastes, he may, as I conceive, fairly thank himself, there being nothing, I dare say, intended by that free Satirist, but the peace and good of the Church, and the reducing of R. B. to a better Judgement, and exposing the profane and frivolous Spirit of those that pride themselves in a boastful profession, that to them, forsooth, great Wits as they are! the holy Visions of the Divinely inspired Prophets, are altogether Unintelligible.   

Books written by the same Author, and printed for Walter Kettilby at the Sign of the Bishop's Head in S. Paul's Churchyard.  

HEnrici Mori Opera Theologica & Philosophica, 3. Vol. Fol.  
His Exposition on Daniel, Quarto.  
His Exposition on the Apocalypse, Quarto.  
His Answer to several Remarks on his Expositions on Daniel and the Apocalypse.  
His Illustration of those two, abstruse Books in Holy Scripture, the Book of Daniel and the Revelation of S. John, by continued, brief, but clear Notes from Chapter to Chapter, and from Verse to Verse, with very useful and apposite Arguments prefixed to each Chapter, framed out of the Expositions of Dr. Henry More, Quarto, 1685.  
His Confutation of Judiciary Astrology against Butler, Quarto.  
His Reply to the Answer to his Antidote against Idolatry, with his Appendix, Octavo.  
His Remarks on Judge Hales of Fluid Bodies, Octavo.    

Paralipomena Prophetica.  

THE INTRODUCTION. The occasion of the Author's writing his Paralipomena Prophetica. His design in writing them, to show there is but one true way of interpreting Daniel and the Apocalypse. How himself was discouraged in his younger days by the variety of Interpretations; with a solution of that fallacy. His Apology for his great care and diligence in managing this Province of rightly interpreting the above said Prophecies.  
WHEN I wrote my Expositions of the Visions of Daniel and the Apocalypse, I was solicitous only of these two things, that my continued Interpretations should be unforced, natural and coherent, solid, true and agreeing with History. And that I might dispatch them as timely as I could for present public use. Which latter therefore made me more compendious than otherwise I might have been; my main anxiety being, that nothing should pass my Pen, but what was sound and true, not being at all careful to bring all into view which might give further strength and light to what I had written, or to obviate all objections which, by scrupulous Wits, might be made. What therefore I may seem to have omitted then, I shall make a supply of now. And those Omissions (which I therefore call Paralipomena, they being then passed by for the present, but) now for the further confirmation or illustration of several passages in those Expositions compiled into one Book, I offer thus collected unto thy serious Perusal.  
In which compilement I have observed no order, as in this case being needless; but as matters came into my mind, or occasion was given, I writ and have set them down. They are easily referred to the passages of the Expositions themselves, whether on Daniel, or the Apocalypse, which are sufficiently orderly and coherent. My main design in general is to make those Expositions as settled and unexceptionable, as possibly I can, that the Reader may perceive that the Interpretation of Prophecies is no such uncertain and lubricous thing, but that there is one sense of them genuine and natural, and far beyond any other pretended Interpretations whatever: That so he may be released from that distraction and confusion of multiplicity of Interpretations, which weakens the belief of any, and makes the pretence of understanding Prophecies either heartless, or ridiculous. I must confess, when I was young, that very thing hugely turned my stomach from those studies. But it might as well have done so from the study of Philosophy; the reasons of the Phaenomena of Nature which Philosophers give, being as various and repugnant as the Interpretations of a Prophecy. But that which is solid and sound in either, when it is once light on, will plainly, by the impartial and judicious, be discerned to be such, and he will rest fully satisfied therein.  
That I should manage this Province with so much care and solicitude, no man that has any kindness for Christian Religion, can take amiss, Prophecy being the peculiar strength and glory of Christianity, no Religion in the World being able to produce the like. Which being to many of so great moment, and of so clear and indubitable Interpretation in virtue of demonstrable Synchronisms and palpable Applicability and tightly suitable significancy of the Visions to the Events, they do not only put the truth of Christianity beyond all doubt, but is one of the most irrefragable Arguments for Natural Religion, viz. for the Existence of God and of Angels, and for a Divine Providence over the affairs of men, and a reward after this life, according to what we have done, whether it be good or evil, that can be desired. But having more fully suggested these things in my Prefaces to my Expositions, I shall detain the Reader no longer here with them, but fall upon my present design.   

CHAP. I. Tho. Lydiat 's Epocha of the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus for the compute of Daniel 's weeks more fully to be insisted on. Two undeniable Postulatums in order thereto. The passage of the Prophecy that respects the Epocha of the weeks. Four Decrees, but only two of them Competitors for the Epochate, viz. that of the seventh, and that of the twentieth of Artaxerxes, the one granted to Ezra, the other to Nehemiah. The Commissions granted to each, and some circumstances of the execution of them. The comparing of them with the Epocha described in the Prophecy. That Nehemiah 's nuncupatory Commission does the more exactly agree with the said description. That the Jews had never any Decree to build the walls of Jerusalem till that of Nehemiah. Further Arguments to the same purpose. In what sense the City may be said to be built before the Commission of Nehemiah. An Answer to an Objection from those words, Ezra 9.9. to give us a wall. Further Reasons to prove that Ezra had no Commission to build the walls of Jerusalem. The testimony of the Son of Sirach. No Commission but that of Nehemiah had the Title of building the walls. That it is so plain a case, that Nehemiah 's Commission is the true Epocha of the weeks, that learned men have betaken themselves to Lunar years to compute by, rather than desert it. The unsuccessfulness of that device.  
WE shall begin with that passage of the Exposition of Daniel's Weeks, that notable Prophecy concerning the coming of Christ, and as clear, if rightly managed, as notable for its weight and importance. The passage is, the placing the Epocha of these seventy Weeks in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Funccius and several others would fix it in the seventh of his Reign; which Opinion I was once inclined to myself, till I was convinced of the truth of the other. I have produced something for the confirmation thereof out of Thomas Lydiat in my Notes upon my Exposition of that Prophecy. But the business being of so great moment, I shall here resume it again afresh, that I may do him right by more fully bringing into view (and yet as briefly as may be) whether out of himself, or from elsewhere, what makes for the confirmation of his Opinion. And this I shall do gradually. First, by setting down two Postulatums, which I hope no reasonable man will ever deny me. Secondly, I shall represent out of the Prophecy itself that part that respects the Epocha of the Weeks, and out of the History of Ezra and Nehemiah the state of the Controversy, Whether of these two Epocha's bid the fairer to be the Epocha of the seventy Weeks? And lastly, I will consider the twentieth of Artaxerxes in Thomas Lydiat's sense what grounds he has for it. The two Postulatums are these.  

The first Postulatum.  
That we are to acknowledge that sense of any passage of a Prophecy, whether it respects the Epocha thereof, or any other part, to be the true sense, that is least forced, or is most easy and natural, and most plainly agreeable to the words of the Prophecy, and that does the least or no violence to the words of that passage whose sense is controverted.  
This Postulatum is of itself so clearly reasonable, that nothing can be added to make it more firm, unless this ill consequence of denying it, that we shall not ever know when we have the right sense of any Prophecy, or indeed of any place of Scripture else, if this be not the Touchstone thereof.   

The second Postulatum.  
When Historians disagree in their Story or Chronology; forasmuch as profane History (as it is vulgarly called) is not infallible, but some may be right in one thing, some in another, we are to embrace that story or passage of Chronology that suits best with, or does the least violence to the certain Verity of the Sacred Writ. And there is the same reason of one and the same Historian that varies from himself, or writes in one place what is repugnant to what he has writ in another. We are to account that passage the truest that agrees best with the Holy Scriptures, and to acknowledge, as touching the other, that ignorance or inadvertence has misguided his Pen.  
This Postulatum is as reasonable and undeniable as the former, because, as Aristotle says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Truth is always consonant to truth: whence that which is dissonant thereto, must necessarily be false. Wherefore that Historian that speaks consonantly and consistently with the infallible Holy Writ, in the thing that he so speaketh, he is to be judged to speak true, compared with the other that in the point, contradicts the Holy Writ; or if one and the same Historian speak repugnantly to himself, if one part of that Repugnancy agrees with the Sacred Text, the same is to be esteemed the right, the other an error or mistake.  
Now for that passage of the Prophecy that respects the Epocha of the Weeks, the words are these: Dan. 9.25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.  
Here the Epocha is to be taken without all Controversy from the going forth of a Command or Decree; of which there were four, one in the first year of Cyrus, another in the second year of Darius Hystaspis, a third in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and a fourth in the twentieth year of his Reign. But the first Decrees, and consequently the Epocha's from them, are pitched so high, that they fall many years short, even of the Nativity of Christ, so that they are plainly shut out from any pretence of claim to be Epocha's of this Prophecy. The competition therefore is only betwixt the Edict or Decree given out the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus to Ezra, and that given out in the twentieth of his Reign to Nehemiah. Let us therefore consider the History of each, and whether of them agree best with the Prophecy, Ezra, Chap. 7. v. 11. Now this is the Copy of the Letter that the King Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the Priest— v. 13. I make a Decree, That all they of the people of Israel and of his Priests (viz. of the God of Heaven) and Levites in my Realm, which are minded of their own free will to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee. And so from this 13. v. to v. 25. all is concerning the Temple and the Priests and the Worshp of the God of Israel. But v. 25. his Commission is enlarged to Civil Judicature. And thou, Ezra, after the Wisdom of thy God that is in thy hand, set Magistrates and Judges which may judge all the People which are beyond the River, all such as know the Laws of thy God, and teach ye them that know them not. And whosoever will not do the Law of thy God, and the Law of the King, let Judgement be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto Death, or to Banishment, or to Confiscation of Goods, or to Imprisonment. This is the sum of the Decree given out the seventh year of Artaxerxes unto Ezra.  
Now that Commission given to Nehemiah is set down thus, Nehem. Chap. 2. And it came to pass in the month Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the King, that wine was before him, and I took up the wine, and gave it to the King; Now I had not been before time sad in his Presence. Wherefore the King said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad, seeing thou art not sick? This is nothing but sorrow of heart. Then I was very sore afraid, and said unto the King, Let the King live for ever. Why should not my countenance be sad, when the City, the place of my Father's Sepulchers, lieth waste, and the Gates thereof are consumed with fire? Then the King said unto me, For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of Heaven; And I said unto the King, If it please the King, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldst send me unto Judah unto the City of my Father's Sepulchers, that I may build it. And the King said unto me, For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the King to send me, and I set him a time. Moreover, I said unto the King, If it please the King, let Letters be given to the Governors beyond the River, that they may convey me over till I come into Judah. And a Letter unto Asaph, the Keeper of the King's Forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the Palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the City, and for the house that I shall enter into; and the King granted me according to the good hand of my God upon me. This is plainly a Grant from the King to Nehemiah to build the City of Jerusalem, and to wall it about.  
We will add also out of Chap. 4. what straits they were put to at the building of the wall, v. 7. And it came to pass, that when Sanballat and Tobiah and the Arabians and the Ammonites and the Ashdodites heard that the walls of Jerusalem were making up, and that the breaches began to be stopped, than they were very wroth, and conspired all of them together to come and fight against Jerusalem and hinder it. And v. 16. And it came to pass from that time forth, that the half of my servants wrought in the work, and the other half of them held both the Spears, the Shields, and the Bows, and the Habergeons— They which builded on the wall, and they which bare burdens, and those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and in the other hand held a weapon.  
I have set before the Readers eyes that passage in the Prophecy that describes the Epocha from whence the seventy weeks are to commence. It is from the going forth of a Decree or Grant to restore and build Jerusalem: The Streets, says the Decree or Prophecy, shall be built again, and the Wall, and that in troublous times. Now in the Commission given to Ezra, in the seventh of Artaxerxes' Reign, there is no mention of building the City, much less of the Walls, nor in the History of the execution of that Decree any mention of troublesome times. But quite contrary it is said, Ezra 8.36. And they delivered the King's Commission unto the King's Lieutenants, and to the Governors on this side the River, and they furthered the people and the house of God. But in the Commission given to Nehemiah the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, there is mention of both building the City and the Wall; and in the History of the execution of the Commission, there is mention of troublous times indeed, when they were forced to defend the workers at the Wall by Arms; nay, the very men that wrought at the Wall, were fain, as they did their work with one hand, to hold a Sword in the other. So tightly does this Decree, and the History of the execution thereof, suit with the words of the Prophecy which respect the Epocha and Decree. So that it cannot be but with infinite violence done to the Sacred Text, to pitch upon the Commission given to Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, instead of that given to Nehemiah in the twentieth.  
I must confess that the full of Ezra's Commission is set down in writing in a more formal and ample way, whenas that Commission to Nehemiah seems rather to be by word of mouth, or nuncupatory, saving that the Letters to the Governors beyond the River for safe-conduct, and a Letter to Asaph the Keeper of the King's Forest, etc. But this is so far from diminishing, that it adds (if any thing more need be added) to the certainty, that the Commission given to Nehemiah is the Decree which is the Epocha of the seventy Weeks. For the words of the Original, which our English Translation renders [from the going forth of the Commandment] are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is as much as to say, from the going forth of the Word, or pronouncing the Word that Jerusalem should be rebuilt, etc. And both the vulgar Latin and Vatablus render it, ab exitu sermonis; and the LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Now as this is unexceptionably plain in itself, so it bears a most exact correspondency with more passages of the History, than I have yet taken notice of Nehem. Chap. 1. There Anani tells Nehemiah, enquiring of the welfare of his brethren at Jerusalem, that the Remnant that are left of the Captivity there, in the Province, are in great affliction and reproach. For the Wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and the Gates thereof are burnt with fire. This I conceive is the natural sense of the place, we rendering (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) not praeterea, or also, as our English Translation does, but [For] it being a grief to the Jews, and a reproach and disgrace to them, whenas their Temple was rebuilt, and they had houses, such as they were, and some better than they deserved, before the Temple was finished, (which was in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspis) that the wall of the City was yet unbuilt, whereby they lay open to insolences of their Neighbours, and were obnoxious to their taunts and jeers. This sad condition Anani was exceeding sensible of himself, nor did he tell it as a piece of News to Nehemiah (for he knew the walls of Jerusalem had been demolished this long time, and that the Gates were burnt with fire, but with a moving and empassionating Rhetoric he put him in mind of it; who being an hearty Lover of his Country, and seriously considering it, what an huge thing was yet wanting to complete their felicity, it first cast him into tears, and presently after into a serious religious sadness, so that he fasted and prayed for some days, nor did conceal the sorrow of his heart when he waited on the King, and gave him the Cup of Wine, but the King read it easily in his countenance. Wherefore the thing being of such vast consequence to have this evil redressed by procuring a Decree to build the City, and wall it about, it is plain they never had any leave to build it, till the Commission granted to Nehemiah. For if it had been granted to Ezra in his Commission, it was so transcending a favour and privilege, that he could not but have taken notice of it in his thanksgiving to God, Chap. 7. v. 27. where he says, Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the King's heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem: But for the building, or rather the rebuilding of the City, he speaks not a word, though it was a thing of that vast moment, that it cost Nehemiah many sighs, tears, fastings and prayers. Wherefore Ezra had been very ungrateful to omit giving God thanks for this, as well as beautifying the Temple, if the King had granted him any such thing.  
VISIONUM APOCALYPTICARUM TABULA GENERALIS  
Pref: page. 13  
But being that those that resorted to Jerusalem on this occasion, were not to live, like Beasts, without houses: it is a forced thing to imagine, but that by the natural consequence of that Grant, or necessary connivance, private houses would be built in Jerusalem, and so in some meaner kind of sense the City may be said to be in building thereby. And this is consonant to the words of the Prophet Esay, Chap. 24. v. 28. that saith of Cyrus, He is my Shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the Temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. And Chap. 45.13. I have raised him up in righteousness, viz. Cyrus, he shall build my City, and let go my Captives. Which would be but an hard bargain, if they might not build themselves houses when they came to Jerusalem. Wherefore in that meaner sense Cyrus may be said by his Decree, though it was no Decree to build the City, to build it, or because his first Decree, for building of the Temple, was the ground of all the good Grants they afterwards obtained of the Kings of Persia. In that sense all in fullness might be attributed to him, as being the first Founder of all. Nor would God suffer the words of his Servant the Prophet to fall to the ground.  
And according to that meaner sense may also be understood that passage in Ezra's Prayer, Ezr. 9.9. Thou hast extended thy mercy unto us in the sight of the Kings of Persia, to give us a reviving to set up the House of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us, that is, every Master of a Family amongst us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (our English Translation renders it) a Wall. But then by a Synecdoche it may signify an house, and properly of the meaner sort; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying Maceria, a more rudely and slightly built wall with dry stones without mortar, or with mortar, and watling of sticks, and the like. The LXX. render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sundry times, and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is as much as an Hovel, a Hut, a Cottage or Sheepcoat, which may easily assure us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here may not signify any thing above the convenience of the common walls of a private habitation. But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the LXX. here render it, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken in the highest sense for a wall of Defence and Strength, undoubtedly it is to be understood of the wall of the Temple, whose wall toward the Southeast quarter was a strong defence, and the Temple a most magnificent Fort or Castle, where the Priests and Levites were engarrisoned part of the Army of the God of Israel, who is the Lord of Hosts, as I have observed in my Notes upon Daniel out of Grotius. Wherefore the Temple being such a place of Defence, this gave some colourable pretence to Rehum the Chancellor and the rest, while the Jews were busy in building the Temple, to accuse them in a Letter to Artaxerxes, Ezr. 4. as if they were building the rebellious City, and setting up the Walls thereof, v. 12. when it was only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Moenia, or walls of the Temple. And upon Artaxerxes' Answer to that Letter, it is said, v. 24. Then ceased the work of the House of God, which is at Jerusalem; so it ceased to the second year of the Reign of Darius' King of Persia: As if the Jews themselves were conscious, that the walls and buildings of the Temple were a kind of Fortification. But they are hugely out that fancy, that by this wall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant a Wall about the City for Fortification, which before Nehemiah, they never had any Commission to build; and it had been their undoing, if they had gone about it, Sanballat, you may be sure, would have been on their backs to the purpose, they having no Commission, when he was so vexatious to them when they had one. Nor is there any story in Ezra touching their going about any such work, no more than any mention in the Commission for it.  
Moreover Nehemiah's application to Artaxerxes plainly implies, that the Commission Ezra had, had no clause in it to warrant the rebuilding of the Walls, and repairing the Gates which were broke down and burnt by Nabuchadnezzar, and so lay till that very time, though sundry private houses were rebuilt, some it may be in a better sort, but most very mean, and hand over head without order. For if Ezra had had that Commission, Nehemiah would have framed his Petition accordingly, and reminded the King, that he only desired him to ratify again what he had before granted to Ezra, and told a sad story of Sanballat and his wicked Companions, that they had demolished the Wall, and burned the Gates of the City, which Ezra by his Royal Grant had repaired again and built up. Which considerations could not but conduce to the more easy obtaining his Request of the King, which being omitted, plainly argues they were not true. And that there was no rebuilding of the City, in that proper sense I above described, but by Nehemiah; of whom it is said by the Son of Sirach, (Chap. 49.13.) having in the foregoing verses spoke the praises of Zorobabel and Joshuah, who in their time builded the House, and set up an holy Temple to the Lord, That amongst the Elect was Nehemiah, whose renown is great, who raised up for us the Walls that were fallen, and set up the Gates and the Bars, and raised up our ruins again. So infinitely plain is it every way, that his was the only Commission for the rebuilding the City and the Wall thereof, and is the only Commission that has that Title. So that, if Ezra's Commission had any clause in it for the building of the City, as it assuredly had none; yet the Commission of Nehemiah only bearing that Title, the granting of his Commission must, by unavoidable necessity, be the Epocha of the seventy Weeks of Daniel.  
Which is a point so plain and undeniable, that not only Julius Africanus of old, but also Daniel Huetius, a late learned and ingenious Writer, rather than he would quit this certain truth, that the Epocha of Daniel's Weeks is from the Commission granted to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes in the twentieth of his Reign, adheres to that ancient Conceit, That the years that Daniel's Weeks are to be numbered by, are not Solar years, but Lunar, which are less by eleven days in a year than the Solar, the Solar containing 365 days, the Lunar but 354. Which is something an hard Hypothesis, there being not an Example in all the Bible again of numbering of time by Lunar years. And Lyranus, who himself was an Hebrew, and very skilful in their Learning and Customs, declares expressly, Falluntur, says he, qui putant Hebraeos lunaribus annis usos aliquando, alioqui tota veteris Instrumenti series vacillet, as Cornelius à Lapide citys him on the place. And indeed it seems improbable, but the Angel that imparted the Vision to Daniel, should mean such years as would be most universally in use in the Church of God, who is so much concerned in this Prophecy. And besides, if we compute from the Springtime of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, (for the Decree was made in the month Nisan) which twentieth year falls in with the 4269. year of the Julian Period, unto the Springtime of the year which falls in with the year 4745. of the said Period, when our Saviour suffered, viz. Olympiad. 202. Anno quarto finiente, and in the nineteenth year of Tiberius his Reign, according to Seth Calvisius, Funccius and Helvicus; this Interval of time will make 476 Solar years complete, which 476 Solar years make 173859 days with the Bissextile days added to them, and divided by 354, give 491 Lunar years with some 45 days over. So that by this account our Saviour would be so far from suffering in the midst of the seventieth week, that his Passion would fall in the second year after the expiration thereof: which is a thing intolerable.    

CHAP. II. Though Julius Africanus his Conceit for computing Daniel 's Weeks by Lunar years, be witty, yet it is not true. That there is a necessity of computing by Solar years, as well as of retaining the Epocha of the twentieth of Artaxerxes: But withal of removing the Commencement of Artaxerxes his Reign higher in Chronologie than Chronologers usually place it. Petavius his device of making Artaxerxes 's Reign ten years with his Father, proposed. An Examination of this Hypothesis. The infirmness of the ground thereof out of Herodotus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not signifying, as Petavius would have it. And if it did, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be either in the fifth year of Xerxes, or three or four years after the twelfth, and therefore uncompliable with Petavius his design. How incredible it is, that Ezra 's and Nehemiah 's Decree should not be reckoned from the same Epocha of Artaxerxes his Reign. What a glorious achievement it is to discover a twentieth of Artaxerxes 's reigning alone, from whence, computing by Solar years, the Passion of Christ will fall into the midst of the last week.  
IT is necessary then to relinquish this old Conceit of Julius Africanus of computing Daniel's Weeks by Lunar years, though it is not without some Wit and Ingeny, while from that expression of the LXX. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Septuaginta Hebdomades abbreviatae sunt super populum tuum: he argues, that the Weeks must be computed by Lunar years, they being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shorter years, than the Solar by eleven days in a year. But this shortness of the years makes their number exceed the seventy Weeks, and places the Passion of Christ in the second year after their expiration, as I have noted already.  
And therefore there is a necessity of betaking ourselves to that usual and unexceptionable way of reckoning by Solar years, and as great a necessity still to stick to that indubitable Epocha of the Weeks, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, though here we shall be cast into great straits, if we stick to the ordinary Opinion of Chronologers, who fix the beginning of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus in the first year of the 79. Olympiad, and the 289. V.C. which Seth Calvisius, Helvicus, and Funccius, with others, agree in. Whence it will follow, that the twentieth year of Artaxerxes will fall in with the fourth year of the 83. Olympiad, and the 308. V.C. But now if the seventy Weeks commence in 308. V.C. or in the fourth year of the 83. Olympiad, it will likewise follow, that they end in the 797. year V.C. and the first of 206. Olympiad, which is the fifth year of Claudius. Whence it would be concludible, that Christ was crucified in the second year of Claudius, that year being the midst of the last week. Whenas every School boy knows that Imperante Augusto natus est Christus, imperante Tiberio est crucifixus.  
This therefore is so gross an absurdity, that there is a necessity of placing the beginning of the Reign of Artaxerxes in some sense or other higher in Chronology than it is usually pitched. Petavius therefore has espoused this acquaint Conceit, That the Reign of Artaxerxes has two Epocha's; the one the same that Calvisius, Helvicus and Funccius agree in: the other ten years' sooner, namely, the twelfth year of Xerxes, or the third year of the 76. Olympiad, when he was assumed into the participation of the Empire by his Father Xerxes, at his going upon an Expedition out of Persia: which he grounds upon that passage in Herodotus, lib. 7. That there was a great strife amongst Darius Hystaspis his Sons, who should be King, if he died in the War: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that he ought to appoint who should be King, according to the Law of the Persians, and so go upon his Expedition. From this passage Petavius would infer, that Artaxerxes reigned some years with his Father, he assuming him into a participation of the Empire sometime when he went to War out of the Empire of Persia. And for the greater colour to this Conceit, he adds, This is the only way to salve the Credit of famous Historians, some whereof say, That Themistocles' flight from the Athenians was in Xerxes his time, as Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides and Diodorus; others, that it was in his Son's time Artaxerxes, as Thucydides, Charon, Cornelius Nepos and Plutarch. Wherefore they both reigning together, the Credit of both Parties of the Historians is salved, they both saying true. And that he sets the Epocha of Artaxerxes' Reign with his Father ten years before his Reign alone after his Father's death, is, because taking the Epocha of the Weeks from the twentieth of his Reign, when he reigned alone, there will be ten years wanting to make our Saviour's Passion fall in the midst of the week, as it is to fall according to the Prophecy of the seventy Weeks, it being granted, that he suffered in the fourth year towards the ending of the 202. Olympiad.  
This is a trim Hypothesis, if it were as solid as trim. For, First, the main Basis thereof, methinks, is very precarious, viz. That the Kings of Persia, when they went to War against foreign Kingdoms in Person, actually constituted one of their Sons King. The very words of Herodotus may import no more than this, viz. to declare who was to be King, or succeed in the Crown, if it should so happen, that the present King were slain in the War. This is all that we can be assured is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, to point out him that he intends to be his Successor in his Kingdom.  
Secondly, If it were granted, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is to make one actually King, than this making must be upon Xerxes' entering upon that Expedition of his against Greece the fifth year of his Reign; betwixt which, and the twelfth of Xerxes his Reign, there is seven years' difference, which makes this Conceit utterly unserviceable to the end it was invented for. And that he made any Expedition himself, besides that in Person, is incredible, the general Current of Historians declaring, as Pezelius observes, that the Greeks carried the War into Asia, not the Persians into Greece; nor that War, which was managed by the Persians, was carried on by Xerxes in Person, but only by his Commanders. Diodorus names Tithraustes a bastard Son of Xerxes, and Pheredates, Xerxes his Nephew. Justin indeed writes thus: Igitur Xerxes cùm proditionis dolum (namely, Pausanias his, who would have betrayed Greece to Xerxes) publicatum videret, ex integro bellum instituit, Graeci quoque ducem constituunt Cimonem— qui Xerxem terrestri navalíque bello superatum trepidum recipere se in regnum coegit. Whereby is noted that notable Fight and Victory by Sea and Land that Cimon the Athenian had against the Persians at the River Eurymedon. This Victory he got the third year of the 77. Olympiad, which Fight Diodorus fully and particularly describing, and making no mention of Xerxes himself, makes me prone to imagine, that Justin speaks figuratively, or else is hugely mistaken. Or if he be not, Xerxes his Expedition being the third year of the 77. Olympiad, he must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, declare Artaxerxes King, either this year, or the year before, which again will spoil this fine Conceit, and make it useless for the end it was intended. For then the Passion of Christ will fall out, not in the middle of the last week, but at the beginning thereof.  
And Thirdly and lastly, It is a thing beyond all credibility, That whenas Ezra computes the Decree granted to him by Artaxerxes Longimanus from the seventh year of his real Reign, or his reigning alone: (For if Xerxes had been alive, he had been named, and not Artaxerxes) that Nehemiah telling us he had his Commission granted the twentieth of Artaxerxes, should count from another Epocha ten years different from the former, and so puzzle and confound the Chronology of the Sacred History, and of so concerning a Prophecy. These few things are enough to show the vanity of this surmise. But if any one would be more fully satisfied, let him read Daniel Huetius his Demonstratio Evangelica, Prop. 9 pag. 370.  
As for the salving the Credit of these differing Historians by this acquaint device, it will be more seasonable to speak to that hereafter. In the mean time there being a necessity to keep to the Epocha of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes' Reign, and not only to number by Solar years, but from the twentieth year, as we are now convinced, of his Reign from his Father Xerxes his death, he that can make out the true Epocha of Artaxerxes his Reign in this sense, so that from the twentieth year thereof, if we count Daniel's Weeks, the Crucifixion of our Saviour will be found in the midst of the last of these Weeks, this man must merit immortal praise, for this excellent piece of service he has done the Church of Christ and Christianity.   

CHAP. III. A just Encomium of Thomas Lydiat. His fixing the beginning of the real Reign of Artaxerxes in the second year of the 77. Olympiad, with the consequences thereof. The proof of the  Epocha from the time of Themistocles flight into Asia, which was in that year. That he got to the Persian Court in a very short time, proved out of Plutarch. Of the confounding of the Names of Xerxes and Artaxerxes. And that Themistocles came to the Persian Court about the time of the Exitus of the one, and Succession of the other.  
AND this is that which I am well assured in myself, that that excellent Person Thomas Lydiat (a man of a free and stout Spirit, of a quick Sagacity, clear and firm Judgement, great reading and industry, and singular Piety, and as it were a Martyr in the late times (as you may see in that elegant Preface prefixed to his Posthumous Works, for his Loyalty to the King, and Faithfulness to the Church of England, of which he was a worthy Minister, and eximious Ornament) has solidly and irrefutably performed. He has, I say, laying aside all fine conceits and groundless surmises, with a downright stroke fixed the beginning of Artaxerxes his Reign, properly so called, namely the succeeding his Father after his death, in the second year of the 77. Olympiad. Whence it will follow, that the true twentieth year of his Reign will be the first year of the 82. Olympiad, or the 4262. year of the Julian Period. And, which will be the consequent upon this, the 70 Weeks of Daniel will expire in the 4751. year of the Julian Period, or the second year of the Reign of Caius Caligula, according to Helvicus, Funccius, and Seth Calvisius, and the Crucifixion of Christ fall out in the 22d year of Tiberius his Reign, which is the middle of the last week, according to the mind of Thomas Lydiat. In which sum of years betwixt the twentieth of Artaxerxes, and second of Caligula, he and other Chronologers are agreed. How particular parcels of time in the Reign of some Kings will be adjusted, will be discerned in the procedure of the business.  
In the mean time we are to note, That this fixing of the beginning of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus in the second year of the 77. Olympiad, which is at least six years higher than other Chronologers place it, is no fictitious or arbitrarious thing, but a thing necessary, and firmly made out by most Authentic History. For first, the flight of Themistocles into Asia to get to the King of Persia, Tho. Lydiat has made out with undeniable clearness out of Diodorus Siculus, that it was the second year of the 77. Olympiad, and Petavius himself acknowledges the truth thereof. Now when he was upon his journey, that he made no delay, but got thither in a short time that very year, appears from what Plutarch writes in his Life, That when he had arrived to Cuma, a Town near the Sea, he made no stay there for fear of the Overseers of Sea-affairs, especially Ergoteles and Pythodorus, but betook himself presently to Aegae, a Town in the same Country of Aeolia, where he was entertained by his Friend, to whom alone he was there known, one Nicogenes (a Person of great Quality and much Riches, and befriended much by the Nobles of the Persian Court) with whom having stayed but a few days, after Supper upon a certain Sacrifice, Nicogenes children's Schoolmaster Olbius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being in a Divine rapture, cried out in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which words, as it seems, implied, Night would prove Oracular to Themistocles, and suggest such counsel to him as would prove very successful. After this therefore Themistocles falling asleep, dreamt he saw a Dragon winding about his belly, and creeping up to his neck; but assoon as it touched his face, that it was changed into an Eagle, which spreading his wings, took him up, and carried him a long way, and set him firmly upon a Caduceum or Herald's staff made of Gold, freeing him thus from immense fear and consternation of mind. Wherefore upon this, Nicogenes presently sent him away to the Persian Court in such a close Coach as their Women use to be carried in. And the less stay than in his journey, certainly it was the better. It is plain therefore, that this very year Themistocles came to the Persian Court.  
But whether to Xerxes or Artaxerxes his Son, is a Question amongst Chronologers from the different Reports of Historians. And some also make a Question, Whether Xerxes and Artaxerxes be not Names or Titles promiscuously used for a King of Persia; Artaxerxes signifying no more than great Xerxes, as if one should say one while the Mogul, another while the great Mogul. Cornelius à Lapide is expressly for this conceit upon the Weeks of Daniel: Historici, saith he, subinde confundunt nomina haec Xerxes & Artaxerxes. Xerxes' enim Persicè significat Bellatorem, Artaxerxes magnum Bellatorem. But I think it is already without Controversy, That Themistocles came to the Persian Court the very same year he set out in, and as shall be made out, that Xerxes died, and Artaxerxes began to reign in, and in all likelihood very near the time, not many month's distance from the exitus of the one, and succession of the other. For the Right of the Kingdom devolved immediately upon Artaxerxes so soon as he was next Heir to the Crown. Wherefore Themistocles coming to the Persian Court in such a nick of time, I mean so near to the contermination of the Exitus of Xerxes, and the succeeding of Artaxerxes, it is the less to be wondered at, that some Historians say, he came to Xerxes, others to Artaxerxes.   

CHAP. IU. That Themistocles in the second year of the 77. Olympiad, came to Artaxerxes newly beginning to reign, proved out of Thucydides. As also from the Testimony of Charon Lampsacenus. And the Suffrage of Plutarch. As likewise of Cornelius Nepos. To which is added the Judgement of that modern Historian Johannes Sleidanus. Why Plutarch preferred the Testimonies of Charon and Thucydides before those of Ephorus, Dinon, Cleitarchus, Heraclides, and others. The Characters of them. A probable way of salving all their Credits, and that they do not clash with the Testimony of Charon and Thucydides, at least in any thing considerable.  
BUT Thomas Lydiat produces the irrefragable Authority of that unexceptionable Historian Thucydides, that Themistocles came to the Son of Xerxes, viz. Artaxerxes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, newly coming to the Throne. Whence it is undeniably true, that Artaxerxes Longimanus began his Reign the second year of the 77. Olympiad, which was the thing to be demonstrated.  
Charon Lampsacenus also a Person of Quality, and a famous Historian, he likewise declares, that Themistocles' flight and address was to the Son, not to his Father Xerxes, his Father, as he writes, being dead. And who, I pray, should be a more idoneous Witness, than he who lived and flourished in that time, and whose native Town was Lampsacum, which Artaxerxes gave to Themistocles to yield him Wines, as he did Magnesia to yield him Breadcorn, and Myus the delicacy of Victuals, that Town having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Diodorus speaks.  
Plutarch also is of opinion, that Themistocles his address was to the Son of Xerxes, not to Xerxes himself who was dead, and readily subscribes to the Testimony of Thucydides, and of Charon Lampsacenus in this, as more consentaneous to the truth of Chronology. And Cornelius Nepos prefers the Authority of Thucydides before all those that writ the contrary, Quòd aetate proximus erat qui illorum temporum historiam reliquerunt, & ejusdem Civitatis fuit, namely, an Athenian, as Themistocles was, of which Thomas Lydiat makes excellent use, as you may see in his Emendatio Temporum, An. Mund. 3534. And for that passage of Nepos, [Qui illorum temporum historiam reliquerunt] what can it more fitly relate to, than the History of Charon Lampsacenus, who was contemporary to Themistocles, Xerxes and Artaxerxes, and was born at that very Town Lampsacum, (and reckoned by Strabo amongst the Illustres Lampsaceni) which Artaxerxes bestowed with the other two upon Themistocles? Whose Testimony can be so much credited, as such an one as he? But Thucydides' Testimony alone is of that value, that Pezelius conceives, that from thence that excellent and judicious Historian Johannes Sleidanus declares thus; Xerxi successit filius Artaxerxes Longimanus, ad hunc Themistocles exul profugit, etc.  
Wherefore here is most ample and authentic Testimony, Charon Lampsacenus, Thucydides, Plutarch, and Cornelius Nepos, that it was Artaxerxes Longimanus, not Xerxes, to whom Themistocles in his Exile made his applications. But, methinks, I hear you say, Plutarch in the same place where he subscribes to Thucydides and Charon, tells us, that Ephorus and Dinon and Clitarchus and Heraclides, with several other Historians, say, that Themistocles' address was made to Xerxes. It may be so. But from thence it is then more clear, what a great value he had for the Truth and Authority of those two Writers, when he preferred their two Testimonies before the Testimony of so many. For the voices of many are not so considerable in such cases, the mistake of one famous Historian, such suppose as Herodotus, making all that succeed him, follow him; as when one Sheep on a Bridge leaps off the Bridge into the water, it endangers all the rest that follow, to leap after him. But Charon Lampsacenus was out of this danger, he being much seniour to Herodotus, and flourishing in the very times of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, whenas Herodotus was born but four years before Xerxes his Expedition into Greece. And we may be sure, that Thucydides, who was so extreme careful of writing nothing but what was true, consulted Charon Lampsacenus (who lived and flourished in the times of Xerxes and Artaxerxes: and wrote the Persian History of his Times, to which his own were so near, or rather coincident.) For which very cause Cornelius Nepos prefers his Testimony before any other that contradict it.  
Now for Ephorus, he is a good while after Thucydides, and it is Seneca's Character of him, Ephorus non religiosissimae fidei saepe decipitur, saepe decipit. Dinon, though much later than he, Nepos seems to have a good opinion of; but Pliny laughs at him for his Indian Sirens, who, he says, by their sweet singing lull men asleep, and in their sleep seize on them, and devour them. And for Clitarchus that followed Alexander the Great in his Expedition into Asia, Quintiliaeus' Elogium of him is, Clitarchi probatur ingenium, fides infamatur. Now for Heraclides, there were many of that Name, and those Historians too; but it's likely this was Heraclides Cumanus who wrote five Books, De rebus Persicis, junior to Clitarchus: he seeming to be ranged with those that lived in Ptolemaeus Philometor's time by Gerardus Vossius, in his Treatise De Historicis Graecis; but for his Character, I find none cited by Vossius either good or bad out of any Author. And it may be, it was not altogether necessary to mention those of the other, there being another way of answering, and more consistent with their Credits.  
For being it is merely known of them, that they relate Themistocles his address, when he fled into Asia, to have been made to Xerxes; according to Cornelius à Lapide's Opinion, there being no more difference betwixt Xerxes and Artaxerxes, than betwixt the Mogul and the great Mogul, (for Artaxerxes signifies no more than the great Xerxes) those that say he came to Xerxes, may be judged to say the same thing that they who-relate he came to Artaxerxes. And this is the very way that A Lapide salves the credit of these seemingly clashing Historians. To which I will further add, That Themistocles' flight into Asia, being so near the contermination of the Death of Xerxes, and the Succession of his Son Artaxerxes, who was Heir to the Crown assoon as his Brother Darius was slain, which was immediately upon the death of Xerxes killed by Artabanus: the Credit of these clashing Historians is sufficiently salved, in that the error in time is so very little, whether they say Themistocles came to the Persian Court while Xerxes was alive, or in the Reign of his Son Artaxerxes.   

CHAP. V What is to be answered to the Testimony of Diodorus Siculus, that makes Xerxes live five or six years after his Conference with Themistocles. How Diodorus came to be wheedled into this mistake. Ctesias Cnidius his Authority to be preferred before Herodotus touching the term of years that Darius Hystaspis reigned. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hecataeus Milesius writ through the oscitancy of the Scribe; Or five years added to the Reign of Darius Hystaspis wittingly by Herodotus to exercise his wit and invention thereon to please the Reader. A further weight added to the Authority of Ctesias Cnidius in this point from the second Postulatum.  
BUT there is one more besides those four that Plutarch names, taken notice of by Petavius, which I must confess this Salvo will not reach, and that is Diodorus Siculus, who placing the flight of Themistocles in the second year of the 77. Olympiad, does notwithstanding place the death of Xerxes in the fourth year of the 78. Olympiad; so that Xerxes, according to him, lived five or six years after his Conference with Themistocles in Persia. Wherefore here we must ingenuously confess, that Diodorus has committed a mistake, though otherwise a very creditable Historian. But it is a consequential mistake to a more primitive Error, which he had imbibed from Herodotus, who makes Darius Hystaspis to have reigned five years longer than in truth he did. Which therefore must needs shove down the beginning of Xerxes his Reign (whom all are agreed to have reigned but about twenty years) and consequently the beginning of Artaxerxes' Reign, five years lower than in truth it was.  
But though this must be acknowledged an error in Diodorus, yet we are to pardon him from that modest deference he gave to the Authority of Herodotus, he being reputed Parens Historiae, as Tully calls him, the Father of History; and also because by his happy discovery of the true time of Themistocles' flight to the King of Persia, he has again rescued us from that inveterate Error of Herodotus; Charon and Thucydides, two unexceptionable and irrefragable Authors, and elder than all that have related to the contrary, affirming, that it was Artaxerxes Longimanus that Themistocles came to, and that at the beginning of his Reign. But this coming of Themistocles, Diodorus assures us was in the second year of the 77. Olympiad. And therefore it is apparent, that Xerxes died five or six years earlier in the series of time than Diodorus makes him, though acknowledged by all to have reigned twenty years, or thereabout.  
Whence his Father Darius Hystaspis must of necessity not have reigned above thirty one years, or thereabout, as Ctesias Cnidius also affirms he did not, who being Physician to Artaxerxes Memor, had the opportunity to know the truth of these things better than Herodotus. And it seems a special piece of Providence, though length of time, or carelessness of Transcribers, may have corrupted other numberings of his, that this of the Reign of Darius Hystaspis has been kept unviolated, it agreeing so well with the undeniable Testimonies of Charon and Thucydides, such ancient Writers.  
Hecataeus Milesius indeed is something ancienter than Charon, he flourishing in the beginning of the Reign of Darius Hystaspis, and being longaevous, may well reach many years beyond his Reign; and if his History (for some make this Hecataeus the Parent of History, and Herodotus to have gleaned from him) was kept incorrupt without mistakes of the Transcribers, and so came to Herodotus his hand, it might have been a safe direction touching the years of Darius his Reign. But Thomas Lydiat conceits, that the carelessness of the Scribes may have writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it being but the change of one letter. And truly if it was verbatim in Hecataeus, as Herodotus sets it down, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, had it been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being of such a full and swelling sound and sense, and that which immediately followed it [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] so little, lank and dwindling, the drowsy fancy of the Scribe might heedlessly suggest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and being too lazy to mend it, or too mindless to observe the error, pass it glibly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Such a slight Salvo as this, is more for the credit of Herodotus, than to fancy that he would willingly produce the Reign of Darius about five years longer than in truth it was, that he might give him room enough to make vast preparations for War against the Greeks after his defeat at Marathon, and so have occasion to bring in the pretty story of Demaratus assisting Xerxes in his pleading for Succession in the Kingdom, that his Father Darius, as the Persian use is, would declare him his Successor, himself being now to go out suddenly on a foreign Expedition; and that in the heat of all these things, and vast preparations, and eager purpose of revenging himself on his Enemies, and recovering his Credit, he might die just in the very nick of time, when he intended to have strutted out with a mighty Army, and achieved glorious Exploits. What can be better contrived for the moving of passion in the Reader, which is the pleasure of History? And Herodotus may well seem to be the very Homer of Historians, and that his nine Books are not named after the Names of the nine Muses for nothing. And Harpocration or Aelius would easily surmise so: and Gerard Vossius tells us that Strabo's judgement is, that this was the scope of Herodotus his writing,  Poetarum modo oblectaret lectorem suum, atque eam esse causam cur multa asperserit à fide aliena. And he has given us a Specimen of his Art and Cunning, in adding five years to Darius his Reign, wherein nothing was done, no Expeditions actually undertaken against foreign Nations; but only, as he is pleased to feign, huge preparations made, whereby this figment of his five years longer reigning, than Ctesias Cnidius makes him, was the less liable to discovery. For if there had been a War actually made against any Foreign people, it would have been noted amongst them who it was that made the War, Darius or his Son Xerxes; but this not being to be done, it made him the more secure in his witty fiction.  
Wherefore it is apparent, that the Authority of Ctesias is to be preferred before Herodotus' in this point; It comporting also so well with the Epocha of Artaxerxes Longimanus' Reign, which unless it be fixed in the second year of the 77. Olympiad, the Epocha of Daniel's Weeks cannot commence with the twentieth of Artaxerxes, which is above demonstrated, must be the true Epocha of the Weeks. Whence we must conclude by the second Postulatum, that as to the years of Darius his Reign, Ctesias, who makes them thirty one years, is nearer the right than Herodotus that makes them thirty six.   

CHAP. VI A passage in the Proem of Thucydides compared with Ctesias to prove, that Darius died after the Pugna Marathonia. The Suffrage of Georgius Syncellus to the same purpose. The same thing proved out of the Chronicon Marmoreum Arundelianum. The Authenticness and genuineness of Themistocles his Epistle to Polygnotus. It is clear out of this Epistle, that Themistocles his flight was near the contermination of Xerxes his Death, and Artxerxes succeeding him. Themistocles 's speed to the Persian Court so soon as he got into Asia. A passage or two in the abovesaid Epistle that clearly demonstrate, that it was Artaxerxes that Themistocles conferred with, his Father Xerxes being dead. The ample consent of Testimonies to this Truth.  
BUT to let go the use of that mawling Engine for the present, I will add some few Proofs more out of humane Authority, such as occur in Thomas Lydiat's Canon's Chronici. Where first he alleges that passage in Thucydides in the very Proem of his Book, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that is, Paulóque ante Medicum bellum, ac Darii mortem, qui post Cambysen regnum Persarum obtinuit, etc. Where he argues from Thucydides his immediately joining the Death of Darius with the Pugna Marathonia, where the Persians were quite overthrown and vanquished, that Darius his death must be dependent upon this, and that he survived but a very little while that great defeat given him and his Army, as Ctesias relates the story, that after he had returned into Persia from that Expedition, he fell sick, and lay by it some thirty days, and so died after he had reigned thirty one years; which therefore must needs be presently after the Pugna Marathonia.  
And the ill success of that War, which Thomas Lydiat notes in the second place, is thought by some to have broke his heart, which is an easy and natural conjecture. And Georgius Syncellus, a Greek Historian, who lived in the time of Constantinus and Irene, whether upon the Authority of Ctesias Cnidius or Dinon, or some other, even of those Greek Historians that declare, that Themistocles his communication was with Xerxes (for by reason of the nearness of Themistocles his flight to the contermination of Xerxes his Death and succeeding of Artaxerxes, that is consistent enough) does not only relate, that after some days sickness upon his return into Persia, Darius died after he had reigned thirty years: But he adds further, that Cladis contumeliam indignè ferens, animo dolore exulcerato, occubuit. Scaliger indeed crows over this Georgius Syncellus for committing several and some gross mistakes in Chronology, but so Petavius does over Scaliger, as well as Georgius Syncellus over Eusebius (as Gerard Vossius tells us) and that rudely enough; but withal Vossius confesses, Syncellum saepe meritò ab Eusebio dissentire.  
Thirdly, Out of the Chronicon Marmoreum Arundelianum he alleges, that on one Marble there is an Inscription that records the Battle at Marathon betwixt the Athenians and Persians to have been such an one being Archon at Athens, but the name itself, the Marble being injured by time, is defaced. But what follows, is, that there was another of that name heretofore Archon, namely Phanippus, as will appear out of Plutarch. For the same Marble tells, that Darius died, and his Son Xerxes succeeded him that year that Aristides was Archon. Now therefore out of Aristides' Life in Plutarch, where it is expressly said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (That after Phanippus, in whose time the Athenians won the Battle at Marathon, Aristides was presently made Archon) he rightly infers, that Darius died a little after his return into Persia from the War against the Greeks; And did not survive five years after it, as Herodotus would make us believe he did. For he shows also, that Phanippus was Archon the first year of the 48. Olympiad, as the Marble intimates, there was one of the same Name Archon heretofore that he was of, that was Archon when the Marathonian Battle was fought. So tightly do all things agree.  
Fourthly and lastly, That Themistocles came to Artaxerxes, not to Xerxes (as Thucydides also expressly relates, that after he arrived into Asia, he wrote a Letter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To King Artaxerxes the Son of Xerxes newly reigning, or newly begun to reign. Which shows, that Darius died what time Ctesias and the Chronicon Marmoreum relate he did) he proves from a plain Narrative, where there is no mention of any vociferant Ecstatical Olbius, or any Divinatory Dream of a Dragon, Eagle and golden Caduceum; but it is an unaffected story of his Exile, and his Arrival into Persia, his Communication with the King, and the success thereof written by Themistocles his own hand in a Letter to Polygnotus, his intimate Friend, after his return from the Persian Court, and his Residence near the Seacoasts in the Prefecture of Artabazus in the lesser Asia. Which Letter, as I said, is written with that unaffectedness and punctualness withal, and so consentaneously to the true Chronology of Gelo's Reign, and the Succession of his Brother Hiero, which Thomas Lydiat had tightly made out in a single Diatriba of his about that matter, before he met with Themistocles his Epistles, or the Chronicon Marmoreum, that whatever may be thought of the eleventh Epistle, which is to Leaguer (which is filled with abundance of Wit and Rhetoric and ranting Passion in it; besides, that it makes as if there were intercourse of Letters betwixt the Persian King and Themistocles while he was at Ephesus where he first landed) this Epistle as well as any of the others, and it is unlikely but that there were several Epistles written by so great a Man in such exigencies of affairs, and that the Nobleness of his Person, and greatness of his Fame, would make men careful to preserve them; this Epistle, I say, must needs be genuine.  
But in this unexceptionable Epistle it is clear, that the flight of Themistocles was near the contermination of Xerxes' death, and Artaxerxes' succeeding him. For so soon as he was got to Ephesus, there, says he, I found certain Persians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Garrison-Souldiers of Caria, whom Artabazus had placed there. And now, says he, I could safely make known who I was, even to Xerxes; which shows plainly, that at first he took Xerxes to be still alive; but being better informed by the Soldiers, he holds on, and speaks more cautiously, and says I told them my Name, and said, I came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to do great service to the King's house, that is, to his Family or Offspring. These Soldiers, says he, told Artabazus what I said, and they led me to the Phrygians, for Artabazus was in Phrygia, who when he heard the rest from myself, and my purpose of going to the King (and certainly there was but one King then) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he liked my design, and sent me away forthwith, and bestows on me two Horses and two Servants, besides that he appointed thirteen Persians, to whom were committed the care of conducting him, and providing all necessaries, as he went, for his journey.  
What a plain and unaffected an account is this of Themistocles his own, in comparison of that which I briefly above recited out of Plutarch; but both concur in this, that he hasted away presently (assoon as he arrived into Asia) unto the Persian Court, which is the thing I drove at then, and note here again; That no slippery Wit may pretend, that though Themistocles' flight indeed was the second year of the 77. Olympiad, yet there may be some years before he came to the Persian Court; and though it was Artaxerxes that he then addressed to, yet it does not follow, that Xerxes died in the second year of the abovesaid Olympiad. But as it is plain out of Thucydides, that Xerxes was dead in this very year of Themistocles' flight, so it is more manifest still out of this Epistle of Themistocles to Polygnotus.  
In which he writes thus, a little after he has given a brief description of the Journey he had. And at last, says he, we finished our Journey, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and we came to the King, whither we hasted. If there had been two Kings then reigning, Xerxes and Artaxerxes his Son, certainly he would have intimated so much; and if there were, yet he not giving notice to the contrary, Xerxes the Father must necessarily be understood by the King here. And then consider what sense that Saying of the King to him will have. Art thou the Themistocles which the Medes say, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to have been the cause, that neither I nor my Father became Masters of the Greeks, or Masters of Greece. What, does the King when he says, [my Father] mean Darius Hystaspis? No surely, he means Xerxes, as is manifest from Themistocles his Answer. Wherein he recounts what service he did Xerxes in hastening his Navy to Salamis, and after in dissuading the Greeks from cutting the Bridge over the Hellespont, on purpose that Xerxes might safely escape. Wherefore it is as clear as the Sun, that Xerxes was dead that year when Themistocles fled to the Persian Court; and consequently that the Reign of Artaxerxes gins in the second year of the 77. Olympiad, viz. six years sooner than the vulgar Chronologers place it, who pretend it began not till the fourth year of the 78. Olympiad.  
This is no rash Assertion, nor destitute of History, but a solid Truth, confirmed by the Authority of Charon Lampsacenus, of Thucydides, of Ctesias Cnidius, nay, of Diodorus Siculus by undeniable consequence) of Chronicon Marmoreum, of Plutarch, of Cornelius Nepos, and of Themistocles in his Epistle to Polygnotus, and of Georgius Syncellus, to omit other judicious Historians of later times.   

CHAP. VII. An Answer to a notable Objection fetched out of Ptolemy 's Canon. Of the Authority and Antiquity of that Canon. That it is looked upon as considerable by all Chronologers: But so, as that both Scaliger and Petavius acknowledge an uncertainty and disputableness in some particular Kings Reigns, though the sum of years from Nabonassar to the Death of Alexander, is of all hands held to be right. That careless Transcribers, or partial Correctors of the Canon, in favour of Herodotus, or of the Canon itself, may have added faults thereunto. Ptolemy not concerned in those Miscorrections, they not happening in the years the Eclipses are set down in, which reach but to the 31 of Darius Primus. The other Eclipses noted are affixed to the Archons of Athens. The Royal Records of the Persian Kings, which Ctesias had the use of, preferable to Ptolemy 's Canon in the present Controversy. That Ptolemy, notwithstanding his skill in Astronomy, might after Herodotus be involved in that vulgar Error touching the years of Darius Primus his Reign. The Application of the second Postulatum to the case. The intricateness of Records that concern the right Epocha of Daniel's Weeks, how consistent with Providence.  
BUT the most terrible Argument against this so sound a Truth is the Canon of Ptolemy, which Petavius and others have taken notice of, and which assigns thirty six years to Darius Hystaspis. As for the Antiquity of it, I find neither in Petavius, nor Scaliger, nor Calvisius, (for it is not a Canon made, but only made use of by Ptolemy, it was extant long before his time) any thing said thereof. But that which is most probable, and may make most for the Credit of it, may be this surmise, That some Greek Virtuoso that accompanied Alexander in his Expedition against the Persians, either to satisfy his own curiosity, or the curiosity of some Friend, got this Canon of the Successions of the Kings of Babylon. Which all Historians and Chronologers look upon as a considerable and useful Record.  
But suppose it exact and right at first, yet the injury of time, and negligence of Scribes, may well have much corrupted it, though Scaliger will scarce allow it was right at first. For in the third Book of his Canon's Isagogici he calls it indeed Egregium Vetustatis Monumentum, if it had been incontaminate. Sed vanidica, says he, & futilis Genethliacorum Natio regum quidem ipsorum memoriam fideliter conservavit, annos verò eorum foedissimè conturbavit. And he acknowledges, as Petavius and other Chronologers do, that the sum of the years from the beginning of the Reign of Nabonassar to the Death of Alexander the Great, viz. 424 years, is right, however the years of the Reign of some particular Kings may be uncertain and disputable. The very words of Petavius in his De doctrina Temporum, lib. 3. cap. 52. concerning the Canon Mathematicus Babyloniorum Regum, as it is there styled, out of Georgius Syncellus, I suppose, he says, that though the sum of the Anni collecti be right, In aliis tamen quibusdam mendosus est Canon, quòd sigillatim propriis locis constabit. And so both he and Scaliger make no bones of mending the Canon out of Berosus and such like Historians wherever they conceive it faulty.  
And can we persuade ourselves, besides what the injury of time may have done, and the carelessness of Transcribers, that long before Ptolemy's Age, ignorance and partiality of busy Correctors of this Babylonish Canon, may not have added some faults to it, and so they presuming upon the Authority of that Father of History Herodotus that adds five years more to Darius Hystaspis his Reign than is due, when the ancient Canon had but thirty one, that they may not have made bold to make it thirty six, either to save the credit of Herodotus, or of the Canon itself, that it might not seem to contradict the Authority of that Father of History? Some bold Greek that had to do with this Canon, might very early make this false correction, and that the sum of the years might not be disturbed, whenas Artaxerxes Longimanus reigned 46 years, make him reign but forty one.  
Nor does this Error passing the hands of Ptolemy even in that most correct MS. of this Canon that Dr. Overall, Dean of Paul's, sent to Calvisius, and which he has inserted into his Isagoge Chronologica, afford any credit to it, as to be therefore concluded a Truth. Forasmuch as none of his Eclipses he takes notice of, are found in any of those five affictitious years which Herodotus has clapped to the Reign of Darius the First. For there is no more than two Eclipses noted in the Reign of Darius Primus, one in the twentieth year of his Reign, the other in the thirty first. Wherefore whether there were five years more of his Reign or no, Ptolemy was little concerned, he fixing the Observations of Eclipses recorded not further to the Reign of any Persian Kings than so.  
He does indeed take notice of other Eclipses that fell within the Reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon or Artaxerxes Secundus, but he fixes them to the year of no Persian King, but to the Archons of Athens, as he finds them set down by Hipparchus, two while Phanostratus was Archon in the year of Nabonassar 366. another while Evander in the year 367.  
Wherefore upon the whole matter, though this Canon of Ptolemy makes such a noise, especially that of the most correct Edition which Calvisius has put out, inserting it in his Isagoge; yet, I think, if one rattle the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Royal Parchments or Authentic Rolls of the Kings of Persia, in which the Persians by a Law were obliged to record the ancient Acts of their Princes (which Ctesias Cnidius, as Diodorus takes notice, had the use of, living in the quality of a Physician in Artaxerxes Mnemons' Court seventeen years together, and so had the opportunity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, accurately and particularly to set down every thing) I say, if one rattle the Royal Rolls of Parchment against the noise of Ptolemy's Canon, I think it may justly silence the loudness thereof, and make any impartial person give credit to Ctesias, who says, Darius Hystaspis reigned but thirty one years, rather than to Ptolemy's Canon, which pretends he reigned thirty six. And yet I will not deny but that Ptolemy might adjust that Canon as near to the truth as his judgement would reach. For though Astronomy may certainly inform us, by virtue of Eclipses, touching the distance of the years of Nabonassar, whether such an Eclipse in such a year of Nabonassar be consistent with such an Eclipse in such a year, at such a distance; yet it is History only that can adjust rightly the end and beginnings of Kings Reigns within that Interval. And therefore notwithstanding Ptolemy's skill in Astronomy, he might with the rest, after Herodotus, be involved in that vulgar Error.  
And lastly, besides all this, according to the second Postulatum, Ctesias pronouncing consonantly to the Divine Oracles, which, as I have above proved, we can make no sense of, unless the twentieth of Artaxerxes be the Epocha of Daniel's Weeks, we are in all reason to subscribe to Ctesias. For Ptolemy's Canon, though it be called Canon Mathematicus, yet it is no Canonical Scripture, nor must vie with those infallible Oracles of holy Writ.  
It may seem a great flaw in Providence to some, that the true Epocha of a Prophecy of so mighty importance, as this of Daniel's Weeks, should be involved in so much obscurity and perplexedness, by reason of the clashing of the most famous Histories and Records one with another, that are proper for the settling of this point. But if we more narrowly and seriously consider the matter, this which thus rashly is accounted a flaw, will prove an argument of a more accurate and punctual Providence of God over the Affairs of his Church, and that he permits nothing to fall out that would turn so much to their detriment, as this is conceived to do. Wherefore, I say, there was an egregious usefulness of letting the knowledge of the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks become so exceeding obscure and intricate. For thereby, first, the Faith and Spirit of discernment in the Church had the better scope to be exercised at the appearance of imposturous Messias', and the unbelieving Jews justly left the more obnoxious to those Delusions.  
Besides, if the true Epocha had been then easily discoverable by humane helps, it had been such a forcible conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, that the Jews could not have had the confidence to crucify him, or when they had crucified him, not presently to have acknowledged their mistake, and been universally converted to the Faith, and so put abundance of the ancient Prophecies at a loss for a true and genuine Interpretation and Impletion.  
And lastly, Christ's offering himself to John to be baptised in that very nick of time that this Prophecy of Daniel points at, numbering the Weeks from the true Epocha, no humane helps being then able to discover it, least of all any humane Literature of Jesus the Carpenter's Son, we may be sure it was by Divine Inspiration that he came to John to be baptised in that year of his Ministry that he did, it lasting, as will be proved, about four years together. He was merely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 driven by the Divine Spirit to receive his Baptism then. Which consideration is wanting to that vulgar Opinion that pinches up the Baptism of Christ into the very first year of John's Ministry. But Jesus being once thus, by the Instigation of the Spirit, baptised by John, then even from the Prophecy itself he might collect what year he was to suffer in, he being in the midst of that week (which commenced with his Manifestation) to make the Jewish Sacrifices to cease by the Sacrifice of Himself on the Cross. Which retaining in his memory, that he might not frustrate the Prediction, he in a voluntary compliance therewith, spoke his present mind, Joh. 7. Go ye up unto this feast, I go not up unto this feast, for my time is not yet full come. For he knew the Jews had a mind to kill him, but he would not be killed before his time, but comply with the Prophecy. Wherefore whereas he went after unto the Feast, he did it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there being after given him an inspired assurance that they should not touch him at that time; as it is said, Chap. 8. v. 20. These words spoke Jesus in the Treasury as he taught in the Temple, and no man laid hands on him, for his hour was not yet come, viz. the middle Day of the last week of the seventy Weeks of Daniel. And this I think is enough to vindicate Providence from any flaw in permitting such an almost inextricable difficulty for a time to adhere to the Investigation of the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks. Which same, Providence however, now in this last Age wherein the Prophet has predicted that knowledge shall abound, has been pleased to discover with a more perfect understanding also of the rest of the Prophecies of Daniel.   

CHAP. VIII. The necessary Consequences from the discovery of the right year of the beginning of Artaxerxes his Reign, viz. the second year of the 77. Olympiad. (1) That the twentieth which is the first year of the 82. Olympiad, is the true Epocha of Daniel 's Weeks. (2) That the Weeks end in the second year of Caligula 's Reign. (3) That Christ suffered in the twenty second year of Tiberius. (4) That his Manifestation as the Messiah was in the nineteenth of Tiberius. (5) That he was born L. Aelius Lamia and M. Servilius Geminus being Consuls. These four last point, to be proved ordine retrogrado by History and Reason. That there is no more violence done by Tho. Lydiat 's placing the Nativity of Christ two years later than the Dionysian account, than by Scaliger 's placing it two years' sooner, nor so much as by Suslyga and Kepler 's placing it four or five years' sooner than Dionysius.  
BUT having thus clearly and irrefragably made out, that the beginning of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus was in the second year of the 77. Olympiad, the 277. of Nabonassar, and the 4243. of the Julian Period, whence the twentieth of Artaxerxes (which is the only true and genuine Epocha of Daniel's Weeks) is found to be in the first year of the 82. Olympiad, and the 296. of Nabonassar, or the 4262. of the Julian Period, we are now to take notice what will be the consequence, viz. That first it will necessarily follow, that the last year of Daniel's Weeks will be in the second year of the 204. Olympiad, the 785. of Nabonassar, and the 4751. of the Julian Period, that is to say, The Weeks will end in the second year of Caligula's Reign, according to Helvicus. Secondly, in virtue of the Prophecy of Daniel, which tells us, that the Messiah, by his Sacrifice upon the Cross, shall null the Judaic Sacrifices, and that in the midst of this last Week, precisely taking it for the middle of the Week, it hence follows, that Christ suffered in the 4748. year of the Julian Period, that is, in the 22d year of the Reign of Tiberius. And thirdly, partly because the Prophecy says he will confirm a Covenant with many this one Week, in the midst of which he died, whence his own personal Ministration can be but three years and an half; and partly, because it is said in the Prophecy, that to Messiah the Prince, viz. his Manifestation was seven weeks and sixty two, that is to say, sixty nine weeks or 483 years, which 483 years from the Epocha, (the Decree which went out the twentieth of Artaxerxes in the month Nisan) reach to the 4745. year of the Julian Period, we are to conclude, that the Messiah was manifested in the nineteenth of Tiberius, in which year Christ was baptised by John, the Holy Ghost descending upon him in the shape of a Dove, and a Voice from Heaven saying unto him, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased, Luke 3.22.  
This is the Manifestation of the Messiah made in the 4745. year of the Julian Period, and in the nineteenth year of the Reign of Tiberius. At what time the Evangelist, in the forecited place, expressly says, that Jesus was about thirty years old, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, entering then upon his Ministry. From whence last it follows, if we reckon thirty years backward, that Christ was born in the 4716. year of the Julian Period, that is to say, in the Consulship of Lucius Aelius Lamia and M. Servilius Geminus, as Thomas Lydiat contends he was.  
These things may seem Paradoxes to such as have not impartially and carefully considered the matter, but they are genuine and necessary Confectaries from the admission of that only true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus, beginning his Reign in the second year of the 77. Olympiad, not the first of the 79. But now if these seeming Paradoxes, shall be also in several countenanced and confirmed by authentic History and Reason, or both, what can we require more for the certainty, assuring us, that this is the true Chronological account of this Prophecy of Daniel, and as assured an Account as can be had of any thing in History and Chronology that ever was put to question.  
Though we went in a Retrograde Order before, we will begin now first with the first, and propose what is said for proof, that Christ was born in the Consulship of L. Aelius Lamia and M. Servilius Geminus, or in the 4716. year of the Julian Period: which is two years later than Dionysius, or the vulgar Account places the Nativity of our Saviour. Which yet is no more Paradoxical than Scaliger's placing it two years' sooner, nor so much as Laurentius Suslygas and Johannes Kepler's their placing it, the one four years, the other five years' sooner than Dionysius. Whence Tho. Lydiat had the more injury done him from those that received his Paradox with so much rudeness and incivility. But how he maintains it, let us now consider.   

CHAP. IX. That Christ was born four years before the death of Herod, according to Epiphanius and Sulpitius Severus. That Herod died, Metellus and Nerva being Consuls, proved out of Josephus, which is just four years after the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus. That it is most certain that Herod was but betwixt fifteen and sixteen years of Age when he was made Perfect of Galilee, and ridiculous to think that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] was writ for [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] by the negligence of the Scribe. A full Answer to the passage of Josephus. A difficult knot not otherwise to be untied, than by supposing two Epocha's of Herod 's Reign, the latter when he was restored to his forfeited Kingdom by Augustus. The fitness and necessity of this solution, a further Argument that Herod died in the Consulship of Metellus and Nerva. Reasons to prove this latter Epocha. And that it was his chief Epocha, and most affected by Herod. That Eusebius makes use of this Epocha. And also Epiphanius, as likewise the ancient Graeci Fasti. That computing from this Epocha, Herod 's 37 years' Reign reaches to Nerva and Metellus, and that consequently Christ's Birth is in the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus.  
THE first Point is made out thus. First, from the Authority of the most ancient Fathers, he proves that Christ was born four years before the Death of Herod. This Epiphanius says more than once: first in these words. Servator in triginta & septem annis principatus ipsius Herodis puer erat quatuor annorum, quando Herodes impletis annis triginta septem vitam finivit. And then in another place: Tricesimo tertio anno Herodis nascitur Christus Dominus, tricesimo quinto venerunt Magi, tricesimo septimo mortuus est Herodes. And Sulpicius Severus as expressly writes thus: Sub hoc Herode anno imperii ejus tertio & tricesimo Christus natus est, etc. herod's post Nativitatem Domini regnavit annos quatuor. I omit to add what he brings out of Eusebius, that being more operose and involved. But this is a fair Testimony of the most ancient Fathers, who, one would think, the best knew what the Tradition was, nor did any within the first 500 years, as T. L. alleges, define what year of Herod Christ was born, but these. See the first Chapter of his Recensio.  
Wherefore the main business is now to inquire when Herod died. And according to the Testimony of the  Fathers, if Christ was born, Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus being Consuls, Herod must die in the Consulship of Metellus and Nerva; for that is four years after the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus. And that he died then, first is manifestly proved out of Josephus, that tells us more than once, that Herod, when he died, was about seventy years old. And the same Author says expressly, that when he was made Perfect of Galilee by Antipater his Father, Antiq. Jud. lib. 14. cap. 17. this Charge was conferred upon him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when he was extremely young, he having arrived only to fifteen years of Age. Now this Prefecture was bestowed upon him in the year of the Consulship of Calenus and Vatinius, in which Julius Caesar having dispatched the Alexandrian War in Egypt, made Antipater, for his good Service done, Perfect of Judaea. Wherefore reckon now in Helvicus all the Consulates from Calenus and Vatinius to Metellus and Nerva inclusively, and you will find them to be fifty four. And whereas Josephus saith, that Herod was arrived to no more years than fifteen, let us but suppose him betwixt fifteen and sixteen (which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the Preterpluperfect tense, does plainly imply) when he was made Perfect of Galilee by his Father, and add these years to the fifty four, and we shall come, I trow, very near to seventy years. And Josephus himself does not say absolutely that he lived to the seventieth year of his Age, but in one place that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Antiq. Jud. lib. 17. cap. 8. And Bell. Jud. lib. 1. cap. 21. that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, about the seventieth year, and near seventy years. And so he is, I think, that has arrived to the sixty ninth year of his Age.  
We see therefore how well this passage of Josephus suits with the placing of the Nativity of our Saviour in the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus. Nor is there any evasion out of this clear proof, that is worth the taking notice of. For in vain do they pretend that it is a lapse of the Scribe, and that it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. twenty five, not fifteen. Whenas Photius in his Bibliotheca, not in figures, but in words, declares expressly, that his Age was fifteen years. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And let any one judge how the perusing of the business in Josephus can suit with such a fond conceit, when he says that Herod was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, excessively young, as if he were a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Chick newly come out of the shell, as the Saying is; and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again argues the paucity of his years, that they were but betwixt fifteen and sixteen. For how absurdly would it run, if it were twenty five: He was excessively young, being twenty five years of Age; but his youngness, saith Josephus, was no hindrance to him, because he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of a manly mind or courage, and quickly took occasion to give a Specimen of his Valour, in apprehending that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Arch-Thief or Robber Ezechias, that infested the Borders of Syria; but Herod being but a Stripling of twenty five years old, accompanied with part of the Militia of Galilee, took the Knave, and slew him, with others of his thieving Companions. Is not this an Exploit indeed to argue one of twenty five years old to have parts and courage beyond the pitch of his Age? Whenas Augustus, when he was but nineteen years of Age, or thereabout, applied himself to Civil and Military Affairs, (so speaks the Monumentum Ancyranum for him, Annos undeviginti natus exercitum privato consilio privatâque impensâ comparavi) was one of the Triumvirs Reipublicae constituendae with M. Antony and Lepidus, and had made himself Master of Spain by that time he was twenty five years old. And Alexander the Great, besides what he did in his Father Philip's time, (for when he was but sixteen years old, he overthrew certain Thracians bordering on Macedonia, which had revolted while his Father was absent in his War against the Byzantines, took their City, expelled the Barbarians, and let it to others, and called it Alexandropolis after his own Name. And when he was eighteen years old, in a Battle with his Father against the Greeks at Chaeronea, he quit himself as well as Philip himself, or any Commander in the Army) besides these Exploits, I say, when he succeeded his Father, being then but twenty years old, and entering upon a very disturbed Kingdom; yet he did not only compose all at home amongst the Greeks, but in the second year of his Reign undertook his Expedition into Asia, vanquished Darius, and made himself Master of the Persian Empire by that time he was twenty five years old. So ridiculous is it to fancy that Josephus set down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the oscitancy of the Scribe had changed the Kappa into an jota. For it was no strange thing to Josephus that Herod should be fit for such a Province at fifteen years of Age, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he speaks of him, Bell. Jud. lib. 1. cap. 8. being of a mighty active Genius, which property is suitable enough with such an Age, when he was conscious to himself that he had that ripeness of Wit and Parts, that when he was but fourteen years old, the Chief Priests and Elders of the City would come and consult him touching the sense of their Law, as he tells us in his Life writ by himself.  
This Point therefore is very clear, that Herod was but betwixt fifteen and sixteen years old when his Father Antipater made him Perfect of Galilee. Nor is that little surmise of any validity, which is drawn from that passage in Josephus, Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 23. where M. Antony is said to constitute Antipater's two Sons, Phasaelus and Herod Tetrarches of Judaea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will signify no more than [having a peculiar kindness for them] which was upon the score of their Father, whose house Antonius and Gabinius had been at, and were freely received there, when Gabinius was Perfect of Syria. This passage does not so much as imply Herod born then, much less that Antonius had contracted any friendship or familiarity with Herod at that time, whereby they would conclude him of a greater Age than fifteen when his Father made him Perfect of Galilee. And that it was not upon the account of any acquaintance with them, but his friendship and familiarity with Antipater their Father, which made him the more willing to make them Tetrarches of Judaea, is further confirmed from Josephus his telling the same story, Bell. Jud. lib. 1. cap. 10. where this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is omitted, and instead thereof Antonius is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hospes eorum paternus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, friendly and benignly received by their Father Antipater; which might be properly said, though the two Sons were yet unborn, and yet they were both in being at that time when Gabinius was Perfect of Syria.  
But in the mean time it is passed all doubt with me, that Herod was not more than betwixt fifteen and sixteen years old, when his Father made him Perfect of Galilee. He was, suppose, in the sixteenth year of his Age. From whence it follows, that he was not passing twenty two when he was made King of Judaea by M. Antony and the Senate, which was in the fourth year of the 184. Olympiad. And the consequence of this is, that he was not passing fifty nine years when he died; his Reign, both according to Josephus himself and the ancient Father's , being only thirty seven years. So that he died in the first year of the 194. Olympiad, and according to the Tradition of those Fathers that say, Christ was born before Herod's death, Christ must be born in the first year of the 193. Olympiad, that is, eight years sooner than the Dionysian Account has it. Wherefore, that Josephus may not contradict himself, who expressly says in more places than one, that Herod lived about seventy years of Age, nor those Fathers speak so extravagantly touching the Nativity of Christ, were it not desirable that there were two Epocha's of Herod's Reign, to see if that will not untie this difficult knot? And most certainly there is another notorious Epocha, when Herod having forfeited his Crown and Kingdom, by taking part with M. Antony against Augustus, he was created King anew by the favour of Augustus and the Senate presently after the Victoria Actiaca, viz. in the second year of the 187. Olympiad, and in the thirty second year of Herod's Age, according to the above-framed Compute out of Josephus. Reckon from this Epocha, which is the 4683. of the Julian Period, to the Consulate of Nerva and Metellus, and in that year Herod's sixty nine years of Age, and thirty seven years of his Reign, will end together. And the ancient Father's Credit, which make Christ born four years before Herod's Death, will thus be salved, and Josephus made to speak consistently to himself, that gives about seventy years of Age to Herod, but only 37 years to his Reign, though he makes him but betwixt fifteen and sixteen years old when his Father Antipater appointed him Perfect of Galilee.  
Now this happy Hit and handsome Congruity and well According of such clashing Chronological Assertions, may well alone be an Argument, that this year of the Victoria Actiaca, wherein Augustus did as it were of anew create Herod King of Judaea, were the Epocha of his Reign ever after used in his Public Acts and Records. Which therefore will be another strong proof that Herod died in the Consulship of Metellus and Nerva, and consequently that Christ was born four years before in the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus, according to the Doctrine of the  Fathers.  
Certainly if there was ever good occasion for two several Epocha's of one King's Reign, it was here. For Herod having forfeited his Crown and Life too, to Augustus, by his siding with M. Antony against him, and there being a new Creation, as it were, of Herod, and restoring of him to the Crown, what greater occasion can there be given than this (he beginning, as it were, the World again upon a new account) for a new Epocha of his Reign. This was a more surprising Change than Sosius his taking Jerusalem, and Antonius his slaying of Antigonus, that the Kingdom might be made more sure to Herod, who was made King by the Roman Senate four years before; and yet Josephus himself, Antiq. Jud. lib. 15. cap. 7. makes his getting possession of Jerusalem and slaughter of Antigonus, which Herod procured, one Epocha of his Reign, expressly there affirming, that the Fight at Actium betwixt Caesar and Antonius, was in the seventh year of Herod, which is downright false, unless you number from that later Epocha.  
Well therefore may this restitution of Herod to his Crown, after he had forfeited all, become the more solemn Epocha of the years of his Reign; and well may he be thought to affect that Epocha, the more to ingratiate himself with his great Patron Augustus, signifying thereby, that only now at length he was rightfully King, since he received his Kingdom from Augustus, the sole legitimate Prince of the Roman Empire. Whenas on the other side, if he had continued to reckon his Reign from the time he was made King by the favour of M. Antony, Augustus his Enemy, he might still seem to favour the Cause of Antonius, and insinuate Augustus his War against him to have been unjust, and soil the Glory of the Actiacal Victory. That also he might please himself in, and applaud his Politic modesty, that he would not have his Reign to commence higher than the Monarchy of Augustus, which began with the Actiacal Victory. And certainly he would think it a piece of impudence in himself, if he should have suffered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Josephus speaks, a day of Inauguration into his Kingdom, which was annually solemnised by him to be done in Honour to M. Antony, and not solely to Augustus. Whence it will naturally follow, that it was in reference to the time that he was made King by him, and so this became a most celebrated Epocha. This is highly credible, if not necessary and certain, if we consider how Herod did all things with all the studiousness imaginable to get and keep the favour of Augustus, adventuring rather to entrench upon the Sacred customs of his Religion, than to omit any thing whereby to curry favour with that Emperor, that gave him, after the Forfeiture, both his Life and Crown at once. And lastly, others may add to all this, Hyrcanus who had an hereditary Right to the Crown, being at the same time taken out of the way, this Epocha upon that account also is most perfect and most proper.  
And now as this is most reasonable in itself, so Authors are found to begin the Reign of Herod from this Epocha, as well as from his being made King by M. Antony and the Senate, or from the Death of Antigonus. As Writers also make use of those various Epocha's of Augustus his Reign, sometimes reckoning it from the Consulship of Hirtius and Pansa, Anno Juliano 13. sometimes from that of Pulcher and Flaccus, An. Jul. 8. and other sometimes from Victoria Actiaca, An. Jul. 15. and lastly, sometimes from the time he accepted of the Sacrosanct Supreme Tribunitial Power, An. Jul. 23. or in Calphurnius Piso's, and his own eleventh Consulship.  
Eusebius more than once makes Herod's being constituted King of Judaea by Augustus and the Roman Senate, the Epocha of his Reign. For lib. 8. Demonstrationis Evangelicae, Demonst. 1. There he says, Herod first of any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being an Alien from the Jewish race, was by Augustus and the Roman Senate made King of the Jews. Where therefore he plainly pitches the Epocha, or the beginning of his Reign, on that time that Augustus his Monarchy began, which was upon the vanquishing of M. Antony in the Fight at Actium.  
And again, Demonstrat. 2. he joins Herod's Reign and the Monarchy of Augustus together, as commencing at the same time. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But most express in the same Demonstration some pages after: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. After whom, viz. after Hyrcanus, Herod the Son of Antipater, having slain Hyrcanus, obtained the Kingdom of the Jews, from the Senate of Rome. Wherefore it is plain, that Eusebius makes use of this third Epocha of the Reign of Herod, letting that from Antigonus his death, and his first being made King by the favour of Antony, alone.  
Epiphanius also plainly points at this Epocha in his 51. Heresy, which he calls, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Num. 22. where he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It was the thirteenth year from Augustus his Reign, viz. from Hirtius and Pansa, till the perfect conjunction of Judaea with the Romans. But he says afterward, that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Coalition was perfected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when the Princes of Juda failed (who ended with the death of Hyrcanus) and Herod of the stock of the Gentiles was constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prince or King of the Jews. Which being done in the thirteenth year of Augustus his Reign from the Consulate of Hirtius and Pansa, it is plain that Epiphanius places the beginning or Epocha of Herod's Reign in the year that Augustus reestablished him in his forfeited Kingdom, by his own Authority and the Suffrage of the Roman Senate.  
And thirdly and lastly, The ancient Graeci Fasti, as T. L. has taken notice, do simply and absolutely refer the beginning of Herod's Reign, together with the slaying of Hyrcanus, to the year of Crassus and Octavius Augustus his being the fourth time Consul a matter of four months after the Victoria Actiaca, and to the eighth year of the Reign of Augustus himself, viz. reckoned from the Consulship of Claudius Pulcher and Norbanus Flaccus; and, says he, they thence compute the Reign of Herod to have been thirty seven years. What can be more plain and express? And what better assurance can a man desire to place the Epocha of Herod's Reign in his immediate succeeding Hyrcanus, or restitution by Augustus, when all things are so fitly adjusted by it, as we noted before?  
Thus we see, that by computing as we ought the thirty seven years Reign of Herod from his Restitution by Augustus, the end of his Reign will fall into the year of Metellus and Nerva; And the Birth of Christ consequently into the year of Lamia and Geminus, which is the thing was aimed at. And the same thing will be brought to pass (which will also further confirm the use of this Epocha in this case) by proving that Herod died in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus.   

CHAP. X. That Herod died in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus, proved from the time of Archelaus his Marriage of Glaphyra. From Dion Cassius his placing Herod 's Sons impleading one another before Augustus in the Consulship of Lepidus and Aruntius. From Quirinius his confiscating Archelaus his Goods, Statilius Taurus and Scribonius Libo being Consuls. A gross Parepochism committed by Josephus. From Philip the Tetrarches dying, Proculus and Nigrinus being Consuls. From Eusebius and Sulpicius 's allotting twenty four years to Herod the Tetrarch after the Relegation of Archelaus, and those twenty four years ending with the fourth of Caius Caligula. From that famous Eclipse of the Moon preceding Herod 's death. A Narrative of Herod 's Affairs corresponding with that Eclipse. That there was such an huge Eclipse about a month before Herod 's Death, in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus, T. L. makes good by Astronomical Calculation. The same Eclipse calculated over again by the Ptolemaick, Alphonsine and Copernican Tables in N. Mulerius, and found rather bigger than what T. L. declares it. The gross absurdity of making the seventh of Artaxerxes the Epocha of Daniel 's Weeks, it implying that Christ was baptised by John, before the Baptist enired on his Ministry. Lydiat 's Eclipse compared with Petavius 's; as also with the Eclipses of the 4711, 4712, and 4713 years of the I. P. And more particularly with that last, and the ineptness thereof discovered. And therefore Herod dying in the year of Lydiat 's Eclipse, Christ must be born, Lamia and Geminus being Consuls.  
THAT Herod died in the Consulship of Metellus and Nerva, which is the 52. Julian year, or the 4720. of the Julian Period, is proved thus. Archelaus enjoyed his Ethnarchy of Judaea after his Father Herod's death, nine years and better, as is manifest out of Josephus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Sulpicius Severus. But the said Archelaus, a little before his Relegation, married Glaphyra, the Widow of Juba, King of Mauritania, as Josephus twice testifies. Whence, till Juba's death, the Exile of Archelaus could not be. But Tho. Lydiat makes it good out of Strabo, that Juba was alive in the first, suppose, or the second year of Tiberius; or if you will, in the Consulate of Statilius Taurus and Scribonius Libo. Before that time Archelaus was not banished. Wherefore he not reigning above nine years and a little more, if we reckon to the ninth Consulate from this backward, we shall fall into that of M. Furius Camillus and Sext. Non. Quintilianus, into which the first year of Archelaus his Reign reaches, and which immediately the Consulate of Metellus and Nerva precedes: And in which therefore Herod died. See T. L. his Recensio, cap. 5.  
Secondly, Dion Cassius in his Roman History in the year of Aemylius Lepidus and Lucius Aruntius Consuls, writes thus. Herodes Palaestinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being accused by his Brethren, was banished beyond the Alps, and part of his Dition laid to the Public. Dion indeed here, either for brevity sake, or out of ignorance, joins the Banishment of these Brethren close to their impleading one another before Augustus, presently upon their Father Herod's death; but in that he makes this impleading, which is at large described in Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. 17. cap. 11. in the year of Aemylius Lepidus and Lucius Aruntius; this joins it very near to the time of Herod's death, which we contend for. For the Consulate of Lepidus and Aruntius immediately precedes that of Metellus and Nerva. So that from this otherwise confused passage, there is some glimmerings of this great Truth.  
Thirdly, Josephus tells us, Antiq. Jud. lib. 18. cap. 3. that Quirinius, in execution of the Tax that was concluded on, in the 37. year after Augustus his Victory over M. Antony at Actium, sold and confiscated the Goods of Archelaus. Now, as Suetonius notes in his Life, cap. 27. Censum populi ter egit Augustus, primum & tertium cum Collega, medium solus. This Collega or Yoke-fellow in Office was Tiberius in the third Tax, which must necessarily be here meant, Herod being alive in the two former. But this third was even in the very close of Augustus his days, who died, Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius being Consuls: But as T. L. makes out by History (see his Recensio, cap. 15.) was executed in the Consulship of Statilius Taurus and Scribonius Libo. Wherefore Quirinius confiscating Archelaus his Goods in that year, it is an Argument that then was the time of his Relegation, which is a matter of nine or ten years from the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus: whence again it is manifest, that Herod died when they two were Consuls. It's true, here Josephus makes this Tax to be in the 37. year of Augustus his Monarchy, which is a contradiction to the time of this third Tax; but it is a mere Parachronismus, or rather Parepochismus, the taking one Epocha for another, that of Augustus his Monarchical Reign, the Actiaca Victoria, for the time of his accepting of the Sacrosanct and absolute Sovereign Tribunitian Power, which was not till nine years after the Victoria Actiaca; namely, when himself was the eleventh time Consul. Take but that Epocha, and all runs smooth; but without it, this passage of Josephus is a contradiction to itself. And yet this passage, compared with the story of Glaphyra, does notably confirm the true time of Herod's death, that it was in the Consulship of Metellus and Nerva.  
Fourthly, Josephus in the same eighteenth Book, Chap. 6. tells, that Philippus the Tetrarch died the 37. year of his Reign, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where Ruffinus, an ancient Interpreter of Josephus, ascribing to Philip the Tetrarch thirty two years, does fairly insinuate, that we should read in the Greek Copy, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thirty one years, viz. thirty one years' current. Now, as T. L. affirms, and Helvicus also consents thereto, Tiberius and Philip died in the same year, viz. Proculus and Nigrinus being Consuls: in which very year Petavius places the death of Tiberius. Number therefore thirty one years from Proculus and Nigrinus, and they will end in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus, in which we contend that Herod, the Father of Philip, died.  
Fifthly, Eusebius in his Chronicon, Num. MM XXX. and Sulpicius Severus, lib. 2. Histor. Sacr. give twenty four years to Herod the Tetrarch after the Relegation of Archelaus. Now Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. 19 in the last Chapter, making out the seven years of Agrippa's Reign, writes thus. Four years, says he, he reigned in Caius Caesar's time, three years of which he enjoyed the Tetrarchy of Philip, but in the fourth year there was added to him the Tetrarchy of Herod, and three years more he reigned in the time of Claudius Caesar. Whence it is manifest, from this exquisite and punctual account of these seven years Reign of Agrippa, that Herod the Tetrarches Reign ended with the fourth year of Caius Caligula. From which year, reckoning the 24 years of Herod's Reign after the Exile of Archelaus, and adding thereto the nine or ten years of Archelaus his Reign after his Father Herod's death, and it will reach to the Consulate of Metellus and Nerva, at what time Herod, the Son of Antipater, died.  
Sixthly and lastly, For a further confirmation of this Truth, that Herod died in the Consulate of Metellus and Nerva, let us add that notable Argument which T. L. draws from the Eclipse that Josephus takes notice of, as happening a little before Herod's death. And it is worth the observing, that it is the only Eclipse which that Historian has set down in all his History. Which argues not only the seasonableness of its appearing, but the extraordinary greatness thereof, else it had not stuck in the minds of the Beholders so firmly, that the Fame thereof might cause Josephus to record it, when he records none besides. The Narrative is briefly this, Antiq. lib. 17. cap. 8. There he tells us, that Herod being desperately ill, beyond all hope of Recovery (which caused some Zelots for the Law to pull down the golden Eagle which Herod had erected over the greater Gate of the Temple; of which bold Feat the two Matthias' were, the one suspected, the other found guilty) Herod, says he, depriving Mathias the Highpriest of his High-Priesthood, he burned the other Mathias, who was the Author of the Sedition, together with Judas and other of his Accomplices alive, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Moon that very same night in which they were burnt, suffered an Eclipse. For it naturally implies that they were burnt that night, as well as the Moon was then Eclipsed. Now for the time of year when this Eclipse happened, it is plainly set down in the eleventh Chapter, that it was the Full Moon immediately preceding the Full Moon at which they keep their Passeover, viz. the first Full Moon of their month Abib or Nisan: so that Herod died within a month after he had burned Mathias and Judas, and other Confederates, in pulling down and demolishing the golden Eagle that he had dedicated and set up over the great Gate of the Temple. Nor can any one that will impartially consider the nature of these things that are said to be done by himself, while alive, or by others after his death betwixt those two Full Moons; and the scantness of the Country of Judaea, and the smallness of the time requisite for the doing of them, but he must needs conceive that Herod died betwixt these two Full Moons, the Eclipsed one and Paschal, else they must protract his life near to the next Paschal Moon, and make him live in a manner a whole year longer, which is hugely dissonant from the Narrative of Josephus.  
Now that there was such an huge Eclipse, not only at such a season of the year, but at a fit time of the night, when men's spirits were more than ordinarily awakened in an hurry upon the burning those Zelots for their Law, who haply might be brought out to be burnt about seven or eight a clock of the Night (as Nero is said to have burned the Christians in the night-season) T. L. does make good by Astronomical Calculation, that such an Eclipse so circumstantiated, did happen in the year when Nerva and Metellus were Consuls: which is the third year of the 196. Olympiad, and the 52. Julian Year, and the 4720. Year of the Julian Period, viz. when Metellus and Nerva were Consuls, according to Helvieus and Petavius, as well as T. L. And this year T. L. in his Recensio finds by Compute, Primâ vigiliâ Noctis insecutae vicesimum diem Februarii medium Plenilunium contigisse unâ & viginti horis, ac quinquaginta quinque scrupulis sexagenariis transactis à praecedente primi diei septimanae mediâ nocte Hierosolymis. And the Prosthaphaeresis of the Sun and Moon being found by him in a manner equal, the time of the Plenilunium medium and verum is concluded by him in a manner the same. And this Plenilunium happening unâ & viginti horis, ac quinquaginta quinque scrupulis, etc. that is, at 55 minutes after nine a clock at Night; it is plain the middle of the Eclipse fell not within the Vigilia prima, but its beginning might fall within it, even within the second hour of the prima Vigilia, 55 minutes after seven; the Moon being eclipsed according to his Computation above 18 digits, and the Eclipse continuing near two hours, and she being perfectly obscured, and so wading in the shade of the Earth more than three quarters of an hour together. This is a remarkable Eclipse, and would, especially falling out at such a time, stick in the memories of the Beholders, and they transmit it to Posterity. And now there being no such Eclipse to be found so suited for greatness and seasonableness in any year they would pitch upon for the death of Herod, that would deduce the Weeks of Daniel from the seventh of Artaxerxes his Reign: this, amongst other things, is a fair demonstration that they have chosen a wrong Epocha.  
The truth of this is so material, that I had the curiosity, and gave myself the trouble of calculating this Eclipse of the Moon that fell out in the Consulate of Nerva and Metellus, Anno Periodi Julianae 4720, by more Tables than one, by the Copernican Tables, the Alfonsine and Ptolemaick Tables, as Nicolaus Muserius, that excellent Astronomo Chronologer, and highly valued both by Scaliger and Petavius, (though at odds betwixt themselves) has adjusted them for this use, and find by them all that the Eclipse is rather greater than T. L. has computed. According to the Alfonsine Tables, the Moon was Eclipsed digits 19 ⅞; according to the Copernican and Ptolemaick Tables, 21 digits at least. According to them all, the duration of her Eclipse was above four hours, and her stay within the shadow of the Earth totally obscured two hours, bating some few minutes. Whence in all likelihood it was a most terrible and dismal Eclipse, and such as would make an indelible impression on the fancy of them that beheld it. But now as for the beginning of the Eclipse, according to the Ptolemaick Tables, it was a little after ten of the Clock at night. According to the Alfonsine a little before nine; and according to the Copernican, about half an hour after nine. The latest of which times is soon enough to engage the Spectators eyes to behold it, the Zelots being burnt in the same Night, and haply not sooner than betwixt seven and eight of the Clock, and people would be abroad after that hurry longer than the latest beginning of this Eclipse.  
We shall understand the appositeness of this Eclipse for the purpose the better, if we compare it with the Eclipse that Petavius takes notice of Anno P. I. 4710. in which year, according to Josephus his Account, Herod died. For then reckoning from Anno P. I. 4674. as the first year of his Reign, upon his being made King of Judaea, by the Favour of Antony and the Roman Senate, he will have reigned thirty seven years. And now because I was mentioning the Epocha of Daniel's Week from the seventh year of Artaxerxes, which is the year of P. I. 4256. this being made the Epocha, the last year of the weeks will be Anno P. I. 4745. Now therefore accordingly as the Prophecy will naturally cast us upon it, reckoning backwards from the year 4745. (which is the nineteenth year of Tiberius, and the last year of the seventieth week) to the Passion of Christ, who in the midst of this week put an end to the Judaical Sacrifices by his own Sacrifice on the Cross, and we come to the sixteenth year of Tiberius. And the other half of this last week will reach to the thirteenth year of Tiberius, the year of Christ's Manifestation and Baptism by John, which is two years before John's preaching, who began to preach the fifteenth of Tiberius, as the Gospel tells us; as also that Christ was not baptised by John, till after he had begun his preaching. Which therefore is an horrible flaw in this Epocha from the seventh of Artaxerxes.  
When Christ was baptised by John, he was about thirty years of Age, suppose him going on his one and thirty, it will then follow, that he was born Anno P. I. 4709. the year before the death of Herod, as Petavius has also noted. Now besides the impossibility of this seventh of Artaxerxes, being the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks, in that it makes Christ to be baptised by John before he began his preaching, which was in the fifteenth of Tiberius; and also the very little distance betwixt Christ's Birth and Herod's Death, this Eclipse noted by Petavius at the death of Herod, Sabinus and Rufus being Consuls, is a pitiful small business, and unsuitable, if compared with that Eclipse which happened in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus. For calculating that Eclipse, which Petavius mentions, which I did, before I met with it in Petavius, I computed it, as he has done, to have been Martii XIII. Hor. 2. à media nocte, but we differ in minutes, he says 45 minutes, but my Compute has only 23, which is more favourable to him than his own. And yet according to my Account, the Eclipse began not till near one of the Clock in the Morning. According to his, it would be at past one. But that which he conceals, the Moon was then Eclipsed but about six digits and ¾. But what is seven digits to thrice seven, or 21 digits, or indeed to 20? And then it beginning not till one a Clock in the Morning, it was not likely to be taken notice of, or to be talked of, such little Eclipses being ordinary. Nor is it credible, that Josephus taking no notice in all his History of any Eclipses but this, that he would have recorded this, but that it was so notorious, and so much talked of amongst the people for the hugeness and dismalness thereof.  
Nor can those that make the seventh of Artaxerxes the Epocha of the Weeks, set the death of Herod at a more probable distance from the Birth of Christ, both because that they would then desert the Authority of Josephus, and that they are also destitute of an Eclipse for the purpose. For in the year 4711. P. J. there are indeed two Elliptical Plenilunium mediums, the one in March, the other in July; but both of them not passing two or three degrees within the Termini Ecliptici: so that they will prove miserable megre Eclipses, if any at all. And in the 4712. there I meet with but one Eclipse, and that in Jul. 16. much more considerable for bigness, but at too great a distance from the Paschal Moon ensuing. And besides, this Plenilunium verum happens at Leowardia at seven a Clock 12 minutes past Midnight; but at Jerusalem at nine a Clock 48 minutes à media nocte, that is, within a very little of ten a Clock in the Morning; and therefore not possible to be seen by the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, but rather by their Antipodes. In the Year 4713. Cornelius Lentulus and Calphurnius Piso being Consuls, there is indeed an Eclipse Jan. 10. that for bigness may compare with that under Nerva and Metellus, but not for seasonableness. For it is neither the immediately preceding Plenilunium to the Paschal; and being so in the Winter, it ill suits with Herod's being advised by his Physicians to make use of the Waters of Callirrhoe beyond Jordan, and the beginning of it is not till after twelve a Clock at Night, when people are gone to bed. And in the same year on the sixth of July, there is a considerable Eclipse; but it falling out near Noontime at Jerusalem, it is plain it is little to the purpose.  
The Eclipses of these four years of the Julian Period I have considered, because the ancient Fathers relate that Herod lived four years after the Birth of Christ, and we see that in all the Eclipses that happened after the Birth of Christ, fixed in the Year 4709. P. J. (where they must fix it that make the Epocha of Daniel's Weeks the seventh of Artaxerxes) till the Year 4713. which is the fourth after the Birth of Christ so fixed; that there is none that can stand in competition with that Eclipse that happened Anno P. J. 4720. Nerva and Metellus being Consuls. The most plausible is that of Jan. 10. Cornelius Lentulus and Calphurnius Piso being Consuls. But besides other incongruities in it, which I noted before, though it be removed enough to be the fourth year after Christ's Nativity, according to the Opinion of the ancient Fathers, yet it is removed too much from the end of Herod's Reign, from his being constituted King by the Favour of M. Antony and the Senate. For his thirty seven years of reigning expire in the 4710. year P. J. and this makes him live three years after. Which nulls the Authority of Josephus, on which they build, and thwarts the Current of History. Wherefore it is an invincible Argument from the Eclipse in the Consulate of Nerva and Metellus, that Herod died that year, and that Christ, according to the Opinion of the ancient Fathers, was born four years before in the Consulate of L. Aelius Lamia and M. Servilius Geminus: which was the thing to be proved.   

CHAP. XI. Josephus his inconsisteney with himself in matters of Chronologie. The first Objection taken out of passages in him against Herod 's dying Metellus and Nerva being Consuls, that plainly imply that he reigned but thirty seven years in all, and that from his first being made King by the favour of M. Antony. The second Objection from Antipater 's sending his Children to the King of Arabia, when he began his War with Aristobulus: which was in the first year of the 178. Olympiad. Whence Herod is concluded twenty five years old when he was made Perfect of Galilee. In order to an Answer, two assured parcels of Josephus his Materia Historica are premised. The first, that Herod was but fifteen years old when he was made Perfect of Galilee, several other passages in Josephus complying therewith. The second, that he was about seventy years of Age, and had reigned but thirty seven when he died. No occasion for Josephus to mistake in the former parcel, but a very obvious one in the latter. That none of the five Children mentioned in the second Objection, were those sent to the King of Arabia. That it is a contradiction to what Josephus elsewhere says of Phasaelus and Herod. If Josephus meant those five, that it is upon his having committed a Parepochism, to which his second Historical Parcel lay obnoxious. Whence his Testimony to his first parcel preponderates that to the second, and its repugnancy with the time of Christ's Baptism and true Epocha of Daniel 's Weeks, demonstrates him to have miss the right Epocha of Herod 's Reign: which with ease reconciles all these clashings.  
AND thus we have seen with what firmness and steadiness this Demonstration has been carried on for the fixing of Christ's Nativity in the Consulate of Lamia and Geminus, if Historians themselves were so firm and fixed; or rather so consistent in their Assertions, as not to speak repugnantly to themselves. This I speak in reference to Josephus, who makes Herod but fifteen years old when Antipater made him Perfect of Galilee: And he makes him reign but thirty seven years from his being made King by M. Antony and the Roman Senate, and yet to have reached to be about seventy years of Age.  
This therefore is one of the two great Objections which is brought against Herod's dying in the year of Metellus and Nerva, and that notable Eclipse above taken notice of, viz. That Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. 17. cap. 8. expressly declares, that Herod in that desperate sickness of which he died, was upon seventy years of Age, which he repeats again lib. 1. cap. 21. De Bello Judaico. And yet Antiq. Jud. lib. 17. cap. 10. five days after he had settled his Will, and put to death his Son Antipater, Herod, says he, dies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the very same thing he repeats again lib. 1. cap. 21. De Bello Judaico; but more perfectly as to that of his being made King by the Roman Senate. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was left out before, is put in here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. From which places it is collected, that though Herod was about seventy years of Age when he died, yet he reigned but thirty seven years from the time that he was declared King of Judaea by the Romans upon the procurement of M. Antony, and not from that time that the Roman Senate and Augustus made him King upon the Forfeiture of his Kingdom, because it is said in both places, that it was thirty four years from the death of Antigonus, as well as thirty seven from his being made King by the Favour of the Roman Senate; for that is understood by Romans in these places, and there is three years' distance betwixt Antigonus his death and that. Whence, say they, it is manifest, that Herod did not die in the Year 4720. P. J. Metellus and Nerva being Consuls, but in the Year 4710. in the Consulship of Sabinus and Rufus; and that Herod was not fifteen years of Age when he was made Perfect of Galilee by his Father Antipater, but twenty five.  
The second Objection, or rather the Confirmation of this former, is taken out of Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. 14. cap. 12. where describing the Family of Antipater, he says, that of his Wife Cypris he had four Sons and a Daughter, Phasaelus, and Herod, who was afterward King, Josephus and Pheroras, and lastly, Salome a Daughter. And whereas he did affect the acquaintance and friendship of several Potentates about him, yet in a more special manner he caressed and obliged the King of Arabia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To whose trust and tutelage he committed his Children, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Daughter, as well as Sons, when he made War against Aristobulus. And the same thing he repeats again De Bello Judaico, lib. 1. cap. 6. the latter part whereof he phrases thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. to the King of Arabia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et quoniam bellum cum Aristobulo gerendum susceperat, liberos suos fidei ejus commendans, ad eum misit. He sent them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as a Depositum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he had undertaken a War against Aristobulus. Whence it is manifest, that Antipater sent his Children to Aretas, the King of Arabia, a little before the beginning of that War against Aristobulus.  
We are now to inquire when this War begun, which we shall understand out of Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. 14. cap. 1. where he tells us, that Hyrcanus was invested in his Pontificate or High-Priesthood the third year of the 177. Olympiad, Q. Hortensius and Q. Metellus being Consuls; it is rather the fourth year of that Olympiad, Metellus and Hortensius being Consuls then, according to both Helvicus and Petavius, and Lydiat too. But presently upon his being Highpriest, his Brother Aristobulus makes War against him, and at a Battle at Jericho puts him to flight, and that very year constrained him to lay down his High-Priesthood, and betake himself to a private life. When Antipater saw this, he never ceased from soliciting Hyrcanus to recover his Right, but within a years time, suppose, or thereabout, persuaded him to fly to Aretas King of Arabia, in whom he had a great interest, which in all probability, according to Josephus his account, was done in the first year of the 178. Olympiad. And here Antipater undertaking the War against Aristobulus with the aid of Aretas, this must be the time of his conveying his five Children to his Court for safety. At what time it cannot be conceived but that Herod was at least three years old, Salome being the fourth from him: Let him be going on his fourth. From this first year of the 178. Olympiad to the Consulship of Calenus and Vatinius, when Herod was made Perfect of Galilee, is twenty two years: add the three years complete when Herod was with the rest of Antipater's Children sent to the King of Arabia; and than it will follow, that Herod was twenty five years old when he was made Perfect of Galilee. And so Herod must have died Anno P. J. 4710. not 4720. viz. in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus. These are the most shrewd Objections that I can pick out of Josephus, and I have set them off to the best advantage I could.  
But now in order to the answering of these difficulties, I shall first premise, that Josephus took these two things for certain and assured Parcels of his Historical Materials, viz. (1.) That Herod, when his Father made him Perfect of Galilee, was not more years than fifteen complete. That there is no lapse of the Scribe in this Compute, but that it is set down according to Josephus his own mind, I have abundantly proved Chap. 9 And the matter is so plainly true, that Petavius himself does acknowledge it no lapse of the Scribe, but that Josephus in that place wrote as he thought, De doctrina Temp. lib. 10. cap. 65. And how consentaneous to this Position his story of Glaphyra is, and his making Quirinius to confiscate the Goods of Archelaus in the year when Statilius Taurus and Scribonius Libo were Consuls, as also the making Herod the Tetrarches Reign end with the fourth year of Caligula; and lastly, his taking notice of the Eclipse that happened in the year of Herod's death, I have observed in the foregoing Chapter. To which I will only add how consequential to this is Josephus his calling Phasaelus and Herod (Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 23.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Adolescentuli, when M. Antony made them Tetrarches of Judaea. But if Herod was twenty five years old when he was made Perfect of Galilee, he was above thirty now, and his Brother Phasaelus haply betwixt thirty and forty, both of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Persian Account, the utmost bounds of their Adolescentia being but twenty seven years. After that, they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as you may see in Xenophon. And yet here Phasaelus and Herod, the one betwixt thirty and forty years of Age, the other a year or two above thirty, are not only called Adolescentes, but Adolescentuli. Wherefore that they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Adolescentuli, is plainly consequential to this assured Parcel of Josephus his Historical Materials; That Herod, when he was made Perfect of Galilee, was but about fifteen years of Age.  
And the other assured Parcel of his Materia Historica was this, That Herod was about seventy years of Age when he died, and that he reigned thirty seven years. This he was ascertained of by some Records that he had met with and could confide in. Nor is there with me any question made, but that both these parcels of his Materia Historica are true. But that he reckons the thirty seven years of Herod's Reign from his first being made King by the Favour of M. Antony and the Senate: I deny that he had any Authentic Record for that, but I deem it a mere surmise of his own. Wherefore going no further for the present, but weighing the Testimony of Josephus in one place with his Testimony in another, I answer thus;  
That his Assertion, that Herod was but fifteen years old when he was Perfect of Galilee, is the Assertion of such a thing in which there is no occasion or allurement to err in; nor is it credible he would ever have writ so, it seeming so unplausible a thing in itself, that the Government of a Country should be committed to one so extremely young, unless he had found it amongst the assured Materials of his History. But now for the other assured parcel of his Historical Matter, Herod's dying at seventy years of Age, and reigning but thirty seven: here Josephus might well find himself in Bivio as it were; and the way forking itself into two Roads, that which seemed the more fair and direct, he might be tempted presently to take it, though he mistook himself in it. I speak this in reference to the two Epocha's of Herod's Reign, the one when he was made King of Judaea by the Favour of M. Antony, the other when by the Favour of Augustus. The former, as being first, is the more naturally enticing to be made choice of, which therefore Josephus out of overmuch inadvertence or beedlesness adventured upon, and so fairly committed a Parepochism, the taking one Epocha for another. Now the matter of his other Assertion being not liable to any such mistake, it is plain the Testimony of Josephus in that point is to preponderate his Testimony in this, or in any thing else that depends upon it. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Aristotle speaks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, One Absurdity admitted, others will follow.  
Secondly, For the answering the second Difficulty I shall premise, That it is not probable, at least we have no assurance, that those five, namely, Phasaelus, Herod, Josephus, Pheroras and Salome, were all the Children that Antipater had by Cypris, because there is none of these but make part of his History; but there might be in all likelihood other Children that died when they were Children, and so left no memory behind them. And furthermore add, that it is no such extraordinary thing for a man to have more than twice as many Children of one Wife, as Herod had of his.  
Whence therefore I answer first, That though this Argument looks very plausible on it, it so fitting their conceit that would have Herod twenty five years old (as Petavius, amongst others, would have him) when he was made Perfect of Galilee; yet there is no firmness nor certainty in it. For Josephus in the place  does not say, that those very five Children were committed to the Trust of the King of Arabia, which he names a little before (every one of them acting a part in his History) but to show how gracious Antipater was with the great ones of Arabia, as well as of Idumaea, and the sure Friendship and Confidence betwixt the King of Arabia and him, he says he deposited his Children with him when he began his War against Aristobulus, whether these or others, more or less, there is no mention thereof. Wherefore for any thing this place will prove to the contrary, they might be two or three Children that Antipater deposited with Aretas, before Phasaelus, or any of the other four mentioned, were born.  
Secondly, That these five should be the Children, and so Herod be twenty five years of Age when he was made Perfect of Galilee, it will make him above thirty when M. Antony made him Tetrarch of Judaea: at what time notwithstanding Josephus calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Adolescentulus, a Stripling, and so contradicts himself.  
Thirdly and lastly, If Josephus meant these five to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the dear Depositum with the King of Arabia, it is then upon his surmise that the thirty seven years of Herod's Reign are to be numbered from the first Epocha; but there being only the Testimony of Josephus for that against Josephus in a matter less liable to mistake, this latter Testimony of Josephus is to be preferred before his former, or any thing else that depends thereon, as I noted before. And thus we see that appealing to the mere humane Authority of Josephus, the Testimony of Josephus himself plainly prevails against that Testimony of his that would disprove our fixing the Nativity of Christ to the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus, and the Death of Herod to that of Nerva and Metellus. How infinitely then must it preponderate when the Divine Testimony is added thereunto? For that vanquished Testimony of Josephus by his prevalent Testimony does clash also with the Testimony of Holy Scripture. Because, if the first Epocha of Herod's thirty seven years Reign be taken, Herod must die in the year of the Julian Period 4710. And therefore Christ cannot be born later than the year before, viz. 4709. for he was born while Herod was living, who sought the Child's life. And the Evangelist Luke plainly declares, that he was about thirty years old when he was baptised of John, nay, but beginning to be about thirty years old, as Beza and our English Translation has it; but I think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has another meaning there. But let him be full thirty years old, going if you will on his thirty one, which will then be Anno P. J. 4739. and the thirteenth year of Tiberius. But John did not begin his preaching before the fifteenth of Tiberius his Reign: nor was Christ baptised by him before he had begun his preaching, as it is plain out of that Gospel. Wherefore the taking the first Epocha of Herod's Reign instead of the latter, is a plain contradiction to the Testimony of Holy Writ. To which, especially the self-vanquished Testimony of Josephus, must of necessity yield.  
Moreover, besides the particular clashing with this Testimony of S. Luke that sets the Baptism of Christ by John after the fifteenth of Tiberius, the first Epocha of Herod's thirty seven years Reign, is repugnant to the Epocha of Daniel's Weeks fixed in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which the Holy Writ makes the only Epocha of Daniel's Weeks, as I have demonstrated above. Now therefore, though the Testimony of Josephus in one place were equal to his Testimony in another place, even in this case, that part of the contradiction is infallibly to be held for the truth that corresponds with the Holy Scriptures according to the second Postulatum in the first Chapter. That when Historians clash one with another, or one and the same Historian with himself, that part of the contradiction is to be held true that best complies with the Holy Writ. This is, I say, undeniably reasonable, though the parts of the contradiction stood upon equal terms. How much more than when the weight of Divine Testimony is added to that part that has the advantage already?  
Wherefore he that has but half an eye, as they say, may easily discern that Josephus has committed a Parepochismus in choosing the first Epocha for Herod's Reign of thirty seven years instead of the second. Which if he had chosen, he had neither contradicted himself nor the Holy Scriptures, but all would be in perfect ease and Harmony, Josephus with the Sacred Scriptures and ancient Fathers, and also with himself. And Herod will be found dying in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus, and Christ born according to the opinion of the most ancient Fathers four years before in the Consulship of L. Aelius Lamia and M. Servilius Geminus, which was the thing to be demonstrated. For thirty seven years from that second Epocha, viz. the Victoria Actiaca or Herod's being made King by Augustus, do reach exactly into the year of the Consulship of Metellus and Nerva.   

CHAP. XII. The second way of proving Christ born in the Consulate of Lamia and Geminus, viz. from the Tax mentioned by S. Luke. Three general Taxes ordered by Augustus. The Text in S. Luke touching this Tax explained, and the Tax found the first of those two which were carried on by Cyrenius. That this Tax is that mentioned in Suetonius and the Monumentum Ancyranum, viz. the middle Tax, and finished in the Consulate of Aelius Catus and Sextius Saturninus according to T. L. the year after that of Lamia and Geminus. That Christ was born Lamia and Geminus being Consuls, proved from Augustus his Decennial Resumptions of his Power Censorian and Monarchical. And also from the Time-eaten Monument of Ancyra. From the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus placing the Birth of our Lord in the twenty eighth year when the Decree for the Tax first went out after Octavius had the Name of Augustus conferred upon him. Five several Epocha's of Augustus his Reign, any whereof directing in compute to that time of Christ's Nativity that is pointed at by the true Epocha of Daniel 's Weeks, is argumentative and confirms the same. That Epiphanius his twenty nine years from the perfect accord and subjection of the Jews to the Romans, reach into the Consulate of Vinicius and Alfinius. The great advantage the twentieth of Artaxerxes has above the seventh, there being no sense of this latter to be made from any Epocha's. Christ born in the forty first year of Augustus according to Irenaeus, Tertullian and other Fathers, which from a right Epocha reaches unto the Consulate of Lamia and Geminus. A clear proof that Christ was then born, out of Eusebius his Chronicon. An Argument offered at by T. L. from a passage in Chrysostom 's Homily De Natali Johannis Baptistae.  
AND thus much concerning the first way which T. L. uses to prove our Saviour born (as the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks fixes it) in the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus, viz. from the years of the Reign of Herod, his Age, and the year of his Death. For he dying in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus, it follows by consequence, the ancient Fathers putting four years' distance betwixt Herod's Death and Christ's Birth, that he must be born Anno 4716. P. J. Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus being Consuls. This is punctually made out to a year by Reason and Authentic Testimonies, though the History in S. Matthew tells us no more than that after Herod was dead, Christ was termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the Angel tells Mary, Matt. 2.20. That they were dead that sought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the little Child's life. From whence can only be gathered that Christ was very young when Herod died, but not exactly how many years he was old then. And thus it is also with that Note that Luke gives of his Nativity. He does not expressly tell the very year when Christ was born, but he tells us such a circumstance of his Birth, that a sagacious Historian may collect the very year, as Tho. Lydiat, to his commendation, has done, namely, from the Tax under which Christ was born Luke 2.2. And this is the second way that T.L. takes to prove that Christ was born in the Consulate of Lamia and Geminus.  
For the better understanding of which Method we are first to take notice, That there were three more general Taxes ordered by Augustus. This, Suetonius, as I have noted above, expressly tells us in Augustus his Life, cap. 27. Recepit & morum legumque regimen aequè perpetuum (viz. as perpetual as his Tribunitian Power) quo jure quanquam sine censurae honore, censum tamen populi ter egit; primum ac tertium cum Collega, medium solus. But in a Monument erected by him or by some body for him in Ancyra, a City of either Phrygia or Galatia in Asia minor, some forty two years after his first Tax, not only the three Taxes, but the Collegae in his first and last Tax are mentioned, as also that he ordered the middle Tax himself alone. The Collega in his first Tax, according to that Monument in Ancyra, was M. Agrippa; and the Tax finished, himself being the sixth time Consul, and Agrippa the second. His Collega in the last Tax was Tiberius, and the Tax finished Lustro condito, Sext. Pompeius and Sext. Apuleius being Consuls, in the very year when Augustus died. See Suetonius in Vita Augusti, cap. 97. and In Vita Tiberii, cap. 21. And that the first Tax was ordered by him and finished Agrippa being his Collega in the first Consulship of Apuleius and his own fifth, and his own sixth and Agrippa's second, T. L. makes clear out of Dion Cassius.  
These things being premised, let us consider the Text of S. Luke Chap. 2. And it came to pass in those days that there went out a Decree from Caesar Augustus that all the World should be taxed, or enroled. Hence it is plain that it was, as I may so speak, an Ecumenical Tax or Enrolment thus appointed by Augustus. But there is a further Character in the following verse: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For so it is to be read, the Comma left out betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And then the sense is this, This is the first of the two Taxes which were carried on the times when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.  
Two Characters therefore here offer themselves of Christ's Birth. (1.) An Ecumenical Tax appointed by Augustus. (2.) The same Tax, the first of those that were carried on by Cyrenius, the times he was Governor of Syria.  
Now that this Ecumenical Tax mentioned in S. Luke is the same with the Tax which Suetonius and the Monumentum Ancyranum say, that Augustus ordered alone without a Colleague, is necessarily concluded from this very Reason, because it is Ecumenical. For what can be more absurd than to conceive so famous or universal Tax or Enrolment as this to be left out of that Monument? But now to find out the time when this Ecumenical Enrolment was; It is plain in Dion, lib. 55. that in the year before the Consulate of Messala and Cinna, that is to say, in the year when Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus were Consuls, Augustus' alone without a Colleague (else in all likelihood he had been named to lessen the invidiousness of the thing, and besides this Tax, being neither the first nor the last, must be the middle which he ordered alone) he ended, I say, a Tax in the year of those two Consuls condito lustro, as the Latin Phrase is. The words of Dion are these; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (viz. Augustus) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Augustus' taxed those that lived in Italy, and were possessed of two hundred Sestertia, omitting the poorer sort, and those that lived out of Italy, lest they should cause any stirs. And that he might not seem to do this as a Censor, he was invested with Proconsular Authority, for the more contentfully peracting this Tax and the Lustral Sacrifice that concluded the same. It is true, some may scruple here how this can be called an Ecumenical Tax, when it is said to be confined to Italy. But T. L. suggests that which is very rational, viz. That this Tax, as to the old mode of Taxes, extended no further than Italy; but the Enrolment of Names and Estates might reach all over: and that this Ecumenical Tax was rather a Project to make his Rationarium Imperii more correct and complete, for the settling a constant and perpetual Revenue out of all the Provinces of the Empire to maintain his numerous Armies and Navies, than to levy such a Tax at that time, in the usual sense of Taxing, upon the whole Empire. This T. L. makes out with very solid Reason from History. See his Recensio, cap. 6. And consentaneously to this he citys that Famous Historian and Antiquary Hubertus Golizius', who in his Annalis Historia of Augustus, mentions the Numerousness of his Soldiers at that time, and the distribution of his ordinary Legions throughout the Provinces, and the Institution of the settled Revenue in the Consulate of Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus, which immediately precedes that of Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus, in which the middle Tax was finished, as appears out of Dion. From whose Authority alone it is evident that this middle Tax ended the next year following that of Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus. How easy is it then to conceive that it began at least that very year, if not the year before? Whence it will be plain, that this is the Tax and time when Christ was born, viz. in the year of Lamia and Geminus, according as the right Epocha of Daniel's Weeks requires, and the Age of Christ, when he was baptised of John, demonstrates to be true. See Chap. 8. When the thing is brought so near, even by profane History, we may be sure the exquisite truth of it will reach to that which we know to be true by Testimony Divine.  
But Secondly, It is observed out of the same Dion, that such was the Policy of Augustus, that he made a show as if he would keep the Government such as he received of the Senate, which was to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Magister Correctorque Morum (which was looked upon as a more fair and plausible Title than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Censor) and so for his being Emperor; that he used to resume this Censorian Power, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he did the Imperatorial, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, only for a set time, namely, from ten years to ten years. Now the times of these resumed Powers at a complete decennial interval follow the first of them the first Tax of Augustus, begun Agrippa being then his Colleague; but the latter, viz. the Resumption of his Imperatorial Power follows the said Tax transacted, and gins in the year when Augustus was the seventh time, and Agrippa the third time Consuls, and ends with the year when P. Cornelius Lentulus and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus were Consuls, as the other with the year before Saturninus and Vespillo being Consuls. Wherefore reckoning on still by complete Decenniums, the third Decennium from Saturninus and Vespillo of the Censorian Power will end in the year before the Consulship of Silius and Munatius: but the third of the Imperatorial in that very year; In which Dion says, that Augustus did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he then entered upon the fifth ten-years of his Imperial Reign or Government. But now count backward from the year before inclusively, his last ten years of Censorian Rule will reach into the year of Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus: the middle year in all likelihood of this middle Tax.  
Thirdly, The Time-eaten Names of the Consuls in that Monumentum Ancyranum , as riddled out by T. L. fairly confirms, that the midst of this middle Tax was in the Consulship of Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus. For as he notes well [Censorum— Sinio cos.] and a little after this [in consulatu Fi—] the former of these cannot be understood of Asinius Gallus, as some would have it, who was ten years before Vinicius and Alfinius; because in Dion, lib. 55. neither in the Consulship of Drusus and Crispinus immediately before his, nor in Tiberius and Piso's that immediately follows, nor in his own is there any mention of any Tax or Lustral Sacrifice wherewith they want to be concluded. To which I add, it being said in that Monument, of this middle Tax; Nuper lustrum solus feci legi censorum— Sinio cos. it being at least twenty years from the erection of this Monument by Augustus to Asinius Gallus his Consulship, Nuper would be very improperly applied in this case and circumstances, but more naturally to ten years later, the true time of this middle Tax. And therefore this [— Sinio] T. L. does not rashly fancy to be for Sentio, for the Consul Sentius Saturninus. Which haply may proceed from hence, that he that read this Monument to the Scribe that was to write it fair for the Carver in stone, pronounced the E in Sentio like an I, as one [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the Hebrew of old served for both E and I; and in sundry words we may observe how E is changed into I. Thus the jonians for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in derivations of words out of Greek; as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we say Sicilia; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tingo; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, animus, and the like, which shows how easily E runs into the sound of I. Whence we may fairly conceive, how either the Reader sounded Sintio for Sentio, or they being so near in sound, the Scribe took it for Sintio. And if we remember that it is a false Pronunciation to sound S for T, but that they pronounced it like the Greek Tau in old time before I, as well as before other Vowels; and that this T after N was usually sounded like D, it follows then that it was sounded by the Reader Sindio. Which D in this word makes so faint an impress on the ear, that the Scribe might very well think the Reader to him, to say, Sinio, and wrote so accordingly.  
And now for the latter, [in consulatu Fi—] which all Antiquaries look upon as a desperate business to make sense of, T. L. conceives the whole word is either Alfiniis or Vinicii, as if it were Finicii. For F and V consonant have muchwhat the same sound (the Digamma Aeolicum, that is, F being rendered by V consonant in Latin words derived from the Greek, as from the Aeolic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the Latin Vis, Vinum, Vespera.) and so the Scribe might fancy him that read to him to have said Finicii, not Vinicii, and so to have wrote accordingly. I must confess that the picking out sense out of old overworn Marble Monuments from an eager desire of serving some Hypothesis, may justly too often seem like the disease of young Maids that have the Green-sickness, and pick strange stuff out of mud Walls to satisfy their long: so that these ingenious Conceits alone of T. L. would little avail with me, but that they fall in with other manifest indications in the same Monument; as when it says [— cum nuper lustrum solus feci legi] that is to say, transigi vel condi: which is very harsh to refer in things of this nature to the distance of twenty years before, whenas the Lustrums were every fifth year. Wherefore it can be no Tax in Asinius Gallus his Consulship. And besides this it is observable in the first Tax of these three, though it was begun in the year when Sext. Apuleius and Augustus was, the fifth time, Consul, as appears out of the ending of the 52. Book of Dion, and the beginning of the 53. in the former it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet the Monument speaks thus, or rather Augustus in the Monument: In consulatu sexto censum populi cum lega M. Agrippa egi, lustrumque post annum abhinc alterum & quadragesimum feci legi, and so names that year wherein the Tax was ended lustro condito, not that in which it began. In like manner in the middle Tax he says [— Cum nuper lustrum solus feci— censorum— Sinio cos.] that is, Sentio Consul, which is the year of that Consul in which the Tax was ended lustro condito; And saying afterwards, [in Consulatu Fi— or rather Vi—] it intimates the Consulate of Vinicius in which the Tax begun. These correspondencies, I say, falling in with the ingenious Conjectures of T. L. about these Time-eaten Names, makes them seem to me not at all rash nor trifling, but to have their weight; and therefore I thought fit not to omit them. See his Recensio, cap. 6, & 7.  
Fourthly, From the year when Augustus was the seventh, and Agrippa the third time Consul, to the Consulship of Vinicius and Alfinius when the middle Tax begun, are twenty eight years complete. But that year of his seventh Consulship was the year in which he was first called by the Vote of the Senate, Augustus, as Dion tells us lib. 53. which they intended as a most magnificent Title, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Dion phrases it: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Augustus, signifying something more than man, as he intimates. And this very year is the Epocha of the Anni Augustorum. His fourth Argument therefore is drawn from the Authority of Clemens Alexandrinus, who expressly writes in the first Book of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of which the genuine sense is, That our Lord was born in the twenty eighth year when the Command first went out after Caesar Octavius was called Augustus, that there should be a taxing of the people. Which therefore must be meant of this middle Tax, decreed after he had the Title of Augustus conferred upon him, else it is not the first Tax he commanded or decreed. And this shows that it ought to be understood of the twenty eighth Annus Augustorum in the Roman sense, not in the Egyptian, whose Anni Augustorum commenced two years before, viz. in the year after the Victoria Actiaca, as Censorinus also notes, and that was before Octavius was called Augustus. Wherefore however Clemens Alexandrinus or others compute these years, it is manifest their true Epocha is from the seventh Consulate of Augustus. Whence the ending of the twenty eighth year will touch upon the year of Vinicius and Alfinius when the Tax began, as it should do, and signifies that Clemens light of a right Record of the years from the Epocha of the Anni Augustorum to Christ's Nativity or near upon, though he might be prone, he being an Alexandrian, to apply it to the Egyptian Account.  
And it is here seasonable to observe how those Numbers of the years of Augustus his Reign that are applied to the discovering or defining the time of the Nativity of Christ, may be numbered from several Epocha's. From the Consulship of Hirtius and Pansa, from the Consulship of Pulcher and Flaccus, from the Victoria Actiaca, from the year of Augustus his being the seventh time, and Agrippa the third time Consul, when he first obtained the Title of Augustus. From his eleventh Consulship which he bore with his Fellow-Consul Calphurnius Piso when he was first invested with that most Sovereign and Sacrosanct Tribunitian Power which Tacitus calls summi Fastigii vocabulum; And Dion lib. 53. describes to be the most absolute Power imaginable above all Law whatever, so that Emperors in virtue of this Power, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tribunitian Power, if they took themselves to be injured the least tittle in word or deed, they might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they might without any Trial or Judgement kill him forthwith that did it; as if he were a most accursed Wretch that had affronted the Divine Majesty itself: I say, though these years of the Reign of Augustus are misapplied by ancient Authors, who thereby fix Christ's Nativity to a time uncompliable with the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks (which the Prophecy and Scripture-History plainly declare to be the twentieth of Artaxerxes) and with the true time the Scripture declares that John the Baptist began to preach and exercise his Ministry, and with the true Age of him when John baptised him according to Scripture-declaration (which nulls all Testimony that contradicts it) yet if they be found from a right Epocha to touch upon, or reach into the middle Tax of Augustus begun in the Consulate of Vinicius and Alfinius, and ended in the Consulate of Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus, which exactly agrees with the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks, they are, notwithstanding those heedless misapplications of the Ancients, really argumentative for the proving this true time of the Nativity of Christ, which the right Epocha of Daniel's Weeks points at; and 'tis thence apparent, that T. L. is not destitute of Historical Records, but abundantly furnished therewith, for the maintaining his Assertion, and knows how to use them, when others have abused them. Wherefore having given this notice by the buy, I proceed.  
Fifthly, Epiphanius in his  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is his 51. Heresy, Sect. 22. though he have there overmuch Parachronistick stuff, yet he plainly enough drives at this to define the time of the Nativity of Christ from the time of that state of the Jews when there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (I may also add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for before that there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Epiphanius speaks, some smaller pittances of beneficence) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and lastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, perfect conjunction and beneficent friendship of the Romans with the Jews, and a perfect surrendering of Judaea to the Romans, and bringing it under Tribute; Twenty nine years from this state of things was our Saviour born, according to Epiphanius. Now this state of things, as T. L. makes it out sufficiently in his Recensio, cap. 8. happened in the ending of the year when Augustus was the sixth time, and Agrippa the second time Consul, or the beginning of the next year when they were both Consuls again, and Octavius first received the Title of Augustus. Then was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the full reducing of Judaea under Tribute, the first of the three famous Taxes being then finished in the year just before Octavius received the Title of Augustus: And by that time, which respects the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Romans to the Jews, Augustus had bestowed on Herod for his officiousness and serviceableness to him and his Armies, to enlarge his Dominion, not only what Cleopatra had taken from it, but also Gadara, Hippos, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Pyrgos Stratonis, and lastly Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Auronitis, as you may see in Josephus. Which last he tells us, De Bello Judaico, lib. 1. cap. 17. he gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the first Actiacal Solemnity which was in the beginning of the 188. Olympiad, the year when Octavius was first called Augustus. And these, I trow, are no little scraps of bounty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but large Lunchions of Munificence. And Herod being thus possessed of all Judaea, as much as the Israelites ever possessed, he being so faithful and obliged a Client of Augustus and the Romans, did, which respects the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no question, acknowledge himself and it entirely at the service of Augustus and the Romans. This certainly is the time that Epiphanius aimed at, but he counting that the twenty nine years from this time will end in the year when Augustus was the thirteenth time Consul with his Colleague Sylvanus, that implies that he made the Victoria Actiaca the Epocha of these twenty nine years, and so committed a Parepochism, beginning the twenty nine years sooner than the thing will bear; but counting from the true Epocha of them, which is the year of Octavius his first being called Augustus, the twenty nine years will reach into the Consulate of Vinicius and Alfinius, which is not the forty second year of Augustus from any Epocha, but it is of Herod's Reign from his first being made King in the Consulate of Calvinus and Pollio. And how Epiphanius has blundred in this Chronological piece of his, see T. L. his Recensio, cap. 8.  
By the buy I will only note, That though it were admitted that Christ was born the forty second year of Augustus his Reign from Hirtius and Pansa, and in the thirteenth Consulate of Augustus, this will not serve the turn of them that would reckon Daniel's Weeks from the seventh year of Artaxerxes, and so in the rest of the Computes of the ancient Fathers, taking them from their Epocha's. And the seventh of Artaxerxes and the twentieth being the only Epocha's in competition, it is apparent what an infinite advantage the latter has above the former, the Number of years from a right Epocha suiting with the latter Epocha of the Weeks, but with the former from none, but runs into Contradictions to express Scripture.  
Sixthly therefore, Irenaeus contra Haereses, lib. 3. cap. 25. says expressly, Natus est Dominus noster circa primum & quadragesimum annum Augusti Imperii. And Tertullian adversus Judaeos, cap. 8. Quadragesimo & primo anno Imperii Augusti nascitur Christus. And Hieronymus on Daniel, cap. 9 Quadragesimo primo anno Caesaris Augusti Christus natus est in Judaea. To these you may add Cassiodorus, Sulpicius Severus, and others. So that there is no question but about this time of the years of Augustus his Reign Christ was born, according to the Opinion of those Fathers. But now if we deduce these forty one years from the Consulate of Hirtius and Pansa, they will end in the 4711. year P. J. From which, if you count thirty years, the time of the Age of Christ when he was baptised by John, you will make him baptised a year before John began to preach and baptise. But if you count from the last year of the seventy Weeks backward (supposing the seventh of Artaxerxes to be the Epocha of them) Christ's Baptism or Manifestation being in the year immediately preceding the last week, or at least in the beginning of the first year thereof, Christ will be baptised in the twelfth or thirteenth of Tiberius, two or three years before John began to baptise; nor will he be then thirty years old, unless he was born two or three years' sooner than this reckoning the forty one years from the Consulate of Hirtius and Pansa makes him. So useless and unsuitable for the adjusting of Daniel's Weeks is this Epocha of Hirtius and Pansa's Consulships.  
But there is another most Public Epocha of Augustus his Reign, which was usually called Aera Caesaris, and publicly received in a manner over all the Empire, unless in Alexandria (see Lydiat's Canon's Chronici and his Recensio, cap. 9) which is fixed in the Consulate of Claudius Pulcher and Norbanus Flaccus, from which if you reckon the forty one years of Augustus his Reign, in the last whereof Irenaeus and the rest of the ancient Fathers say Christ was born, you will be brought into the Consulship of Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus, the middle year of the middle Tax, which we cannot think harsh to continue three years, whenas the first of those three famous Taxes recorded in the Monumentum Ancyranum continued two years, and the last near as much. Reckoning therefore from this right Epocha of Pulcher and Flaccus, those Repugnancies I noted before are avoided, and all made coherent and smooth, and the Authorities of those Fathers made very pregnant for the proving that Christ was born in the Consulate of Lamia and Geminus.  
Seventhly, That Christ was born in the Consulate of Lamia and Geminus appears from hence. Augustus in the Consulate of Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus adopted Tiberius, and communicated to him the Tribunitian Power as T. L. plainly proves out of Velleius Paterculus, and Dion, in his Recensio, cap. 10. And Petavius places this Adoption of Tiberius and his obtaining Tribunitian Power under the abovesaid Consuls. Now Eusebius in his Chronicon expressly places the Nativity of Christ in the year before the Adoption of Tiberius. His very words are, which relate to the second year of Christ, Augustus Tiberium & Agrippam in filios adoptavit. But it was proved before to have been done in the Consulship of Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus, viz. the Consulship immediately succeeding that of Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus. Whence it is evident, that Christ, according to the Testimony of Eusebius, was born Lamia and Geminus being Consuls. Which is the forty first year from that notable and true Epocha, the Consulate of Pulcher and Flaccus. Which if Eusebius had considered, he would not have placed the Birth of Christ, as he has done, in his Chronicon, in the forty second year of Augustus his Reign, but in the forty first, agreeably to what there he citys out of Tertullian, who in his Book against the Jews affirms, that Christ was born the forty first year of the Reign of Augustus, though neither he nor Tertullian knew the right Epocha to count from. But let Eusebius his own Epocha be taken, viz. from the Consulate of Hirtius and Pansa. Count forty two years thence, and you will fall into the Consulship of C. Julius Caesar, and L. Aemilius Paulus which is the vulgar Dionysian Aera Christi, and will cast Christ's Crucifixion with them that make the seventh of Artaxerxes the Epocha of Daniel's Weeks, not into the middle of the last week, but drive it quite beyond it.  
Eighthly and lastly, Thomas Lydiat from those words in Chrysostom, De Natali Johannis Baptistae, viz. Conceptus est Dominus mense Martio, octavo Calendarum Aprilium, Luna quinta decima fuit, etc. And from those somewhat before in the same Homily, Gesta autem sunt (viz. about the Conception of the Baptist) ante primum annum Imperii Tiberii Caesaris, etc. who at once, as Tacitus phrases it, Filius, Collega Imperii & Censors Tribunitiae potestatis ab Augusto assumptus est; and that (as we heard before) in the Consulship of Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus, from whence, I say, Thomas Lydiat does conclude (forasmuch as Luna decima quinta joins near to the eighth of the Calends of April, that is to say, the 25. of March in the year when C. Julius Caesar and L. Aemilius Paulus were Consuls, which is the 4714. year P. J. and that Luna decima quinta, and the 25. of March come not so near together for eight years before) that Christ must be born in the year of these Consuls, of Julius Caesar and Aemilius Paulus, near the expiration thereof very close to the year of the Consulship of Vinicius and Alfinius, when the middle Tax began, which Chrysostom, according to the vulgar Error, took to last but one year, and but for which Error and the groundless Tradition of Zacharias being Highpriest when the Angel spoke to him, and in the Holiest of Holies, that day being the Feast of Expiation celebrated in the Month Tizri that answers to the Roman September, he conceives that Chrysostom would have placed our Saviour's Birth really before the Reign of Tiberius, viz. in the Consulate of Lamia and Geminus: But as he has done, it gives countenance to this middle Taxes beginning in the year of Vinicius and Alfinius; I say, though this be witty and ingenious, yet because the Homily is but dubiae fidei, and according to that passage, it proves no more than that Christ was born the 4714. year P. J. which is the common Dionysian Aera Christi, and that upon Calculation by Ptolemy's Tables in N. Mulerius, I do not find that the Luna decima quinta falls in with the 25. of March, no nor yet with the 27. as Tho. Lydiat would have it, though that discrepancy is too great, but with the 28. the Novilunium verum falling near within an hour of the 14. of March, if you fit your Computation to the Meridian of Judaea, where Christ was conceived and born, and add the Tempus Prosthaphaereticum that the Prosthaphaereses of the Sun and Moon direct to, which is very large: and lastly, because the Argument is more fine and operose than convictive, I shall rest content with the seven preceding ones, which without any implicateness or operosity from Authentic Testimonies and fit Epocha's, confirm to us that the Ecumenical Tax decreed by Augustus, and mentioned by S. Luke, happened about the Consulship of L. Aelius Lamia and M. Servilius Geminus. And thus much for the first Note of the Time of Christ's Birth out of the Evangelist, taken from the Ecumenical Tax appointed or decreed by Augustus.   

CHAP. XIII. That Christ was born in the Consulate of Lamia and Geminus, proved from the abovesaid middle Tax of Augustus at carried on by Cyrenius in his first Presidency 〈◊〉 Syria. A Parepochism committed by Joseph●● 〈◊〉 this matter. A Chronological disposure of certain years for the more assured finding out the true time of Cyrenius his being first Precedent of Syria, and carrying on Augustus his middle Tax. A brief Descant thereon. The time of Caius his going into the East, the main point to guide us to the first Presidency of Cyrenius and the Nativity of Christ. Proved by many Arguments that Augustus sent not Caius into the East before his thirteenth Consulate. Cyrenius appointed Tutor to Caius upon Lollius his death, Vinicius and Alfinius being Consuls, and upon Caius being unhappily wounded, becomes Governor of Syria that year, which therefore is his first Presidency over Syria, and the beginning of his first Tax when Augustus also renewed his Censorian Power in quartum Decennium. This Tax continuing from Vinicius and Alfinius to the Consulship of Catus Aelius and Sentius Saturninus. How naturally Christ's Birth is cast into the Consulate betwixt, it agreeing also so punctually with the true Epocha of Daniel 's Weeks. That the Temple of Janus was the third time shut, and Augustus refused the Title of Dominus (Characters of Christ's Nativity in Orosius) Lamia and Geminus being Consuls.  
THE second Note of Christ's Nativity is taken from the same Tax, but as in executing by Cyrenius at one of those times when he was Governor of Syria. For he was two sundry times Governor of that Province, the latter time was after the Relegation of Archelaus, when his Dominion was added to Syria. Then was he sent by Caesar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he might carry on the Tax through Syria, and sell the House and Goods of Archelaus. So Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. 17. towards the end. And in the beginning of the next Book, he says that Cyrenius was come into Syria from Caesar, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sent thither, ut Jura populis redderet facultatesque censeret omnium. And lastly, in the beginning of the third Chapter of the same Book he tells the very time when Cyrenius ordered this Tax, viz. the 37. year after the Victoria Actiaca, though he commits a Parepochism therein, counting from the Victoria Actiaca instead of the eleventh Consulate of Augustus, when he was first invested with that Sacrosanct Tribunitian Power. Thirty seven years from thence will cast Herod's death also into the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus, there being about eight or nine years from Nerva and Metellus' Consulship to that time. But this is more than enough to prove that there were two Taxes and two Presidings of Cyrenius over Syria; and these latter being after Herod's death, and after the Relegation of his Son Archelaus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. Luke calls it, his first Taxing must be that which was in Herod's time, and near the time of Christ's Nativity. For the knowing the exact time of which we are to find out the beginning and ending of that time wherein Cyrenius was first Governor of Syria. Which T. L. to give him his due, has accurately sifted out, and by authentic Testimonies of Historians proved the matter in his Recensio, cap. 11, & 12. and orderly digested it in his Series summorum Magistratuum & Triumphorum Romanorum.  
I care not if I set down briefly what things are most material out of him under the several Consulships under which they are found, prefixing the Julian Year to each Consulship; As for Example,  
Anno Jul. 39 Cl. Tiberius Nero and Cn. Calphurnius Piso being Consuls; Near the end of this year Augustus conferred upon Tiberius one five years of Tribunitian Power.  
Anno Jul. 40. Laelius Balbus and Antistius Vetus Coss. about the beginning of this year Tiberius the Son-in-law of Augustus, and his Partner in the Tribunitian Power, straightways retires to the Island Rhodes, and there as it were in Exile, spends seven years.  
Anno Jul. 44. Caesar Augustus 13. and Plautius Sylvanus Coss. In this year Augustus dedicates a Temple to Mars, and exhibits noble Spectacles or Shows of Sword-plays and Sea-fights, exiles his Daughter Julia, the Mother of Caius and Lucius Caesar's, for her notorious Adulteries and infamous Debaucheries, into Pandateria, an Island in the Tuscan Sea; And sends Caius, going of his nineteen years of Age, into Syria and the Oriental Provinces (appointing M. Lollius his Tutor or Governor) for the Recovering Armenia, which Phraates King of the Parthians revolting from the Romans, had got possession of.  
Anno Jul. 45. Cossus Cornelius Lentulus and L. Calphurnius Piso Coss. In this year Tiberius, his quinquennial Tribunitian Power being run out, grew anxious and melancholic after his Visit of Caius at Chios or Samos, whom, by reason of Lollius his traducing of him, he found not so friendly as heretofore. But Phraates hearing of Caius his coming, delivered his four Sons to Titius, than Precedent of Syria, for Hostages to the Romans.  
Anno Jul. 46. C. Julius Caesar Vipsanianus and L. Aemilius Paulus Coss. In this year Caius Caesar and Saraspades, the eldest Son of Phraates, conclude a Peace in an Island of Euphrates, feasting one another. At what time Lollius his perfidiousness being discovered by a certain Parthian, he died a few days after, and hereupon leave was granted to Tiberius to return to Rome. This also is the year wherein the Temple of Janus was shut the third time by Augustus.  
Anno Jul. 47. P. Vinicius and P. Alfinius Varus Coss. Tiberius' returns from Rhodes to Rome six years after he departed thence, and two years after his Tribunitian Power was expired. And in this year, Lollius being dead, Cyrenius Precedent of Cilicia is appointed Governor by Augustus to Caius, having regained Armenia, which he administered prosperously a while, till he chanced to be wounded by a perfidious Fellow, and became presently unserviceable to the Public; so that the Prefecture of Syria and the Oriental Provinces necessarily fell to the Administration of Quirinius or Cyrenius. About this time also Lucius Caesar, Caius his Brother, died at Marseils, as he was going for Spain. And Augustus renewed his Censorian Power for a fourth ten years, and so began his Tax in this, and ended it in the Consulship of Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus.  
Anno Jul. 48. L. Aelius Lamia and M. Servilius Geminus Coss. In this year Caius Caesar returning towards Italy, died in Lycia, and C. Sentius Saturninus his appointed Successor by Augustus, carries on the Tax which Quirinius begun. In the year of these same Consuls, as T. L. notes, Hubertus Goltzius collects out of Dion, Suetonius and Tacitus, that Augustus guarded the Roman Empire with no less than twenty five Legions of Roman Soldiers distributed through the Provinces, besides Auxiliaries and numerous Companies of Horse and Foot, and three great Navies to guard the Seacoasts of Italy and France: And therefore that there might be without difficulty a perpetual Supply for the maintaining such vast Forces, that he ordered a Tribute of the hundred and twentieth part, together with three Overseers of the Treasury.  
Anno Jul. 49. Sext. Aelius Catus and C. Sentius Saturninus Coss. In this year the two young Princes, Lucius and Caius, being dead, that were Tiberius his Corrivals, Augustus does again impart to Tiberius, after the intermission of his quinquennial for four years near upon, a decennial Tribunitian Power.  
This is the Chronological Disposure of things for these years, according to T. L. which he makes good from Authentic Testimonies of Historians, such as Tacitus, Velleius Paterculus, Suetonius, Dion, etc. in his Recensio, cap. 11, & 12. and the things themselves lie in a very natural order and coherency. His placing Tiberius his obtaining a quinquennial Tribunitian Power at the end of the thirty ninth Julian year, is but a small difference from Dionysius Petavius his placing it out of Dion in the beginning of the fortieth, when Balbus and Antistius were Consuls. But that makes it the more sure, that Caius his going into the East to reduce the Parthians, was at least not before the thirteenth Consulship of Augustus, he being saluted by Tiberius at Samos or Chios after the expiration of his quinquennial Tribunitian Power. But according to Suetonius in his Life, Cap. 11, & 12. there being such Transactions betwixt the expiration of his quinquennial Tribunitian Power, and his saluting Caius in Samos, as would take up some time; this I conceive made T. L. place the beginning of that quinquennial Power toward the latter end of Nero's and Piso's Consulship, rather than about the beginning of the Consulship of Balbus and Antistius; so that it will come all to one.  
And this is the main Point that will conduct us to the true time of Publius Quirinius or Cyrenius his being Governor of Syria, and the time of the Tax and Christ's Nativity. Which that it was not some years before the thirteenth Consulship of Augustus, T. L. in his 12. Chapter of his Recensio makes clearly out against the Conceits of Scaliger, Petavius, Suslyga, Kepler and others. For not only Velleius and Suetonius, but Dion also placing the time of Caius his going into the East after the Banishment of his Mother Julia, it is plain, says he, from the Age of Julia, that she could not be banished before the thirteenth Consulship of Augustus. For she was born in the beginning of the Consulship of Marcus Censorinus and Calvisius Sabinus, and she lived in the favour of Augustus till she was thirty eight years old, as Macrobius witnesses in his Saturnalia. But now from Censorinus and Sabinus his Consulship to the thirteenth Consulship of Augustus, take it inclusively, there is no less than thirty eight years; so that she could not be banished till then.  
Again, Suetonius writes, that five years after her Banishment she was recalled by Augustus. The time of her being recalled, Dion tells us, was in the Consulate of Aelius and Sentius, from which Consulate, if you reckon backwards five years, you will fall again into the thirteenth Consulate of Augustus.  
Thirdly, Sempronius Gracchus, one of Julia's Adulterers, and banished to Circina, an Island in the African Sea, when she was to Pandateria, at the end of his fourteenth year's Banishment was put to death by Tiberius, Pompeius and Apuleius being Consuls. Now there are fourteen years' distance betwixt the thirteenth Consulship of Augustus and the Consulship of Apuleius and Pompeius.  
Fourthly and lastly, Caius was born Apuleius and Nerva being Consuls, as Dion notes: and he took his Expedition against the Parthians (Parthe dabis poenas) when he was about nineteen or twenty, the Age of his Father Augustus when he gathered an Army, (as was noted above, out of the Monumentum Ancyranum) according as Ovid tells us in his Complimental Verses to him, 
Auspiciis annisque patris puer arma movebis,  
Et vinces annis auspiciisque patris.  Wherefore, though he be a false Prophet, yet he is a pleasant Poet and true Witness of the Age of Caius. Which if he be, the Expedition will naturally fall into the Consulate of Lentulus and Piso, as is above noted. Then was he on his Expedition with his Rector or Governor M. Lollius. Whence we see plainly, that Augustus sent not Caius into the East before his thirteenth Consulate, but that T. L. his Chronology which I have proposed by Consulships and Julian years, is true.  
Now as we are assured of the time when Caius was upon his Parthian Expedition by the expiration of Tiberius his quinquennial Tribunitian Power, Anno Jul. 45. Lentulus and Piso being Consuls, so we are by the same assured that it was the next year that Caius concluded the Peace with the Parthians, at what time M. Lollius died, and so fairly gave occasion for a new Tutor to Caius, which within a competent time Augustus would appoint him. The next year therefore when Caius had taken possession of Armenia, Publius Quirinius is appointed his Rector or Tutor, as Tacitus plainly tells us Annal. lib. 3. where speaking of the Honours conferred upon him, he says, Consulatum sub Divo Augusto, (viz. Anno Jul. 34.) mox expugnatis per Ciliciam (of which Province he had the Prefecture, not of Syria then, else you may be sure Tacitus would not have omitted so great an Honour) Homonadensium castellis, insignia Triumphi adeptus, datusque Rector Caio Caesari Armeniam obtinenti. What can be more pat, Cilicia being near Armenia, nor Quirinius made Caius his rector till his Recuperation of Armenia. But Caius a little time after his ingress into Armenia, being so unhappily wounded, and grown unfit for the Administration of Affairs, the whole Government of Syria naturally fell into the hands of Quirinius or Cyrenius this Anno Jul. 47. when Vinicius and Alfinius were Consuls, and is the year of Augustus his renewing his Censorian Power in quartum Decennium, so great congruity there is of things. Here therefore commences the first Presidentship of Cyrenius over Syria, and here is the beginning of this first Tax in the first time of his being Governor thereof, and is consequently that very Ecumenical Tax of Augustus that the Evangelist mentions, and the middle of the three recorded by Suetonius and the Monumentum Ancyranum, and the Tax wherein Christ was born, which lasting three Consulships together, (for as it began in the Consulship of Vinicius and Alfinius, so it ended in the Consulship of Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus, as was above proved out of Dion; and as the forepart of it was carried on by Cyrenius, so the latter part of it by Sentius Saturninus the Consul's Father and Cyrenius his Successor in the Government of Syria, as appears out of Tertullian)  
It is natural therefore and obvious to place the Birth of Christ in the middle Consulship, viz. that of Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus, nothing clashing therewith in History, and it so fitly complying with the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks, the thirtieth Consulate from thence being the thirtieth year of Christ's Age when he was baptised by John the first year of the last week, and the Prophecy says expressly, that there were seven weeks and sixty two weeks, that is, sixty nine weeks from the Decree to build Jerusalem to the Messiah. Wherefore his Manifestation (which was made at his Baptism) was to be expected in the first year of the last week, as it did indeed fall out according to this Compute. Wherefore this Note of Christ's Birth from the carrying on the Tax by Cyrenius Governor of Syria mentioned in S. Luke, I take to be a firm Argument to prove that Christ was born Anno Jul. 48. Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus being Consuls. We will add but one Argument more, and then conclude.  
The last Argument T. L. uses, is taken from a passage of Paulus Orosius, lib. 6. Histor. adversus Paganos, towards the end. Wherein briefly these two things are noted, That Christ was born when there was an universal Peace over the Roman Empire, and the Gates of Janus were the third time shut by Augustus, and in the year when Augustus refused to be called Dominus, Lord. Orosius his mistakes in that long Paragraph, it is besides my Scope to take notice of. But as for those two notable Characters of the time of our Saviour's Nativity, we have noted before that Anno Jul. 46. C. Julius Caesar and L. Aemilius Paulus being Consuls, Caius Caesar concluded a Peace with Phraates King of the Parthians, and that the Temple of Janus was the third time shut by Augustus that year (as it was before twice, the first time in his fifth Consulship, Sextus Apuleius being Consul with him, and then in his ninth, Junius Silanus being Consul in the same year) during which Ecumenical calm over the Empire Christ was born. And if in the year when Augustus refused the stile of Lord, than it must be in the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus, because Dion just in the same place where he says, that Augustus refused to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Lord, he says there presently that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that his third Decennium being fully out, he accepted of a fourth. Now that the fourth Decennium of his Censorian Power began in the Consulate of Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus, I have proved above in the twelfth Chapter. But we had produced Arguments enough before this to demonstrate, That the Nativity of Christ was indeed Anno Jul. 48. or Anno P. J. 47.16. L. Aelius Lamia and M. Servilius Geminus being Consuls.   

CHAP. XIV. Two Objections out of Josephus that would prove that Caius took not his Expedition into the East till after Herod was dead. (1.) Because Josephus mentions no Civilities done by Herod to Caius as he passed Judaea. (2.) Josephus expressly says, that Caius was at that Council that was called at Rome touching the disposing of Herod 's Kingdom upon his decease. The Defectuousness, Remissness and Carelessness of Josephus in several things, noted by Tho. Lydiat and others. His gross mistake in the time of the Commission granted to Nehemiah noted by the Author. That he cannot be excused from the distance of Time or remoteness of Country. An Answer to the first Objection. Whether it was ignorance or dissimulation in Josephus that he writes nothing of Caius his Expedition into the East. Herod 's Policy in forecasting his journey to Rome, while Caius went into the East. An Answer to the second Objection, that supposing there was any Son of Augustus at the  Council, Josephus has committed a Misnomer, and set down Caius for Agrippa Posthumus. Several Allegations out of Historians, that it could not be Agrippa that Augustus so honoured in that Council. Passages out of Tacitus and Dion that imply that it might be he. That if Josephus did really mean Caius, he must do it on a ground wherein he grossly contradicts himself, and wherein he was more obnoxious to Error, than in the other part of the Contradiction. That this story of Caius his Precedence in the  Council is no rash fiction of Josephus, but handsomely furmised upon his committing that notable Parepochism touching Herod 's Reign.  
WE have seen how agreeable that time of the Nativity of Christ, viz. the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus, which the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks, from the twentieth of Artaxerxes, points at, is to History. We should now show in like manner how agreeable to History the Times of Christ's Manifestation or Baptism and of his Passion are to be found. But we must first answer an Objection or two, that seem of great moment against a chief Argument we have made use of, namely the last but one, which is grounded upon the time of Caius Caesar's Expedition into the East, when he was made Governor of Syria, and sent to conclude a Peace with Phraates King of the Parthians (after which it is concluded on all sides that he never returned again to Rome, but died in the way when he was returning thither) and supposes that he undertook this Expedition before the Death of Herod.  
Now the main Objections against this, is First, That if Caius had took his Journey into the East while Herod was alive, sigh he might needs sail by Judaea, that Josephus would not have failed to record Herod's Civilities and Attendances on him, as he does those done to Augustus and Agrippa when they passed by. And then, Secondly, That Josephus expressly affirms both in his De Bello Judaico, and also in his Jewish Antiquities, That Caius was at Rome after the Death of Herod, present at that Meeting called about the dividing Herod's Kingdom amongst his Sons upon his decease. And therefore Caius his Expedition into the East being Anno Jul. 44. according to T. L. himself, and Herod dead the year before, or at least the same year, and Christ born at least the year before that, or sooner, suppose Anno Jul. 43, or 42. Christ will be born five or six years before the Consulship of L. Aelius Lamia and M. Servilius Geminus. And yet the words of Josephus are express, De Bello Judaico, lib. 2. cap. 1, or 4. according to the Greek. There says he, speaking of this matter, that Augustus considering the Largeness of the Revenues of Herod's Kingdom, and the Numerousness of his Posterity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which last words in his Antiq. Jud. lib. 17. cap. 11. he varies thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the sense is perfectly the same, nor need 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former be turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In Answer to which two Objections we are first to consider whether Josephus, though he be a worthy Writer, and a Man questionless of neat Wit and Contrivance; yet whether he be so watchful, diligent and consummate an Historian, that we must pin our belief on him in every thing he writes. For we have observed in our eleventh Chapter how repugnantly he has written to himself touching the Age of Herod and years of his Reign. Petavius in his Rationarium Temporum does not think him so infallible, careful or diligent, but that he cries out Part 2. lib. 3. cap. 5. Hîc verò Josephi mira est oscitantia, qui illos ipsos, unde hanc Historiam descripsit, auctores incuriosè legit, but how rightfully I will not here determine. And for the defectuousness of his History T. L. seems justly to complain thereof when he wholly omitted the Expedition of Caius Caesar into the East, which yet is a thing as memorable as any thing almost in that Age, and the Peace which he there concluded with the Parthian, was the occasion of Augustus his shutting Janus his Temple the third time. Nor must we omit what T. L. takes notice of in his Recensio, cap. 15. That Josephus in his Antiquities, lib. 18. cap. 3. affirms, that that Tax in which Quirinius Governor of Syria sold and confiscated the Goods of banished Archelaus, fell in the 37. year of the Victoria Actiaca, whenas it is impossible but this should be the third of those three that Augustus decreed; forasmuch as the second was carried on and finished Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus being Consuls, as has been above demonstrated, that is to say, in the 34. year of the Victoria Actiaca, Herod, Archelaus his Father, being then living, as is manifest out of Sacred Writ. But the third and last Tax was finished a little before Augustus his Death Pompeius and Apuleius being Consuls in the 44. year of the Victoria Actiaca. Wherefore it is plain, that either out of ignorance or oscitancy Josephus, as I have noted before, has committed a Parepochismus, and taken the Epocha of Augustus his Monarchy simply so understood from the time he reigned alone, for the Epocha of his absolute Monarchy when he was invested with that most Sovereign and Sacrosanct Tribunitian Power which was nine years after the Victoria Actiaca. From that Epocha only it is true that the Tax in which Quirinius sold and confiscated Archelaus his Goods, fell in the 37. year of Augustus his Monarchy. In which though the description was made, yet the Execution was some two years afterwards. See T. L. in that Chapter where he fully makes out the matter.  
But I do not love to dwell on such a Theme. I will only add one thing more of my own Observation. Josephus in his Antiquities, lib. 11. cap. 5. affirms that that Commission which was granted to Nehemiah for rebuilding Jerusalem was granted by Xerxes, instead of Artaxerxes, which is a gross Antonomasma. And as he is out in the Name, so in the Number of the years of the Reign of that Prince when he granted that Commission, which he makes the twenty fifth, instead of the twentieth; and then in the extent of the Reign of Xerxes he makes him to reign twenty eight years, contrary to Ptolemy's Canon, which makes him reign but twenty one years, and contrary to the Testimony of all other Historians. And that which was not done till after the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, viz. the rebuilding of the Walls of Jerusalem and the Palaces thereof, etc. he expressly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, These things were done in the Reign of Xerxes. What can be more wild and absurd?  
But haply it will be replied, That though he commit such gross mistakes in times so far removed from the Age he lived in, and in Countries so much remote from his own, yet he may be more exact in such things as respect his own Country, and were done so near his own times, as the Affairs of Herod were. But though Persia was far from Judaea, and the Reign of Xerxes and Artaxerxes far from the times of Josephus, yet the Records of his own Country, the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were near him, and within his reach, one would think, whence he might have informed himself better, and not committed such gross errors, if he had not been remiss and careless. And thus much shall serve for the preparing the way to an Answer to those two main Objections, which we shall be able now briefly to dispatch.  
We answer therefore to the first, That it is an unreasonable thing, Josephus wholly omitting the Expedition of Caius Caesar into the East, and his making Peace with Phraates King of Parthia, that we should expect of him the commemorating any Civilities or Attendances of Herod upon Caius Caesar as he passed by Judaea, it being a contradiction, the whole entirely omitted, there should be mention of any part of that affair. This argues a great defect in Josephus his History, but none in T. L. his arguing in this matter. But whether Josephus his ignorance, or his dissembling the truth, was the cause of this great omission, is not so easy to determine. Suetonius in the Life of Augustus writes of him thus: Caium nepotem quòd Judaeam praetervehens apud Hierosolymam non supplicâsset, collaudavit. This pride therefore and contempt of Josephus his Religion, who was a Jew, might lie in his stomach, and make him omit the whole business of Caius, for his omitting his duty, as he thought, to the God of Israel in worshipping him at his holy Temple, as other Grandees of Rome had done. He avoided the Recording the whole Affair of Caius, that he might not record this slur put upon his Religion. Or it may be it was out of ignorance of this affair, it having no complication with Herod's at all; Herod out of cautiousness and policy, that he might neither offend Caius by omitting any Civilities he might expect in his passage by Judaea, nor Tiberius his Corrival by doing them, casting his journey so, that he was on his way to Rome, (which is the last he made thither) while the other was on his Expedition into the East, insomuch that Herod was absent from Judaea in that very year when Christ was born. This T. L. copiously makes out in his Recensio, cap. 14. but it is little to our present purpose to pursue it any further: Only this I will note by the buy, that Christ being born this very year of Herod's last journey to Rome, there are so many things done by Herod after his return recorded by Josephus, that less than three or four years cannot suffice for the achieving the same. Which therefore much confirms the Opinion of the ancient Fathers, that declare that Herod lived four years after Christ was born.  
And now for the other, which is the more weighty Objection, the Answer is short, but I hope sound. I say therefore, that Josephus in his Narration of Caius his being present at the Council when the Cause of Herod's Sons was pleaded, who should succeed him in his Kingdom, (supposing there was any of Augustus his Sons at that Pleading, which I speak, because no other ancient Writer I know of mentions it but himself) that he has committed a mere Antonomasma or Misnomer therein, as he did in attributing such things to Xerxes which belong to Artaxerxes, and as Epiphanius is observed by Petavius to set down Claudius instead of Cocceius Nerva (see my Synopsis Prophetica, lib. 2. cap. 2. sect. 8.) But this Antonomasma of Josephus in this place is more excusable than those others, every thing tightly agreeing saving the Name. For Augustus might place first in the Council an adopted Son of his born of Agrippa and his Daughter Julia, but his Name was not Caius, but Agrippa Posthumus.  
Nor could there be the least doubt but that it is an Antonomastick mistake, but that Writers give such an ill Character of Agrippa Posthumus. As Velleius Paterculus, lib. 2. Hoc fere tempore, says he, qui eodem die quo Tiberius, adoptatus ab avo suo naturali, & jam ante biennium qualis esset apparere coeperat, mirâ pravitate animi atque ingenii in praecipitia conversus, patris atque ejusdem avi sui animum alienavit sibi, moxque crescentibus indies vitiis dignum furore suo habuit exitum. This last I verily conceive is meant for a justification of Tiberius his killing of him immediately after Augustus his death, and Velleius is a great Flatterer and high Encomiast of Tiberius every where in his Writings.  
And again Suetonius in the Life of Augustus, cap. 65. mentioning his three Grandchilds Lucius, Caius and Agrippa: Brevi, (that is, a little after Augustus had adopted him the same time he did Tiberius) ob ingenium sordidum ac ferox abdicavit, seposuitque Surrentum, cast him off and confined him to Surrentum. And then toward the end of that Chapter he says, Agrippam nihilo tract abiliorem immò indies amentiorem (this in all likelihood is spoken in imitation of Velleius his [dignum furore suo habuit exitum]) in Insulam transportavit sepsitque insuper custodia militum.  
And lastly, Dion Cassius, lib. 55. describes Agrippa as one that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, love to be much on the Sea a fishing, and thence styled himself Neptunus, that he would reproach Livia as a Stepmother, and mutter against Augustus' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if he had more of his Father Agrippa's Goods than was fit. For this Carriage therefore he was at last abdicated by Augustus, and banished into the Island Planasia. These things I thought fit to bring into view, that I might not seem to trepan any one unawares into an opinion, by concealing what might make him more shy and wary.  
But now that I have produced the worst, let us see what it will amount to. In all likelihood to no more than Tacitus sets down in the beginning of his Annals. Senem Augustum Livia devinxerat, adeò ut Nepotem unicum Agrippam Posthumum in Insulam Planasiam projiceret, rudem sanè bonarum artium & robore corporis stolidè ferocem, nullius tamen flagitii compertum. Livia had got Augustus grown old so much under her girdle, that at last she caused him to banish Agrippa his only Grandchild against his own inclination into the Island Planasia; as haply she at first was the cause of his Confinement to Surrentum for a while. But the affection of Augustus did so firmly cleave to his only Grandchild left M. Agrippa Posthumus, that he is said, as the same Historian writes, not long before his death to have given him a private Visit, with some few he could confide in (Fabius Maximus accompanying him) at Planasia. Multas illic utriusque lachrymas & signa caritatis, spemque ex eo fore ut juvenis penatibus Avi redderetur. (Dion also lib. 56. speaks to the same purpose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Which secret coming out by Martia Fabius his Wife, and Livia knowing thereof, occasioned her to hasten Augustus his death by poisoned Figs, the better to secure the Empire to her Son Tiberius. See the full story in Tacitus and Dion. Wherefore to save Josephus his credit, and to make him mistaken only nomine tenus, (as Plutarch in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who puts Fulvius for Fabius' , in which story it is most manifest how cleaving Augustus his affection was to his Grandchild Agrippa to the very last) to commit, I say, only an Antonomastick error T. L. ingeniously supposes that Augustus had not so little favour for Agrippa Posthumus, but that to see how this might work upon him, he caused him to be present at the Pleading of the Cause of Herod's Children, who should succeed; Tiberius being then absent and employed in the Germane or Illyrick Wars. Which unexpected eruption of Favour toward Agrippa might so nettle Livia and her Relations, that thereupon she might the more forcibly urge Augustus to discard Agrippa toward the latter end of that year, and banish him into the Island Planasia. This is the only way I know to save Josephus his credit.  
But if it be stood upon, that Josephus did really mean Caius, not Agrippa Posthumus upon his own supposition or declaration that Herod reigned not above thirty seven years, or thereabout, and that the beginning of his Reign is from his first being made King of the Jews by the Roman Senate and Favour of M. Antony; from whence it follows, that the abovesaid Council held touching the Succession into Herod's Kingdom, fell out seasonably in the year before Caius took his Expedition into the East, and so was yet present at Rome, the Controversy will then come to this: Whether Josephus when he affirms thus, or whether when he affirms what is plainly repugnant thereto [That Herod was but about fifteen years of Age when his Father Antipater made him Perfect of Galilee, (which implies that Herod died about ten years later)] is to be believed. But this Controversy is sufficiently determined to our hands already in our eleventh Chapter. Which the Reader may peruse again, if he find it needful. It is not needful for me to repeat it again here.   

CHAP. XV. That Christ was baptised the nineteenth of Tiberius, proved from the Prophecy of Daniel from the year of Christ's Nativity and his Age when baptised. Nothing in S. Luke repugnant to Christ's being baptised in the fourth year of the Baptist 's Ministry, with the childishness of their fancy that pretend to the contrary. The genuine sense of that expression of S. Paul [As John had fulfilled his course.] Four Arguments couched together for the proving Christ was baptised the nineteenth of Tiberius. Historical passages which comport with the Baptist 's four years' Ministry: As that of the Jews saying to Christ, Forty six years was this Temple in building, etc. John not beheaded till Vitellius was Perfect of Syria (which was in the twenty first of Tiberius, about two years after he had baptised Christ. That the slaughter of the Galileans or Samaritans by Pilate was in the last year of his own Prefecture, and Tiberius his Reign, while Christ was alive.  
WE have cleared the time of the Nativity of Christ, and showed how consonant it is to manifold Testimonies of Authentic History. We proceed now to Christ's Manifestation or Baptism, which according to the indigitation of the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks and History of Scripture, is the year 4745. P. J. and the nineteenth year of the Reign of Tiberius, the time of the Manifestation of the Messiah, according to the Prophecy of Daniel, being 69 weeks or 483 years complete, and Christ, according to the Testimony of S. Luke, being about thirty years of Age when he was baptised by John the Baptist; which was the time of his Manifestation, the Holy Ghost then descending upon him in the shape of a Dove, and a Voice from Heaven witnessing of him, that he was the Messiah the Son of God. If you reckon inclusively from the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus, which was in the 4716. year P. J. you will find it just thirty years. Which alone, the time of the Nativity of Christ being so fully cleared, might assure us that the Baptism of Christ was in the nineteenth year of Tiberius.  
Nor is there any thing in S. Luke's Gospel that contradicts this Chronology of Christ's Baptism pointed at by the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks, I mean the Lydiatean Epocha, which counts the time from the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus; whenas the Funccian counts from the seventh. Whence the Lydiatean Epocha has a vast advantage of the Funccian, the Funccian casting the Baptism of Christ on the thirteenth year of Tiberius, two years before John began to baptise; which therefore is a plain contradiction to the Testimony of Scripture. But the Lydiatean places it after the fifteenth year of Tiberius, according to the Testimony of S. Luke; and though about four years later than others have placed it, yet consistently enough with the Testimony of S. Luke, he declaring only that it was after the fifteenth year of Tiberius, not how many years after the same. But because there is no distinct mention of years betwixt John's beginning to preach and baptise, and the time he baptised Christ, they have clapped Christ's Baptism close to the first year, as Children and Idiots fancy the Sky and Moon or Sun at the Horizon to touch the Earth, because they see nothing betwixt. But as wise men correct their fancy by Reason, and in virtue thereof, while the Sky or Moon seems to touch the Earth, assure themselves it is as distant therefrom as when it is nearer their Zenith: so considerate persons that ponder with themselves that weighty Province that lay on John the Baptist's shoulders (as the Angel Gabriel predescribes it to Zachary his Father, Luke 1.17. And many of the Children of Israel, says he, shall he turn to the Lord their God, and he shall go before him in the Power and Spirit of Elias to turn the heart of the Fathers to the Children, and disobedient to the wisdom of the Just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord, that is, for the Lord Christ) they, I say, that rightly consider this, must needs conclude, that it must be a work of some years to effect it, especially John working no Miracles, and yet having gained the esteem of the people so far, by his long and diligent Converse with them, and repeated Instructions to them (whereby he converted many to a pious sense of their duties) that they began to conceive that he might be the promised Messiah.  
Wherefore Paul being ware of the nature of the Baptist's Province, that he was to go before the face of the Lord Jesus to prepare the way for his being acknowledged the promised Messiah, calls the performance thereof the finishing his course, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 13.25. And as John fulfilled his course, etc. Whenas others out of heedlessness or ignorance have fancied that John went but a stride or two before our Saviour in the Inchoation of their Ministry, like some Mace-bearer before a Chief Magistrate. But this savours of too much Idioticalness and Puerility.  
We have couched therefore together at least three, if not four Arguments in one, for the proving that the Baptism of Christ was in the nineteenth year of Tiberius, not in the fifteenth, as is vulgarly conceited. First, in that it is the year immediate to the expiration of the sixty nine Weeks of Daniel which butt upon the Manifestation of the Messiah, according as that Prophecy assures us: From the going forth of the Decree to rebuild Jerusalem to Messiah the Prince are seven weeks and sixty two weeks, Dan. 9.25. Secondly, in that it is the first year in the last week wherein the Messiah is predicted to make a Covenant with many. Thirdly, in that it is the thirtieth year of Christ's Age, and so many years there are from the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus to the nineteenth year of Tiberius. And lastly, it being requisite for so great an Undertaking as John the Baptist's was, to have some number of years to perform it in, and not to tie our Saviour's Baptism up to the first year of John's baptising, no more than the Baptist's imprisoning and beheading, which no man will say was in the same year he began to baptise, because the year it was done in is not mentioned, but the nature of the thing requiring some years, we are to be determined for the number by the Prophecy, which plainly points out the nineteenth of Tiberius for the Messias' Manifestation, which was at John's baptising him. Whence it is manifest, that the whole course of the Baptist, as S. Paul calls it, was about four years. In which, though things are not digested into Annals, questionless John bestirred himself notably in the discharging of his Province. The Heads only of his Actions are set down Luke 3. where at last he concludes, And many other things (besides what was written) preached he in his exhortations to the people.  
But though there be no distinct History of each year of the Baptist's Ministry, yet there are many passages of History that comport with this four years' extension of his Ministry before he baptised Christ; namely, that he baptised him in the nineteenth year of Tiberius. Which first, that passage in S. John seems to imply, Joh. 2.19. Jesus said unto them, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this Temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? This passage was when Christ was come to the first Passeover ensuing his Baptism, which was in the month Marchesvan or Dius of the Syromacedones, which takes in some few days of October, but the rest runs into November. And Tiberius beginning his Reign in Autumn, it is manifest this first Passeover was within the same year that Christ was baptised. Which we say is the nineteenth of Tiberius, and that this passage in the Gospel confirms the same. For this is most certainly spoken of Herod's Temple, the other Temple being demolished, and that built instead thereof. The words of Josephus are express, Antiq. lib. 15. cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Besides that Chronologers are horribly out in their endeavours of adjusting the number of years to the other. Wherefore this must be spoke of Herod's Temple. And the time that this Temple was begun to be built is the eighteenth year of Herod's Reign. Some make the Epocha of this his Reign to be in the year of the Consulship of Agrippa and Caninius, when by the help of Sosius against Antigonus, Herod took Jerusalem, and so possessed himself of the Metropolis of his Kingdom. But besides that this Epocha is more obscure and slight than those other two, the first when by the Favour of Antony, the other of Augustus he was made King of Judaea, it falls a year or two short even of the fifteenth of Tiberius, till when John did not baptise at all. But the Epocha of his first being made King of the Jews, namely by M. Antony, that is yet more impertinent, and anticipates the fifteenth of Tiberius four or five years.  
Wherefore there is a necessity of reckoning Herod's eighteen years, from his being made King by Augustus, or from the Victoria Actiaca. And from the eighteenth year of his Reign from this Epocha (which will fall into the year of the Consulship of Claudius Nero and Quintilius Varus) to the nineteenth year of Tiberius is just forty five years. So that the Jews reckoned right within a single year. Which the Authority of Josephus, and the infallible Testimony of Daniel's Prophecy may very well have a right to rectify. Or for their better credit we may conceive (forasmuch as Herod is said, (De Bello Judaico, lib. 1. cap. 16.) by Josephus to have done something to the Temple the fifteenth year of his Reign, before he undertook this vast Design mentioned before) that in the two or three years' space preceding, whatever doing or undoing of things there were, they might guests upon the whole Compute, that there was a years furtherance toward the building of the Temple before the commencement of this grand Enterprise indeed, which added antecedently to forty five years makes forty six, nor disturbs the years of the right Epocha, but adjusts all well, and makes all three agree, Daniel, Josephus, and the Jews that made this smart reparty to our Saviour. They having so fair a Plea for it, it is no wonder they stretched one single year above the time from the right Epocha of Numbering. But in the mean time it is evident, that this is no mean proof for the placing the Baptism of Christ in the nineteenth year of Tiberius.  
Again, T. L. in his Recensio, cap. 19 out of Josephus makes it plain, that John the Baptist was not beheaded till about the time that Vitellius was Perfect of Syria. Now Lucius Vitellius, as appears out of the sixth Book of Tacitus his Annals, was made Governor of the East, Cestius Gallus and Servilius Rufus being Consuls about the midst of the twenty first year of Tiberius. Wherefore John the Baptist, who lived not quite two years after his baptising Christ, could not be killed before the beginning of the one and twentieth of Tiberius. Which therefore plainly argues, that he baptised Christ in the nineteenth year of his Reign.  
Thirdly and lastly, Luke 13. there is mention of some that told Jesus of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate mingled with their Sacrifices. Which abundance as well of the Protestant Writers as the Pontifician, look upon to be the same persons that those Samaritans were, of whom Josephus and Hegesippus write, the former Antiq. lib. 18. cap. 5. the other lib. 2. cap. 5. De excidio Hierosolymitano, that Pilate slew them when they met together to sacrifice on Mount Gerazim. For Pilate, as Hegesippus intimates, made as if he had a mind Eorum mysteria cognoscere. But the Samaritans or Galileans intending to sacrifice, though they were cut off by Pilate before they had ascended the Hill, and were in the very Act, Fame, that loves to add to things of this nature, what may make them more Tragical, astonishing and surprising, might phrase it so, that they mingled their blood with their Sacrifices, and tell that they were slain in the very Act of sacrificing. These two stories are so exceeding like one another, that a sagacious Spirit, notwithstanding the little difference in some things, will easily acknowledge them the same. For that difference of Name, those in S. Luke calling them Galileans, whenas Josephus and Hegesippus call them Samaritans, is but a slight business, sigh the same persons may be both Samaritans and Galileans at once, by Religion Samaritans, by Country Galileans, and such T. L. contends these were, and observes how our Saviour himself was termed in this very respect a Samaritan sometimes as well as Galilean. And for the difference of time, that is only an imaginary difference, which prejudice has conceived through mistake. For they have only fancied the story of Josephus and Hegesippus to be some four or five years later than that which those tell of the Galileans in S. Luke, because they have presumed that our Saviour's Passion was so many years sooner than indeed it was.  
But this very Narration in Josephus does T. L. make use of, and that rationally and judiciously to prove that our Saviour was alive till about the middle of the twenty second year of Tiberius, forasmuch as Josephus in the forenamed place doth write, that the Chief of the Samaritans by Religion, and Galileans by Nation (and that was the cause of Pilate and Herod's falling out, that Pilate would presume to do execution upon persons that belonged to Herod's Jurisdiction, and they were Friends again upon Pilat's sending Christ a Galilean to Herod, Luke 23.12.) addressing, I say, themselves to Vitellius Governor of Syria, accused Pilate of the Murder committed on these Galileans. Whereupon Vitellius sending his Friend Marcellus to be Procurator of Judaea, commands Pilate to pack to Rome to answer his Accusers there before the Emperor. Whereupon Pilate not daring to do otherwise, betakes himself to his journey; but before he arrived at Rome, the Emperor Tiberius died. Whence, says T. L. As this address of the Samaritans or Galileans could not be made before toward the end of the Summer of that year wherein Plautius Laelianus and Papinius Gallienus were Consuls, Vitellius then being returned out of Mesopotamia from the Parthic War, which held two Summers from the beginning of his Prefecture (quae duabus aestatibus gesta conjunxi, says Tacitus, Annal. lib. 6.) which Prefecture commenced in the midst of the 21. of Tiberius; so it appears manifestly, that the slaughter was committed by Pilate within the last year of his own Prefecture and Tiberius his Reign. Which therefore was a little before the Crucifixion of Christ, and consequently both in the twenty second year of Tiberius in the midst of the last week of Daniel. Which again necessarily casts the Baptism of Christ into the ninteenth year of Tiberius. Atque haec ratio est in primis valida, saith T. L. and I think any one that considers things freely and without prejudice, will be of his mind.   

CHAP. XVI. What Arguments prove Christ crucified the twenty second of Tiberius, prove him baptised the nineteenth; and the Ministry of John to have continued four years before. That Christ suffered the twenty second of Tiberius proved out of Epiphanius: As also from what is said Joh. 11.49. That Caiaphas was Highpriest that year. And likewise from Pilate 's not acquainting Tiberius with the News of Christ's Resurrection till the twenty second of his Reign. The Baptism of Christ in the nineteenth of Tiberius proved from the troubles that fell upon the Jews in the third of Caius Caligula. From the Tradition of Apollonius, that Christ charged the Apostles not to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles till twelve years after the commencement thereof. From Paul 's journeying from Antioch to Jerusalem when Herod King of Chalcis died. The mistake of Eusebius and some others that confound the story of Herod in the Acts with that of Agrippa in Josephus. From there being fourteen years since Paul 's Conversion in the eleventh of Claudius. From Paul 's departing from Athens to Corinth, being not till after the twelfth of Claudius. From the time of Gallio 's being Deputy of Achaia, which could not be till after Claudius his death. From the ten years of Felix his Presiding over Judaea. From Peter 's suffering Martyrdom in the eleventh year of Nero, when he had been possessed of the Sacerdotal Chair twenty five years from the expiration of the twelve years' restraint of the Apostles from preaching to the Gentiles. A further Confirmation thereof out of the Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes. The Unjustness of that Imputation, that T. L. his account of the Epocha of Daniel 's Weeks, is a Fiction destitute of History.  
THE three last Arguments for the proving Christ's Baptism to have been the nineteenth of Tiberius his Reign, were drawn from such passages as fallen out betwixt the Baptism of Christ and his Crucifixion; those that follow are such as prove the Crucifixion of Christ to fall out in the twenty second of Tiberius, or Manifestation in the nineteenth. And here note, That whatever Arguments prove that Christ was crucified in the twenty second year of Tiberius, ipso facto prove he was baptised in the nineteenth of his Reign; it being generally acknowledged, that the time of Christ's Ministry after his Baptism till his Crucifixion is about three years and an half. So that though the time of the Baptist's Ministry be not digested into so many distinct years in the Evangelists, yet there are so many distinct Arguments to prove it lasted from the fifteenth of Tiberius till the nineteenth of his Reign, that it may well compensate that defect, and assure us that the Paradox is true.  
First then, Epiphanius in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where he makes Herod the Tetrarch, who was present at Jerusalem the time that Christ was crucified, to succeed Archelaus after his nine years' Reign, declares expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. i. e. In the twentieth year of Herod the Tetrarch our Saviour suffered, etc. Now Eusebius in his Chronicon, and Sulpicius Severus, Histor. Sacrae lib. 2. ascribe to Herod the Tetrarch twenty four years after the Banishment of Archelaus; And Josephus, Antiq. lib. 19 cap. ult. tells us, that Caius added his Tetrarchy to the Kingdom of Agrippa about the beginning of the fourth year of his Reign, about the middle of the twenty fourth year from the second year of Tiberius his Reign complete. From hence therefore reckon twenty years, and you shall fall into the twenty second of Tiberius. So that Epiphanius declaring that Christ suffered in the twentieth year of Herod the Tetrarch after the Banishment of Archelaus, does therewith subscribe to Tho. Lydiat's Opinion, that our Saviour suffered the twenty second of Tiberius his Reign.  
Secondly, Joh. 11.49. There Caiaphas is said to be Highpriest that year. And so he was for several years before, as may appear out of Josephus. Wherefore it naturally implies, that that was the last year of his being Highpriest, and that in the year following he should be put out of his Office, as he was by Vitellius near the time of Tiberius his Death, and Jonathan put in his room. And so within a year after he had delivered Christ upon pretence of Blasphemy to Pilate the Roman Precedent to be crucified, himself was deprived of his High-Priestood, Pilate of his Presidentship of Judaea, and the Emperor Tiberius of the pleasures of this present life, of which with him Lust and Cruelty was no small share.  
Thirdly, Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. 2. cap. 1. tells us how Pilate wrote to Tiberius to acquaint him with that astonishing Miracle that had happened in Judaea, viz. our Saviour Christ his Resurrection from the Dead, and his Assumption or Ascension into Heaven. Which thing being so notable and so certain, according to the custom of the Provincial Magistrates it was impossible but Pilate should acquaint Tiberius with it so soon as it was done. But he did not acquaint him with it by Letters till the twenty second or toward the twenty third year of Tiberius his Reign, according to Eusebius his own Chronicon, where he sets it down last in the twenty second year of Tiberius. Wherefore Christ did not rise again and ascend into Heaven, nor consequently suffer till the twenty second of Tiberius.  
Fourthly, As these three last Arguments by proving the time of Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection, prove also the time of his Baptism and Manifestation; so there are other Arguments taken from the time of the Expiration of Daniel's last Week, wherein he tells us the Messiah will make a Covenant with many (intimating a more peaceful condition of the Jews for those seven years) that argue the Manifestation of the Messiah or his Baptism to be in the nineteenth of Tiberius. Eusebius in his Chronicon tells us, that Caius Caligula in the third year of his Reign, Petronio Praefecto Syriae praecepit ut in Hierosolymis statuam suam sub nomine Jovis Optimi Maximi poneret. Nay, he says, Toto orbe Romano in Synagogis Judaeorum statuae & imagines & arae C. Caesari consecratae. What a Cloud of mischief does there appear for the Jews just upon the expiration of the seventieth or last Week of Daniel? For the last year of that week was the year going before from the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks. But about this very time the Jewish Ambassadors from Alexandria, Egypt and Cyrene, come to Rome to complain of the denying of the Immunities granted heretofore by the Ptolemies, were most injuriously and contumeliously dealt with, and grievously handled even before the Emperor, as Philo Judaeus reports. And Josephus writes, that about the same time (Antiq. lib. 28. cap. 12.) in Seleucia and Ctesiphon, two chief Cities of Babylonia and Mesopotamia, there were above fifty thousand Jews slain, and the rest expelled and banished out of most of the Cities of those Countries. Which beginning of misery to the Jewish Nation commencing then just at the expiration of the last week, is no mean confirmation that the weeks expired the year before, and that therefore Christ was baptised, or the Messiah manifested the seventh year before that, viz. in the nineteenth of Tiberius.  
Fifthly, Something like to this way of arguing is that other of T. L. from a Tradition recorded in Eusebius his Historia Ecclesiast. lib. 5. cap. 16. from Apollonius: Dominum Apostolis suis praecepisse ne ante duodecim annorum terminum Hierosolymis discederent. Which were a childish thing to conceive our Saviour meant grossly of the City Jerusalem, but of the Nation of the Jews, that they should not preach the Gospel to the Gentiles till twelve years after the beginning of the preaching thereof. Which we all know was begun by John the Baptist in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Now the twelfth year from the fifteenth of Tiberius is the third year of Caius Caligula, and under this year does Spondanus place the Conversion of Cornelius the Centurion by Peter. Hoc anno, saith he, Caio iterum & Apronio Consulibus Petrus Apostolus divinâ visione omnigenarum animantium de ostio Ecclesiae Gentibus aperiendo monitus primum omnium Gentilem Cornelium Centurionem baptizavit. Now Alstedius and others place the Conversion of Cornelius the Centurion in the fifth year after Christ's Passion and Ascension. Wherefore reckon backward from the third year of Caius, and the fifth year falls into the twenty second of Tiberius, which again argues the Baptism of Christ to have been in the nineteenth of Tiberius. There are yet several other Arguments to evince the same, from matters done by S. Paul some four years later than Chronologers vulgarly deem them. Wherefore add these four years to the eighteenth year of Tiberius, wherein Petavius and others will have Christ to have been crucified, and we shall find him crucified in the twenty second of Tiberius, and consequently baptised in the nineteenth.  
Sixthly therefore, Herod mentioned in the Acts, who was King of Chalcis, and invested by Claudius with a Power over the Temple at Jerusalem and the High-Priesthood, and upon that might the better presume to put James the Apostle, the Brother of John, to death, and Peter into prison: This Herod, Josephus expressly tells us died in the eighth year of the Reign of Claudius. But Paul, as it appears in the Acts of the Apostles, brought the Contribution of the Christians of Antioch to Jerusalem, upon the account of a general Famine at that time when this Herod is said to be eaten up of worms. Wherefore this journeying of Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem, which Chronologers ordinarily place in the fourth year of Claudius, being found to be in the eighth, it must needs pull down the whole Series of S. Paul's actions four years lower than ordinarily they are set. And his Conversion must not be in the twentieth year of Tiberius, as Petavius would have it, but in the first of Caius Caligula; and all being agreed, there is but about two years' distance from the Passion of Christ and Paul's Conversion, Christ must suffer in the twenty second of Tiberius, and be baptised in the nineteenth.  
It is true that Eusebius, Histor. Ecclesiast. lib. 2. cap. 12. makes this Herod in the Acts the same person with Agrippa, of whom Josephus tells a story of his death somewhat like this in the Acts touching Herod; but for the greater grace of the business, he converts the Owl there mentioned sitting on an extended Rope into an Angel, and in the end confesses that either the Party of whom the story is told, had two Names, or the Scribe out of mistake set down Agrippa for Herod. But this ancient Writer leading the way, the generality of Interpreters have followed him, Erasmus, Grotius and several others. But how considerately, I appeal to the judicious and unprejudiced Reader. For the Case stands thus: Agrippa and Herod were two Brothers, and both Kings, and had those distinct Names to be known by, and it is a Fiction that all the Progeny of Herod the Great were called Herod's, they succeed him in their distinct Names, Archelaus, Herod and Philip. And Archelaus being dead, Herod and Philip as surviving Tetrarches, are mentioned in their proper Names, Luke 3. and so questionless this Herod in the Acts (Brother to Agrippa) that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, eaten by worms, is called by his proper Name, as well as the former. And we may be the more assured of it that it was not his Brother Agrippa but he, because it had been an unspeakable injury to Herod to have his Name used in a wrong place, if those actions of murdering John, and imprisoning of Peter, and acting these Cruelties to please the people, and dying so execrable and ignominious a death, belonged to Agrippa, and not to him. What can be more intolerable than such a conceit as this? Besides that Josephus gives a very fair Character of Agrippa inconsistent with that Cruelty that is noted in Herod. And Agrippa not guilty of that murderousness and persecution of the Church which this Herod was, it must seem a very severe hand of God upon him to be so horribly punished for not rebuking the people for a Compliment, which signifies no more, than that he seemed to them like an Angel of God, who are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so they explain themselves, that they looked upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not that he was thought or called by them the Eternal God, but assimilated to an immortal Angel. Achish, 1 Sam. 19.9. says as much to David, I know thou art good in my sight, as an Angel of God; and yet David reproves him not, nor is struck by the hand of God for not reproving him. All these things duly consisidered may assure any one, that it was not this Agrippa that was thus eaten up with worms, but Herod King of Chalcis, his Brother, and that whenas the story belonged to one of the two Brothers, Josephus has happened out of heedlesuess or ignorance to apply that manner of death, though in somewhat a depraved disguise, to Agrippa that belonged to his Brother Herod; as Tacitus has also happened to apply the year of Herod's death to Agrippa. Such slips there will be in Historians. But careful and judicious Readers of them, such as T. L. was, will discern where the Truth lies.  
Seventhly therefore, Forasmuch as the former journeying of S. Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem at the time when Herod died, viz. in the eighth year of Claudius, is about three years distant from his latter which he took to Jerusalem from Antioch about the Controversy touching Circumcision, upon which occasion a Synod was called at Jerusalem, where Paul also was present, Acts 15. which journeying of Paul, as appears from Galat. 2. was fourteen years after his Conversion, as Vatablus expressly declares upon the place: It is manifest, that in the eleventh year of Claudius it was fourteen years since the Conversion of S. Paul. Tell therefore from the eleventh of Claudius backward till you come to the fourteenth year, and you fall into the second year of Caius Caligula. Then therefore was Paul converted. But all are agreed it was but about two years after the Passion of Christ. Whence therefore again it will be found that Christ suffered in the twenty second of Tiberius, and was baptised in the nineteenth year of his Reign.  
Eighthly, In the Acts, Chap. 18. there Paul having departed from Athens came to Corinth, and finds Aquila and Priscilla Jews lately come from Italy, because Claudius had commanded all Jews to departed from Rome, as Suetonius also notes in the Life of Claudius. But that these Stirs and Decree were about the twelfth year of Claudius, Josephus informs us, Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 5. where presently upon the story of those Stirs raised in Judaea by the Jews and Samaritans, several of whom were sent to answer it before the Emperor at Rome, which gave Claudius' occasion, as Orosius intimates, to make that Decree of expelling the Jews out of the City, presently: I say, upon that story Josephus says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And having completed the twelfth year of his Reign (and therefore going on his thirteenth) he bestowed Philip's Tetrarchy on Agrippa junior (Newphew to Herod King of Chalcis) and Batanaea and Trachonitis with Abila, which was the Tetrarchy of Lysias, but took from him Chalcis when he had been Ruler of it four years, as succeeding his Uncle Herod, who died in the eighth year of Claudius his Reign, as was observed above. Which shows plainly, that the Stirs and the Decree against the Jews, to send them packing from Rome, was in the twelfth of Claudius his Reign. Which Stirs of the Jews and Samaritans, Tacitus (Annal. lib. 12.) places under the Consulship of Faustus Sylla and Salvius Otho, who bore that Office in the twelfth of Claudius his Reign. Wherefore Paul's departure from Athens to Corinth being not till after the twelfth of Claudius completed, which is three or four years later than Spondanus, Petavius and others place it, they placing it in the ninth year of Claudius, the Series of the Acts of Paul will bring down his Conversion about three or four years later, and consequently the Crucifixion and Baptism of Christ.  
Ninthly, It is written Acts 18. v. 12. And when Gallio was Deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, etc. Now there was that Enmity betwixt Claudius and Gallio the Brother of Seneca (both which are famous for their scoffings at, or rather uttering bitter Sarcasms against Claudius when he was dead, Seneca writing a satire against him which he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may signify either as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (both alluding to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or being made a God after death) his either being killed by a poisoned Mushroom, and sent up to Heaven thereby, or else by Transmigration, his being after death transformed into a Fungus or Mushroom, both bitter Sarcasms upon his being poisoned by Agrippina by a Mushroom which Locusta had prepared for him; And Gallio's was a brief but as bitter a Sarcasm, when he said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Claudium unco raptum fuisse in coelum, alluding to the usage of Malefactors put to death in the Prison, who were dragged with Iron hooks into the streets, and so at last cast into Tiber. And that of young Nero, Agrippina's Son, who succeeded, falls not much short of the two other, who, as Dion tells (lib. 60.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That Mushrooms were the meat of the Gods, forasmuch as Claudius by eating one, had become a God) There being therefore, I say, this compliance of Seneca and Gallio with Agrippina and Nero, and feud and enmity against Claudius, you may be sure Gallio got no preferment while Claudius was alive, nor miss of it he once being dead, and therefore was made Deputy of Achaia within the very first year of Nero, upon Claudius his death, who reigned thirteen years and eight months. Wherefore Paul's departure from Corinth (where he is said to have stayed a year and six months, Acts 18.11.) cannot be till then, till about the end of the first year of Nero. Which therefore is a Ratification of the time of his Arrival there, and implies more roundly that it was four years later than Spondanus and Petavius place it.  
Tenthly, Acts 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix his room. Surely most naturally this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must refer either to Felix or Paul, they being the Persons spoken of, not to Nero, of whom there is no mention; nor to Paul, for though in bonds, yet being in libera custodia, he would not have been idle, nor the story omit his acts that interim from his Sermon to Felix and Drusilla till Felix went out of his Office, which certainly he continued in many years above two, as is implied v. 10. Wherefore it is hugely credible that we should read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the ten years being finished that Felix had been Governor of Judaea, Porcius Festus succeeded him. For that Felix had by this time been Precedent ten years, appears thus:  
Josephus in his Life declares of himself, that he was born in the first year of the Reign of Caius, and that being full twenty six years old he came to Rome to free certain Jewish Priests of his acquaintance that Felix had sent thither while he was Precedent of Judaea, that he did effect his business by the Favour of Poppaea, Nero's Wife. Wherefore Josephus being born the first year of Caius, he was twenty six years of Age about the eighth year of Nero's Reign, Marius and Asinius being Consuls; At what time Tacitus relates Annal. lib. 14. that Poppaea was married to Nero. Now this sending of these Priests to Rome by Felix, being at the end of his Presidency (for these Priests he sent being Josephus his special Friends [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] he differred no time for their deliverance) it is plain that Felix was Precedent of Judaea about ten years, and that Festus succeeded him in the seventh of Nero's Reign, not the second, and that therefore Paul's being brought bound to Rome, is full four years later than Petavius has placed it, who places it in the third year of Nero, Volusius Saturninus and Cornelius Scipio being Consuls. See Helvicus, Funccius and Calvisius that place the beginning of Felix his Presidency in the third year of the 207. Olympiad, and the eleventh of Claudius; and Tacitus, who leaps from Felix to Florus, taking no notice of Festus and Albinus, by reason of their short stay in Office. Paul's being brought bound to Rome therefore being four years later, his Conversion is necessarily four years later, not in the twentieth of Tiberius, as Petavius has put it, but in the second of Caius. Whence Christ's Crucifixion is again in the twenty second of Tiberius, and his Baptism in the nineteenth.  
This is a pregnant proof, out of which there is no evasion, unless, with Baronius, we will impute ignorance to Josephus of those things himself was an Actor in, and say he knew not his own Age, but mistook five or six years, which is next to the not knowing his own Name, as T. L. has well noted against Baronius.  
Lastly, (for it were too long to bring all T. L. his Arguments into view) It is acknowledged by Petavius, contended for by T. L. and proved out of Tacitus, that the first Persecution (which was under Nero) was in the eleventh year of his Reign, Lecanius Bossus and Licinius Crassus being Consuls. The occasion to which Persecution was Nero's own burning of Rome, which horrid Fact he would have cast upon the Christians to conceal himself. Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos, & quaesitissimis poenis affecit quos vulgus Christianos appellabat, etc. Igitur primi correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens, haud perinde in crimine incendii quàm odio humani generis convicti sunt, etc. Wherefore the Christians being so universally hated, and Peter and Paul being then at Rome, and the great Sticklers for and Promoters of that Religion it is incredible but they went to pot with the first; besides that this cruel Freak of Nero seems, out of Tacitus, to be but one continued Act of his, the  Lecanius and Licinius being Consuls. Peter therefore suffered Martyrdom in the eleventh year of Nero. But in Eusebius his Chronicon, lib. 1. and also in S. Jerom in the Life of S. Peter, Peter is said to have been possessed of the Sacerdotal Chair twenty five years at his death. But where he was possessed of it, at Antioch or Rome, and from what time, whether from the last of Tiberius, or from the second or third of Claudius, or from what other time, is uncertain and controversial; yet this in general seems less dubitable, that this twenty five years is his time of his Apostleship, since the Apostles dispersing themselves upon the expiration of the twelve years, that our Saviour is said to restrain them to Jerusalem, or rather to the Nation of the Jews. What so likely an Epocha of the twenty five years as this? And if you count from the eleventh of Nero till twenty five backwards, you fall into the fourth of Caius Caligula, which immediately succeeds the expiration of the twelve years abovesaid: so that the fourth of Caius is the Epocha of Peter's Cathedra Sacerdotalis. Which yet is further confirmed out of the Chronicon of Marcellinus Comes, who writes that, Indictione tertiâ, Philoxenus and Probus being Consuls (Helvicus calls him Probinus, and places them in the year of our Lord 525.) Pope John came to Constantinople in the 485 year of the Sessions of the Popes of Rome from Peter. Now, what is an easy concession, if we but suppose these five hundred twenty five years, and four hundred eighty five complete, so that it may imply the two hundred fifty six, and four hundred eighty six current, Philoxenus and Probus or Probinus being Consuls, if you count but from that Consulate four hundred eighty, six years backwards, you will again fall into the fourth year of Caius, and then, as was noted in the fifth Argument, the twelfth year of the Apostles restraint to the Jewish Nation, being the fifth from Christ's Ascension, it is again manifest that Christ suffered in the twenty second of Tiberius, and was baptised in the nineteenth.  
And thus there being so many happy hits in Historians and Chronologers comporting and complying with the Times of the Baptism and Passion of our Saviour pointed to by the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks, namely the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus in T. L. his sense, which we have explained and made out in the 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Chapters of this Book, no man can with any reason say, that Thomas Lydiat's Account of Daniel's Weeks is a Figment destitute of History. That those that make choice of that other Epocha, the seventh of Artaxerxes, produce Historians and Chronologers of their side also, is with all readiness acknowledged. Nor is there any Point controverted in Chronology and History, but there must be such Testimonies alleged on both sides, else it could be no Controversy. But the main Allegations of the adverse Party, and on which the greatest stress of their Opinion lies, have been sufficiently answered by us above, even keeping ourselves within the bounds of humane Testimony. But the weight of our second Postulatum being added thereto, which I have set down in the first Chapter, shows their pretence to be infinitely light and vain. So that I hope the unprejudiced and considerate will easily perceive and acknowledge that the genuine Epocha of Daniel's Weeks is rightly settled and determined for ever to the Glory of God, the Edification of his Church, and the immortal Credit of Thomas Lydiat, a learned, industrious and faithful Member thereof, and painful Protestant Minister of the Church of England. To abet whom in so rightful a Cause, I thought but a piece of Justice due to Him, to the Truth, and to the Honour of our English Church and Nation.   

CHAP. XVII. A Tripartition of a Letter to a Friend touching the first Resurrection and the Calling of the Jews. The first part thereof. What Exposition the most easy and natural. That the primitive Fathers following this Rule expounded the first Resurrection in a Physical sense, not Political. That Grotius also expounds it so, but in what deficient. An Objection from two places of Scripture [Luke 14.14.] and [2 Tim. 4.8.] An Answer to the first. Who as well as Martries capable of the first Resurrection? An Answer to the second. What meant by the Day of Christ's appearing. That it may be the time of his Millennial Kingdom. That the Martyrs receive their reward in the Morning of that day. Others at the Evening thereof.  
SIR,  
I Have received yours, and am glad that you have reaped that satisfaction in reading my Exposition of the Apocalypse, that you profess you have, saving in that one passage, Chap. 20. v. 4, 5, 6. where I take the first Resurrection applied to the Martyrs in a literal sense. I am glad so good a Wit and Judgement as yours rests satisfied in the rest. I shall therefore endeavour to convince you, that my Exposition in this passage is as easy, natural and smooth as in others. For I conceive that Exposition is most easy and natural that has the least tricks and devices in it, and runs not from the proper signification of Words to Allegories and Metaphors, when there is no necessity so to do. Which Rule in this very place the Primitive Christians followed, being persuaded from hence, that a first Resurrection in the proper sense was the peculiar Privilege of the Martyrs, from which persuasion they were also the better encouraged to suffer Martyrdom. And I appeal to yourself, supposing there were such a first Resurrection belonging to the Martyrs, whether the words of the Text do not tightly well fit it, which therefore must be, if true, the most natural and easy sense thereof. Consider that Saying of our Saviour Christ to the Church of Smyrna, which is that interval of the Church wherein so many suffered Martyrdom: He that overcometh (namely, by courageously suffering Martyrdom) shall not be hurt of the second death, and compare it with what occurs here Chap. 20. v. 6. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first Resurrection, on such the second death hath no power.  
Where Holy (Sanctus) Grotius interprets thus: Sanctus hîc idem quod semotus ab omni malo. Omne enim quod inviolabile est sanctum dicitur. Therefore this is a peculiar Privilege of security to the Martyrs. Which Grotius upon [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] explains thus: Animae quae sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non dicuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed eae demum quae translatae sunt sub solium gloriae, ut loquuntur Hebraei, sic vocant perfectissimum statum animarum ante Resurrectionem Vniversalem. And upon those words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] says he, Illa Martyrum in Caelum evectio potest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dici. Wherefore it is plain, that not a Political nor Moral, but a Physical sense here in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is acknowledged also by Grotius. But is it not more full, easy and natural to take it in the proper physical sense, than in this more maimed and dwindling sense, and to confess that this first Resurrection is also a Resuscitation of the Soul into a perfect blessed Immortality by her union with an Heavenly or glorified Body? And yourself also acknowledges, that there is a great fitness in the thing, that when the Millennial state takes, the Martyrs should receive some Crown or Triumphal honour in Heaven. And if then be their evectio in Coelum, as Grotius speaks, how fitly does it fall in, that they should then be invested in Heavenly bodies? Think seriously on that: Heaven is the fittest place for an Heavenly body, Is it not?  
But you'll say, If they be thus aforehand clothed with Heavenly bodies, this seems to anticipate the general Day of Judgement, which our Saviour, Luke 14.14. emphatically calls the Resurrection of the Just: till which time the Crown or their being clothed with Celestial bodies is a Depostium, which S. Paul did not expect from the hands of the righteous Judge till that day, 2 Tim. 4.8. viz. till the day of his appearing, as is said in the following words of the Text.  
But to these two places of Scripture I briefly answer thus. To the first, That it rather implies a first Resurrection distinct from the Universal, than contradicts it. For if it were meant of the day of the Universal Resurrection, our Saviour would rather have said, the Resurrection of the dead, than the Resurrection of the just: But there being supposed two distinct parts of time, the first when none but the just arise, the other when both just and unjust, the former of these will naturally be called the Resurrection of the just (by themselves) as the other the Universal Resurrection, or at large the Resurrection of the dead. Which former part, though it be most peculiar to the Martyrs, yet other singularly sanctified men, and that have the deepest dye of the Christian Spirit in them, viz. of Humility and Charity, the fruits whereof our Saviour commends in that place Luke 14.13. may commence Coelicolae at the same time, and be invested with Heavenly bodies. Though a man give all away to the poor, and profess voluntary poverty himself, or give his body to be burnt, and have not this Spirit of Humility and Charity, he is nothing esteemed. Therefore they that excel in these may well, with the Martyrs, have a share in the first Resurrection.  
This is one solid way of answering that place of Scripture. But it may be also briefly answered thus: That the Resurrection of the just does not signify there Individually, as I may so speak, taken for some one solitary set time of their Rising, but generally or at large, that when the just rise, and receive their reward, this charitable man shall receive his amongst them, whether at the beginning of the Millennium, or after the ending, it matters not so curiously to define, and so it seems to make neither pro nor con as to either Opinion.  
The other place, 2 Tim. 4.8. seems to pinch more sorely: I have fought a good fight— Henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. This seems to imply that Paul shall not have his Crown, a blessed Immortality in an Heavenly glorified body, till all the rest of good Christians that love the appearing of Christ shall have it.  
But in Answer to this I say, we are to consider what is meant by this Day of Christ's appearing. And there is nothing more obvious to observe in Scripture, than that [a day] signifies as large as [time] let it be of what years you will. So that this Day of the appearing of Christ, may be the whole Millennium or more, nay, reach from the beginning of the Millennium to the end of the World or Conflagration. For so long continues Christ's Kingdom on Earth when once it is begun in that eximious sense after his Victory over the Dragon, Beast and false Prophet. Read the 19 Chapter of the Apocalypse. Now this appearing of Christ and his glorious Reign in the Kingdom of his Saints is all one, as appears from the first verse of this very Chapter: I charge thee therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom. The appearing mentioned v. 8. is the same with this, and this with his Kingdom. The words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which may signify in the time of his appearing and Kingdom, and may be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and be rendered in the time of the appearing of his Kingdom, that Kingdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as I noted before, touching which are those Voices, Rev. 19 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. In this Reign Christ will most gloriously and triumphantly administer Justice, and most righteously order all affairs, whether concerning the living or the dead. And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Martyrs that suffered for Christ, they shall be raised first, and be invested in their glorified bodies. This affair will be dispatched at the beginning of Christ's Reign, but at the end all shall be raised, both good and bad, and receive according to their works: both these things will be done in one and the same day, in the day of his Reign, which will be filled with glorious appearances of his Power all along.  
And thus Paul might well say, and say truly: Henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not unto me only, but unto all them also that loved his appearing, that is, the appearing of his Kingdom in the power thereof, and daily prayed for it, Thy Kingdom come, as every good Christian ought to do. Paul was to receive his Crown of righteousness in the Morning of that long Day, others at the Evening or Close thereof, but thus both receive it at that day, as receiving it both in the same day. Wherefore the difficulty of these two Texts being removed, I hope that part of my Exposition, which takes the first Resurrection in a literal sense, will seem now as easy, natural and agreeable as any of the other passages. Those Interpreters that balk this obvious and natural sense, and such as the Primitive Christians conceived of it, as you may see in Mr Mede, keep a fearful pother, and so flunder and confound all, that it is tedious to read them, much more would it be to write of them, or meddle with their Conceits. Rectum est Index sui & obliqui. And therefore I will give neither you nor myself any unnecessary trouble.   

CHAP. XVIII. The second part of the Letter, touching the Calling of the Jews. Whether they be not to be converted by some Miraculous way, suppose by a Voice or Vision from Heaven. Whether that of Zachary (Chap. 12. v. 10.) import so much. That the words of our Saviour (Matt. 23. v. 39) seem to imply some such thing: As also that of S. Paul (1 Tim. 1.16.) The probability of the way of the Jews Conversion from these three places of Scripture.  
AS for that other Point in your Letter, which you rightly deem a less needful Curiosity, viz. whether the Jews be not to be converted by some miraculous way, suppose by Voice and Vision from Heaven, Mr. Mede, though not fully satisfied himself therein, is likely to give you the best satisfaction of any that I know. There are three places of Scripture that he takes notice of not impertinently. The first is Zach. Chap. 12. v. 10. They shall see him whom they have pierced. Which Sentence, though considered alone, may seem to have little force in it; yet if you read it with the Context, which seems to predict and describe the very Conversion of the Jews and excellent state of the Christian Church at that time, it will appear not a little to the purpose. Nor do I know how its force can easily be avoided, unless they interpret this seeing of him whom they have pierced, of the sight of Faith. Which others haply will look upon but as a frigid evasion.  
The second place is Matt. 23. v. 39 Ye shall not see me henceforth till you say, Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord. This our Saviour spoke some few days before his Passion, and looking upon himself now as a dead man, and gone into the other World, he told the Chief Priests and Scribes, especially (who, Matt. 21. rebuked the people for their Acclamations they made to him, viz. in those words, Hosanna to the Son of David, Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord. Which Grotius glosseth thus: Foelix sit Rex à Deo nobis datus) that they should see him no more till the time when they should say, Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, i.e. shall say, Foelix sit Rex à Deo nobis datus, and so acknowledge him their King and promised Messiah. That this must be understood of seeing him again after his being gone into the other World is plain, because it had not been true, if he had understood it of seeing him again before his death. For certainly they saw him at his Arraignment and Crucifixion. Wherefore the words seem naturally to imply such a seeing of him as S. Paul had by Vision from Heaven, whereby he was converted and forced to say, Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord, to recant his Judaisme, and sing Hosanna to Christ the Son of David, and profess himself a Christian.  
And accordingly; which is the third place pointed at by Mr. Mede; S. Paul (1 Tim. 1.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) But for this very reason, says he, I (who out of ignorance had been a Blasphemer, a Persecuter and Injurer of Christ) obtained mercy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that in me first (as the Primitiae of the Jewish Nation that is to be converted in such a miraculous manner as I was) Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not (as our English has it) for a pattern to them (for then it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but for a representative Figure or Type of them, which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. This seems to be the natural sense of the place. For why should he say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in me first, if others were not to follow that should be converted in such a miraculous manner as he was by Vision and Voices from Heaven? For in other ways of Conversion he was not the first of the Jews that were converted. Wherefore there must be a Conversion of the Jews by such a mean as S. Paul was converted, and of which, the manner of Paul's Conversion was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Prophetic Type or Figure.  
These three Scriptures may incline a rational man to believe that some chief of the Jews, the most able, the most noted, and most zealous of them for the Jewish Religion, may be called as Paul was. Whose Testimonies will awake all the Jewish Nation, and cause them more impartially to consider the Truth of Christian Religion; And the Completion of Prophecies, and their genuine Interpretation, the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church, and the lives of the Reformed Christians, a sort of them at least may be so considerably perfected by that time (those few Names in Sardis by that time being well increased) that things being so fitly prepared, it may seem a Miracle for any honest sincere Jew in those days not to be converted. These are my own proper thoughts on these three places of Scripture. But for fuller satisfaction you may consult Mr. Mede. I do not love to dwell long on an Argument that I cannot so certainly and assuredly master.   

CHAP. XIX. The last part of the Letter. The Reinforcement of his Objection against the literal or physical sense of the first Resurrection, from two parallel places of Daniel and John. An Answer to that Reinforcement from those very parallel places. The Genius of the Prophetic Style in Daniel and John, in intimating one Antitheton by another. What Antitheton to [those awakened into Eternal life] in Daniel is to be found in the Apocalypse. What is meant by the Devil's detrusion into the Abyss. That the first Resurrection is Physical, not Political, proved from the Text itself, Apoc. 20. v. 4. That the Judgement there did pass upon those that were either naturally or politically dead before the Millennium, when the wicked were not politically so, and therefore cannot be those revived (in a Political sense) after the Millennium. Further Arguments that the first Resurrection is Physical.  
THUS far I wrote before I received your last, which contains a Reinforcement of your former Objection against the taking the first Resurrection, Apoc. 2●. in a literal or Physical sense, and not in a Political. What you add, I confess, is sober and ingenious, and may suit with some men's palates the best; but though I have thought several times of this very thing afore of myself, yet mine ever refused it. I will set it down in your own words, that I may not disadvantage the strength of the sense you aim at. You ask, Whether, since myself make that place of Daniel, Chap. 12. parallel to that of Apoc. 20. the first Resurrection mentioned there, by S. John, may not be understood rather in a Political sense, of the state of the Church in the Millennium, than in a natural and Physical concerning the Martyrs? For [those others] say you, in Daniel, which awake to shame and everlasting contempt, perhaps may be answerable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apocalypse, and the [awakening] there parallel to the [living] here, etc. And whereas it is said by S. John, The rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished, what hinders, say you, but it may be understood of the wicked getting into Political power again after the expiration of the Millennium. That is briefly your sense, if not your very words.  
To this I answer, That though the attempt be ingenious to object thus from those two parallel places, yet the places themselves that are parallel will jointly bear off the force of the Objection, and show that a mere Political sense for these places is harsh and forced. For what can be more violent and harsh than to interpret, Dan. 12.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a Political sense. This is the main place that the Jews allege for their Article of the Resurrection in a Physical sense, as also the Christians. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the very Gospel-phrase again and again inculcated that signifies a blessed Immortality in a glorified body. And besides this, as Apoc. 20.12. there is mention of Books being opened at the general and Physical Resurrection (as all well in their wits must needs understand it) so before this Resurrection in Daniel there is mention of the Book, in which those whose Names are written are to be saved, as it is said Apoc. 20.15. that those whose Names are not found in the Book of Life were cast into the Lake of fire. These things considered, methinks, make it certain that the [awaking here in Daniel into everlasting life] signifies not a Political, but Physical Resurrection, let Porphyrius and Grotius fancy what they please.  
And therefore in this parallel place of the Apocalypse, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their living and reigning with Christ must have a Physical sense, not a Political, and signify their Vivification into celestial bodies, and their reigning with him in Heaven. And so those that had not worshipped the Beast, nor received his mark, etc. they answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in eodem genere, that is to say, in a Political sense to those that in Daniel are to be in shame and everlasting contempt, one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implying the opposite thereto, and the opposite to that in Daniel is here made choice of in the Apocalypse. For it is the Genius of the Prophetic stile in these two Prophets, Daniel and John, to intimate one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by another. I have observed several Examples, though I have not the command of them in my memory for the present. That in the Epistle to the Church of Laodicea seems to be one instance, The beginning of the Creation of God, the Alpha: but his main intent is to intimate thereby, that he is the Omega, the Ender or Finisher of what he has begun. And so in the Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, where he says, He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. This is no Privilege of the Smyrnean Martyrs, the same being common to all Christians that are saved, but its Antitheton insinuated by it, is; viz. the first Resurrection opposed to the second Death. There is yet a third comes into my mind, from what I noted above, most pertinent of all, Apoc. 20.15. And if that any one was not found in the Book of Life, he was cast into the Lake of fire. This is at the general Resurrection plainly, where there is no mention made of the opposite party, the righteous and their Reward, but the Antitheton is to be fetched out of Daniel, Chap. 12. Every one that shall be found written in the Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall be saved. So that Daniel and S. John, as touching such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do as it were keep Tallies in several, which joined together, adjust the true sense, and make the account clear and complete.  
Wherefore this Prophetic Ellipsis, by which one Antitheton being named we are to gather the other, shows how naturally in the Apocalypse [those that had not worshipped the Beast nor his image reigned, etc.] are set in opposition to [those that are doomed to shame and everlasting contempt] they being mere Underlings in the Millennial Reign of Christ, and so each of them understood in a Political sense. And so we see from hence, that there is not any just ground for making a Political sense of [those that awake into eternal life] though [those that are doomed to everlasting contempt] is to be understood Politically, because it respects another Antitheton in the Apocalypse (and not that) which is immediately opposite in eodem genere. Let but Daniel and S. John join Tallies, and the account will be clear.  
And now this it may be you will say were more easy to admit, if [those that awake into everlasting life] had something also in eodem genere that were an Antitheton to it. But I have already proved, that have it or have it not, it is necessarily to be understood of a Physical Resurrection, not Political.  
But for your greater ease, what if I should allow that about that time that these Martyrs in the first Resurrection are awakened into everlasting life in their Heavenly bodies, and so ascend into Heaven, that the Ghosts of the cruel and barbarous Persecutors (whether Pagan or Pagano-Christian) of the Saints of God, together with their chief Inspirers and Instigators thereto, those Devils that were most active upon them for that work, shall be thrust down into the nethermost Hell into that Dungeon of the Rephaim, which the Annotator upon Lux Orientalis describes in his Annotations, if you have seen the Book? It's but interpreting the casting the old Dragon and his Accomplices (the Ghosts of that cruel murderous Crew of Persecutors, whether Pagano-Christian or Pagan) into the bottomless Pit, or rather Abyss in a Physical sense, and the business is done.  
I have in my Exposition interpreted it in a Political sense, which therefore may answer to [those which are doomed to shame and everlasting contempt]. Add but this Physical sense; (And most Interpreters take it in such a literal sense, but being ignorant or mindless of a Prophetic Henopoeia therein, interpret it of one single great Devil, and not in Conjunction with those of his Kingdom of Darkness. But by a Prophetic Henopoeia, not only the Prince of the Devils, but all those Devils and evil Spirits that were active in the Pagan and Pagano-Christian Persecutions may be here understood, and then their Physical detrusion into the Abyss at this time is no mean Argument that those whom they persecuted were at the same time exalted into Heaven, that the other were thrust down into the nethermost Hell, not able to get out thence till the Claviger of the Abyss with his Ministers brings them out again after the thousand years to exercise the sleepy Laodicean Church, but to be triumphed over in the Conclusion, as Pharaoh was, who when he thought to have reduced the Israelites under his Bondage again, was overwhelmed with a Sea of Water, as Satan with all his numerous Forces, Gog and Magog, will be overthrown in a Lake or Sea of Fire) Add, I say, but this Physical sense to answer in opposition to the Martyrs ascending into Heaven in their glorified bodies, while those Wretches are thrust down into the nethermost Hell, into the Abyss, of which they are so much afraid Luke 8.31. and all is complete. And this imprisoning of these disturbers of the World is very suitable, and fitly falls in with the peaceful and righteous Reign of Christ upon Earth. Thus much we have gained by considering the Text of Daniel, now let us cast our eyes upon its parallel place in the Apocalypse, Chap. 20. v. 4.  
And I saw the Souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, etc. Certainly this denotes them dead in a Physical or natural sense, not Political, and in what sense they are dead they must be said to be revived, viz. in a Physical, unless we do manifest violence to the Text. Which same violence would be offered, if we did not interpret that which follows [but the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished] in a Physical sense too. From whence it follows likewise, that [This is the first Resurrection] must have a Physical sense also, not a Political, nor yet a Moral, and so will answer directly to [those some awakened into everlasting life] in Daniel. And thus the parallel places support the true sense of each other. And then that which follows in the Apocalypse, Blessed and holy is he (that is to say, Blessed in having a peculiar and separate Privilege above others in partaking of the first Resurrection, he being already secure from the second Death which is the Lake of Fire, from which none are actually secured till they obtain their Heavenly bodies) will have a natural and easy coherence with what preceded, as also a very fit reference to that passage of the Epistle to the Church in Smyrna (that interval of the Church wherein the Pagan Persecution did so rage, and there were so many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beheaded, or otherwise martyred for the witness of Jesus) He that overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death; which implies by that usual Antithesis I spoke of above, that he shall be made partaker of the first Resurrection, and enjoy that peculiar Privilege for his Sufferings, according to the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers.  
This hinders me from allowing that [The rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished] may be understood of the wicked's reviving Politically after the expiration of the Millennium; and the rather, because the sense of the place carries it for those that at the Millennium were heretofore dead, either naturally or Politically, (and so Judgement proceeds upon them Apoc. 20.4.) which the wicked were not in a Political sense, and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [they lived not again] must refer to that Physical Resurrection we contend for.  
Add to all this, that if the first Resurrection were understood in a Political sense, and meant in general as well of them that were beheaded as those that worshipped not the Beast, and in no other sense than so, there is no reason why S. John should use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at first, and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And we might demand, if that be the first Political Resurrection, which is the second? unless we will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And how it can be appropriated to this first Resurrection as a special Privilege of the partakers thereof, that the second Death shall have no power over them, this by promise belonging to all true Believers, though not Martyrs, from the beginning of the Church to the end of the World. But to obtain a glorified body before the second Death or the Lake of Fire be in being, which by its own Nature exempts from the harm thereof, or of any thing like it in being, this is a peculiar Privilege indeed. And blessed and holy and peculiarly happy is he that has his share in such a first Resurrection as this, for he is actually out of the reach of all harm that may come from the Lake of Fire, (the being within the reach of whose power is to be obnoxious to the second Death) and according to the Apocalyptick Antithetical implications or intimations he is possessed already of everlasting life in a glorified body, whenas others are but Candidates for the same.  
I hope by this time you perceive how easy, smooth and natural my Exposition of the first Resurrection in a Physical sense is, and how intricate, harsh and perplex the contrary way would be, etc.   

CHAP. XX. That the Description of the New Jerusalem is a Description of a state of the Church on Earth. The high expressions therein, but such as are used in the Prophets touching the people of the Jews. The Plea of those that will have it merely a Description of the Church Triumphant in Heaven, consisting of seven Arguments out of Alcazar. An Answer to those seven Arguments. A more moderate way betwixt them that hold the Description of the New Jerusalem, the one, to signify merely such a state of the Church on Earth, the other the state of the Church in Heaven, viz. That though it be a Prophecy of an excellent state of the Church on Earth, yet the Description of that state is an intended Type also of the state of the Church Triumphant in Heaven.  
THERE is a wide difference betwixt some Interpreters touching the Description of the New Jerusalem, Apoc. 21. some understanding it to be a Description of the State of the Church here on Earth, others of the State in Heaven. Amongst these latter is S. Augustine especially, and after him Ribera, Alcazar, Pareus and others. Amongst the former Justin Martyr, Grotius, Dr. Hammond, Brightman with others. And I must confess I am altogether of that Opinion, that it is the Description of the State of the Church on Earth after the ruin of Antichrist, and so have expounded it continuedly throughout in my Exposition of the Apocalypse, and have carefully suggested Arguments all along from the Text itself, that it is so to be expounded.  
So that there wants nothing for any further confirmation thereof, unless I should take notice how there are no expressions so high in this Description but what are in other places of the Prophets, and generally understood by Interpreters of the State of the Church on Earth, namely such expressions as these: In that Prophetical Thanksgiving of Tobit, Chap. 13. Jerusalem shall be built up with Sapphirs and Emeralds and precious Stones, thy Walls and Towers with pure Gold. And the streets of Jerusalem shall be paved with Beryl and Carbuncle and Stones of Ophir. In the Prophecy of Isaiah, Chap. 65. v. 17. Behold, I create new Heavens and a new Earth, and the former shall not be remembered nor come into mind. But be you glad and rejoice for ever in what I create, for behold I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy, See also Chap. 66.22. In the Prophecy of Ezekiel: My Tabernacle also shall be with them, yea I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Again, Isa. 25.8. The Lord will wipe away tears from all faces. And 54.11. Oh thou afflicted, tossed with Tempests and not comforted, behold I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and thy foundations with Sapphirs, I will make thy windows of Agates, and thy gates of Carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones. And Chap. 60.19. The Sun shall be no more thy light by day, neither for brightness shall the Moon give light unto thee, but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. Thy Sun shall no more go down, neither shall thy Moon withdraw itself, for the Lord shall be thine everlasting-light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended. What more exalted expressions than these are there in the Apocalypse, in the description of the New Jerusalem? All which places notwithstanding are understood of a state of the Church on Earth. And so the City which Ezekiel describes, by which is understood the Church on Earth, the twelve Gates, the River, Trees and Fruit, they are all transcribed into the Description of this New Jerusalem in the Apocalypse. So assured a thing is it, that the Apocalyptick Description of the New Jerusalem does denote a state of the Church here on Earth.  
Wherefore it were a more fit thing to bring into view the Plea of the other Party, who are so confident that it is a description of the state of Heaven, than to concern ourselves in any further proofs that it is a state of the Church on Earth, that we may give a right judgement of the matter. Alcazar, who is very stiff for this Opinion, produces no fewer than seven Arguments for the same.  
The first is the Authority of S. Augustine, who bluntly says in his De Civitate Dei, lib. 20. cap. 17. That it is mere impudence to assert otherwise, because it is said, Absterget Deus omnem lacrymam ab oculis eorum, & mors jam non erit, neque luctus, neque clamour, sed nec ullus erit dolour. And at the end of that Chapter he says, That these things are so clearly spoken of the World to come, and the Immortality and Eternity of the Saints, that we must not pretend that any thing is manifest in Scripture, if this place be obscure.  
The second is taken from the Order of the Apocalypse, which having set down at the end of the preceding Chapter a description of the Day of Judgement, and punishment of the Wicked, it necessarily follows that in the next place should be set down a description of the everlasting glory and happiness of the Elect in Heaven.  
The third is, from that it is said Chap. 20. v. 11. That the Heaven and the Earth fled away from the face of him that sat upon the white Throne, and there was found no place for them, and this to have been in the last day of Judgement. Wherefore the New Heaven and the New Earth mentioned in the beginning of the next Chapter, forasmuch as the Universe cannot be without an Heaven and Earth, must be the renewed Heaven and Earth after the Day of Judgement, in which the glorified Saints enjoy themselves in their Heavenly state, which is called the New Jerusalem.  
The fourth is taken from Chap. 21.7, 8. He that overcometh shall inherit all things, but the fearful and unbelieving, etc. shall have their part in the Lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Whence, says he, it is manifest, that it is the Heavenly Bliss that is here promised to the Victor, and that this Jerusalem therefore is a state in Heaven, not on Earth.  
Fifthly, The side of the Square Area of Ezekiel's City by which the Church Militant is prefigured, is but four thousand five hundred reeds or forty five furlongs; but the side of the Square of the Area of the New Jerusalem in the Apocalypse is extended unto twelve thousand furlongs, which makes the Area of the New Jerusalem seventy one thousand and an hundred and eleven times bigger than the Area of Ezekiel's City, and therefore Ezekiel's City being the Church Militant, this New Jerusalem, by reason of the vast difference in their capaciousnesses, and S. John's City containing not the Elect of some one time, but of all Ages, must needs be the Church Triumphant.  
Sixthly, Those words, I saw no Temple there, imply, That this description of the New Jerusalem is not of the Church Militant, but Triumphant. For the Church Militant is not without Temples.  
Seventhly and lastly, In that it is said, There is no Night, no Death, no Pain, no Curse, That without are Dogs, etc. And that the Inhabitants of this City shall always enjoy the sight of the Face of God and the Lamb, these are manifest indications that the state described is not of the Church Militant, but Triumphant. These are the notable Arguments of Alcazar, which Pareus also applauds or approves as stiff in Alcazar's Opinion as himself. But I shall answer them in order.  
To the first therefore I say, That the true understanding of the Apocalypse being by Divine Providence reserved for these latter times, (as it is manifestly intimated in Daniel, Chap. 12.9.) As it is no disparagement for the ancient Fathers not to be knowing in matters which the Wisdom of God thought fit to conceal from them, so it is no rudeness or injury to their Authority, that it is not admitted in cases wherein they are no competent Judges. They had not the advantage we have, who have so much of the Prophecies of the Apocalypse so clearly fulfilled before our eyes; the fulfilling of Prophecies being the most certain Key for the opening of them. It is not likely that S. Austin understood, that the Whore of Babylon is the Apostatised Church, that great City or Polity Antichristian and Idolatrous, that was to be destroyed by the pouring out of the Vials; upon the destruction whereof one of the Vial-Angels showed this City or Polity the New Jerusalem to John, as that Power or Polity that was to succeed in the others room, in which the Servants of God that adhered to the pure Gospel, nor would submit to the Roman Superstitions and Idolatries, were cruelly persecuted, tortured, and murdered many hundred thousands of them, which could not be without the tears of them that were concerned. These things, I say, S. Austin being ignorant of, we may well excuse him for his confident mistake: who, if he had known them, would have easily discerned the Speech to have been figurative, when it is said, there shall be no more death, nor crying, nor sorrow, nor pain, and that God will wipe all tears from their eyes, viz. that by a Synecdoche generis those kinds of death, sorrow, pain, crying and tears are pointed at that were caused by that Antichristian Polity that so barbarously persecuted the Saints of God; that in this New Jerusalem state they should be free from these. Which is an easy and obvious sense thus understood. And indeed the observing that the description of the New Jerusalem is in opposition to the Polity of Babylon which it succeeds, is a special Key for the rightly opening the meaning of the Description all along, as may be observed in my Exposition thereof.  
To the second I answer, (1.) That the Object of the opened Book-Prophecy, of which the Description of the New Jerusalem is part, is not the state of the Church in Heaven, but the state thereof on Earth. And therefore though a description of the state of the Church in Heaven would follow here handsomely, yet it being quite Heterogeneous to the nature of this Prophecy, we may be sure it is not here described but a state on Earth in the Millennium, and that therefore there is a going back into those times in this Description; the placing of the Visions being no certain Argument of the order of time they belong to, as all know that know any thing in the Apocalypse.  
Again, That there is an holy and happy state of the Church of Christ in his Millennial Reign on Earth is plain, and that that State or Polity opposite to the Polity or City of Babylon, is not where so fully described as the Whore of Babylon is, Chap. 17. is as plain. Wherefore what can be more likely, than that this City the New Jerusalem is described as a Polity opposite to the City of Babylon, which was drunk with the blood of the Saints and the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus, from which barbarous Persecutions the Saints are secured in this New Jerusalem state. Whence it is said, There shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, but that God will wipe all tears from their eyes, etc. Chap. 21.4.  
Thirdly, Those many passages noted in my Exposition of this Description of the New Jerusalem, which is needless here to repeat, plainly demonstrate it to be a description of the state of the Church on Earth.  
And lastly, The Vial-Angel, the last doubtless, as being nearest to this time that shows John the Bride, the Lamb's Wife, in opposition to the bloody Whore of Babylon, destroyed by him under the seventh Vial, how naturally does his showing John the City, New Jerusalem, upon his having destroyed the City of Babylon, imply, that he shows him that Polity that is to succeed that of Babylon, and that therefore this New Jerusalem is here upon Earth.  
To the third I say, That that high expression of the Heaven and Earth flying away, or vanishing from the face of him that sat upon the Throne, and that there was found no place for them, is only to set out the exceeding great Glory of him that sat upon the Throne, that they could neither see Earth nor the Azure Sky, their eyes being so filled and taken up with the great resplendency and brightness of that light. But the real stress of the Argument, if there be any in it, is, That there is a new Heaven and a new Earth after the Conflagration (which accompanies the last Judgement) mentioned in the beginning of the ensuing Chapter. But from what has been faid to the second Argument it is apparent, that it is a mere Lemmatosynechia, that is, the continuing together of the Visions in the outward Cortex of the Apocalypse, as if that were the very order of time in the things they prefigure, when it is quite otherwise in the true sense of the Visions. This is one part of the artifice of Concealment affected by the Apocalypse, of which there are many instances; As that Chap. 4.1. where after the Vision of the seven Churches, John is bid to come up, that he might be shown what things must come to pass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after these things. Which Lemmatosynechia has so imposed upon some otherwise learned and of notable parts, that they have joined the beginning of the sealed Book-Prophecy with the ending of the affairs of Laodicea. That also seems to be a Lemmatosynechia, Chap. 13.14. where the two-horned Beast is said to make an Image to the Beast that had the wound by the Sword and did live, as if the ten-horned Beast in the immediately foregoing Vision were meant, which is a glib correspondency in the Cortex when the inward sense is otherwise. But there is not a more elegant Lemmatosynechia than that Chap. 11.9. where the three days and an half of the Witnesses being dead, are immediately placed after the twelve hundred and sixty days of their mournful prophesying; when yet the three days and an half are the same time or Synchronal to the twelve hundred and sixty days, as I have elsewhere proved by impregnable Arguments. I will only add one instance more, Chap. 16. v. 18, 19 where the City is said to be divided into three parts upon the Earthquake there mentioned, whenas that Tripartition of the City was before, but it is a very smooth and trim Lemmatosynechia in the Cortex. And such a Lemmatosynechia is this in naming a New Heaven and a New Earth immediately after the Conflagration, which is a wonderful smooth connexion in the Cortex, when yet in truth, this New Heaven and New Earth is a Political Heaven and Earth, answering to that of Isaiah, Chap. 65.17. and created in the beginning of the Millennium. This is the promised New Heaven and New Earth mentioned by S. Peter, (alluding to that of Isaiah) wherein dwelleth righteousness, whenas the Polity of Babylon was full of persecution, injustice and blood. Wherefore Alcazar being not ware of this usual Artifice of Concealment intended in the Apocalypse, which I call Lemmatosynechia, has produced that for a strong Argument, which, the matter rightly understood, has no strength in it at all.  
To his fourth I answer, That we are both agreed in this, that the 7. and 8. verses of Chap. 21. respect the state of men to come after the Day of Judgement, the Lake of fire, and the Inheritance of Heaven. For I declare in my Exposition, That from the second verse to the ninth is a brief description of the affairs of the Church from the second Thunder to the last, or to the end of the World, to the last Reward of the Godly, and Punishment of the Wicked. But as after a brief mention of the destruction of Babylon, Chap. 16. v. 19 there is a large description of her and her destruction in the two following Chapters, 17. and 18. so here after a brief intimation of the emersion of the New Jerusalem into being, there is a full and glorious Description thereof from the ninth verse of this 21. Chapter to the sixth of the next. And I may here further add, that as in the foregoing Chapter, v. 9, 10. the Conflagration is glanced at in the destruction of Gog and Magog by fire, who besieged the holy City, but the Judgement of the wicked and fiery Lake or Conflagration more fully prosecuted from v. 11. to the end of the Chapter: So here after the brief mentioning of the state of the New Jerusalem in the five first verses, it is more fully described from the ninth verse to the end of this Chapter, and some part of the next. So small force has this fourth Argument to infer that these descriptions of the New Jerusalem belong to the state of the Church in Heaven.  
The fifth Argument makes a pretty show, but it is grounded upon a gross mistake, as if the twelve thousand furlongs were the side of the Square Area of the New Jerusalem; whenas it is a solid Number, whose Cubick root multiplied by four, giveth the same Perimeter in a manner that Ezekiel's four thousand five hundred multiplied into four do give, that is, eighteen thousand, not Reeds, but Cubits, as both Gaspar Sanctius and Villalpandus conceive them to be, both of them learned and industrious Commentators upon Ezekiel. By which solid account the seeming force of this fifth Argument quite vanisheth. See Mr. Potter's Interpretation of the Number 666. Chap. 5. And the Equality of Perimeters of the Square Area of Ezekiel's and S. John's Cities (supposing the solid measure of S. John's City to be twelve thousand furlongs, as the Text itself seems to intimate, [and he measured the City with a Reed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in all twelve thousand furlongs], and he presently thereupon adding, the length, breadth and height of it are equal, implies they are solid furlongs) this Equality, I say, added to the twelve Gates in each City, twelve Tribes, the River and the Trees and Fruit, is a plain Argument that S. John's City and Ezekiel's are Figures of the same thing, and Ezekiel's being of the State of the Church on Earth, S. John's must be so also.  
And now for his sixth Argument from, I saw no Temple there. It consists very well with the state of the Church in those best and most glorious times thereof in the Millennial Reign of Christ, which the Cabalists also call the Reign of the Spirit, when God will find, in abundance, such Worshippers as he seeks for, viz. such as shall worship him in Spirit and in Truth. And this passage seems inserted on purpose to be a Key to the Jews that will then be converted, how to understand Ezekiel's Prophecy of the same state of the Church, by the City he describes and makes so much to do with the Temple and Rituals thereof; they will by this Note understand that it is an Hylastick Parable, of which the Truth is to be followed, and the shadow to fly away.  
And lastly, For what is alleged in the seventh Argument, they are but such things as are already answered by my answering the first, where I have explained in what sense there is said to be no death, nor sorrow, nor pain. And it being said there is no curse, that is, no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that respects the Papal Curses, as is noted in my Exposition. And that there is no Night, is no more than is said by Esay of the state of the Church on Earth, Thy Sun shall no more go down, etc. Chap. 60. And this state of the Church being so holy on Earth, it is no wonder that such ill people as are called Dogs, Sorcerers, Whoremongers, Idolaters, etc. are excluded from it, and not admitted into their Communion: And in that they are said to enjoy the sight of the face of God and of the Lamb; what is this more than what S. Paul witnesses we are capable of in this life? That God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, may shine in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. So that there being so many indications, as I have observed in my Notes, that the description of this New Jerusalem is a description of a state of the Church on Earth, and the best Arguments alleged against it being really invalid, it remains manifest, that the state of the Church in the Millennial Reign of Christ on the Earth is predicted and described by this Description of the New Jerusalem.  
But now after the pondering of the Plea of both Parties, though I am very confident, that the description of the New Jerusalem is a description of the Church on Earth in the Millennium, yet I am on the other side as confident of what is not at all repugnant to this, that this excellent Millennial state of the Church is a Type (and so intended to be in its description) of that more transcendently blessed and glorious state of the Church Triumphant in Heaven. And the reasons that induce me to this belief in brief are these.  
First, It seems handsome and congruous, that it being so universally acknowledged on all sides, that the State and Oeconomy of the Jewish Church was a Type of the Christian Church which was to succeed it; so the best state of the Christian Church Militant, which is the Millennial state or rather the state of the New Jerusalem here described, which the Heavenly state succeeds, should be a Type of the succeeding Church Triumphant in Heaven.  
Secondly, There is a sufficient lively Description and sensible Representation of the state of the second Death which succeeds the general Judgement, the Lake burning with brimstone and fire; why therefore should there not be as lively, or rather more lively description of the state of Eternal life, to which the Godly are adjudged, as well as the Wicked to the other state?  
Thirdly, therefore, The Description of the New Jerusalem State or Polity, for it is the Kingdom of Heaven immediately succeeding this Lake of fire in the very next Chapter under the very name of a new Heaven and a new Earth the same with the New Jerusalem, and this after the Conflagration, we are fairly invited thereby to conclude, that the state of the New Jerusalem on Earth is so described, that it is also a Type of the Triumphant Jerusalem in Heaven. And thus far we will allow force in Alcazar's second and third Argument, that they may fairly warrant, in conjunction with other Considerations, the description of the New Jerusalem on Earth to be a Type of the Church Triumphant in Heaven.  
Fourthly, This being a most Holy Book of Divine Visions, and this of the New Jerusalem the last of the Visions, what can be a more proper Vision than this, that typifies also the glorious and blissful state of the Saints in Heaven, to be the close of all, and which not only this Book of the Apocalypse, but the whole Bible aims at?  
Fifthly and lastly, It is observable, and I have noted it in my Mystery of Godliness, Book 7. Chap. 7. That in a Prophecy that may have a meaner fulfilling at the first, and is really intended for that fulfilling, yet by reason of the high actuation of the Spirit of the Prophet, some expressions may come from him that much better fit the Antitype, than the Type in which the Prophecy is first fulfilled. This is so over and over again verified in the Prophecy Typical of our Saviour Christ, that it is needless pains to name any; And many such instances also are observable in the Typical Prophecies of Antichrist, as that in the Prince of Type, etc. Now this being so observable in Predictions that are but Types, of what there will be a fuller completion; that there are strokes in them that properly belong not (but only figuratively) to the Type, but to its Antitype, there being this very case in the description of the New Jerusalem a Prophecy of the Millennial state of the Church on Earth; that is to say, there being such expressions therein that more naturally describe the state of Heaven, as S. Augustine has well observed in the first Argument, and Alcazar in the last: the genuine Result of this Consideration is this, That it is a Prophecy of such a State of the Church on Earth, as is a lively Type withal of that transcendent Happiness the Saints will find in Heaven, where there shall be, not only no more death, sorrow, crying, tears, pain or torture from that bloody persecutive Polity of Babylon (which are intimated by a Synecdoche Generis) but absolutely and properly (speaking without a Figure) there shall be none of these things at all. These are the Reasons that move me to think, that though the description of the New Jerusalem be a Prophecy of the blessed Reign of Christ on Earth, that yet it is withal a Type of the Joys and Glory of the Kingdom of Heaven, wherewith the Saints are rewarded after the Conflagration.   

CHAP. XXI. The occasion of his more fully making out that grand Truth, that the whole Apocalypse in a manner consists of three main Prophecies, beginning with the Church, and reaching to the end of the World, viz. the Epistolar Prophecy, Sealed Book- Prophecy, and Opened Book- Prophecy, with the three Introductory Visions prefixed thereto. That the Epistolar Prophecy is such a Prophecy. That the Sealed Book- Prophecy is such. And also the Opened Book- Prophecy. The Reference of the three Introductory Visions to the Title of the Book of the Apocalypse. Introductory Visions to Prophecies in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and that they are not properly Prophecies themselves. The Meaning of the Introductory Vision of the Epistolar Prophecy. The like Meaning of the Introductory Vision to the Prophecy of the Sealed Book. The drift of the third Introductory Vision, muchwhat the same with the two former, and that the Angel there appearing, is Christ. That this third Introductory Vision is a kind of Transitionary Introduction to the Opened Book- Prophecy. Proved briefly from the Oath of the Angel, that the Sealed Book- Prophecy reaches to the End of the World.  
FOrasmuch as I am fully persuaded in my own judgement, that I have suggested in my Exposition of the Apocalypse touching that Volume of Divine Visions is true, namely, that the whole in a manner consists of three main Prophecies, which reach each of them from the beginning of the Church to the End of the World, viz. the Epistolar Prophecy to the Seven Churches, the Sealed Book-Prophecy, and the Opened Book-Prophecy, and of three Introductory Visions, each of the three Prophecies having prefixed to it one. And because this is so fundamental a Truth, that no man with success can interpret any part of the Apocalypse repugnantly thereto, yet knowing certainly and experimentally, that men of Learning, Wit and Parts, and of a Genius to these kind of studies, have notwithstanding overlooked this necessary Principle, and thereby have bewildered themselves, and lost themselves in inextricable Labyrinths; therefore for the more sure inculcating so sound and necessary a Notion, I have thought fit something more fully here to insist on the proof thereof; but more especially that those three Visions prefixed to these three Prophecies, are rather Introductions to the said Prophecies, than Prophecies themselves.  
That the Epistles to the Seven Churches is a Prophecy, I have in my Exposition demonstrated by no jess than twenty solid Arguments, which are also set down at the end of my Exposition of the Visions of Daniel, and the scope thereof is enforced by Notes thereon. But that it is a Prophecy reaching from the beginning of the Church to the End of the World, that one Consideration might assure any one that is not hoodwinked with prejudice, viz. that these Seven Churches imply seven Intervals from the beginning of the Church (as any will grant that is convinced it is a Prophecy) and the Number Seven every where in the Apocalypse implies All from the Terminus whence the Reckoning is, and therefore it necessarily implies all the intervals of the Church from the beginning to the end thereof. This must be indubitable to him that understands the stile of the Apocalypse. And taking this ground, and observing the intervals we have chosen, and applying History to each of them, the Epistles are found an exquisite Prefiguration of the things in each interval, and the Paronomastical allusions hugely expressive of the Events of every interval, which is as full a confirmation as one can desire, that the Epistolar Prophecy reaches from the beginning of the Church to the end of the World.  
And now that the Sealed Book-Prophecy does so too, it is evident from the same Argument drawn from the Septenary, which is an Apocalyptick Symbol of Universality, taking in from the term it commences all the space of mundane Affairs wherein the Church may be concerned, and Divine Providence and Prophecy employed, which therefore is to the end of the World. And thus not only the seven Seals reach to the end of the World, but by the same reason the seven Trumpets commencing with the seventh Seal and seven Thunders commencing with the seventh Trumpet, must reach to the end of the World. And the Angel, Chap. 10. swears to this Truth, That there shall be no more time, saving that wherein the seventh Angel shall sound, and the Mystery of God be finished, as I shall make good afterwards. Wherefore here is abundance of Evidence, that the Sealed Book-Prophecy reaches from the beginning of the Church to the end of the World.  
And that the Opened Book-Prophecy does the like, that is, reaches to the end of the World, is manifest, because it reaches to the last Judgement and Conflagration, Chap. 20. And that the Visions of Chap. 12. respect the beginning of the Church, viz. the Woman in Childbirth, and the Fight of Michael with the Dragon, no man of common sense can deny. From whence yet it will naturally follow, That the measuring of the Temple of God and the Altar, etc. respects also or reaches the beginning of the Church, for the Church was Symmetral as soon as it began. But these three Points there was less need to insist upon, they being sufficiently made out elsewhere.  
The chief thing intended here is to prove, that the three Visions prefixed to these three main Prophecies, are Introductions only to those Prophecies, and not properly Prophecies themselves. For the better clearing this Truth, we will take our rise from the Title of the Book comprised in vers. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass, and he sent and signified (viz. the things to come to pass, some sooner, some later) by his Angel to his servant John. Here we see how methodically in a plain vulgar stile is set down the sum of this Book, viz. that the Book is a Book predicting things to come, that is to say, a Book of Prophecies. That this Book of Prophecies is a Revelation of Jesus Christ, that he is the Revealer of these things to come, and that unto John by Angelical Ministry; But that the Man Christ Jesus had this Revelation from God, it being the high Privilege of the Soul of the Messiah to have such Secrets revealed unto him. The two main things therefore included in this Title are these: That this Book is a Revelation of things to come: That this Revelation is from the Man Christ, or through the Humanity of Christ, but by the Gift of the Eternal Godhead. Both these things are set down here in an ordinary vulgar stile. But forasmuch as those Predictions in the three main Prophecies, which might have been made also or expressed in such a vulgar plain stile, but yet are not but in pompous and Enigmatical Phrases, it was very suitable and congruous, that the signifying that these three Prophecies were the Revelation of the Man Jesus Christ by the gift of God, should be expressed with correspondent Pomp and Magnificency. And this is the thing I contend for, that those Visions prefixed to these three main Prophecies, that the main design of them is to entitle the succeeding Prophecy to the Revelation of Jesus Christ by the gift of God, and that the Godhead is joined with him in every one of these three Introductory Visions, and so makes good that part of the general Title of the whole Book, and in as magnificent a manner as the Prophetical part itself is set out therein.  
That there are such Introductory Visions prefixed before eminent Prophecies, is observable in very illustrious Examples thereof. As Isai. Chap. 6. I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne high and lifted up, and his train filled the Temple. Above stood the Seraphims, etc. Which Vision is no Prophecy, but a signification of Isaiah's Mission and Inspiration from God, whereby he was enabled to utter infallible Prophecies. The like Introductory Vision and more ample of the glory of the God of Israel enthroned above the Cherubims is prefixed before Ezekiel's Book of Prophecies, but is no Prophecy itself, but a sign of Ezekiel his Call and Inspiration from God to prophesy: He upon the Throne speaking to him, Chap. 2.3. and saying, Son of man, I send thee to the Children of Israel, etc. there's his Mission, and then reaching him a roll of a Book to eat, whereby (as John, Apoc. 10. doing the like) he was enabled to prophesy. I will add a third Example out of Daniel of that Vision of an Angel habited like Aaron the Highpriest, Chap. 10.5. prefixed before the Prophecy of the Scripture of Truth, who communicated to Daniel the said Prophecy. But now as no man is so senseless as to take those Introductory Visions in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel to be proper Prophecies, but only or chief significations of the Divine Inspiration of those Prophets, that they were enabled thus to prophesy by the Spirit of the Lord: So it is a wonder to me, that any one of wit and parts and learning should be so heedless and grossly mistaken as to make any of these Introductory Visions to the Epistolar Prophecy, the Sealed Book-Prophecy and the Opened Book-Prophecy, to be Prophecies properly so called, and not Introductory Visions (such as those in Daniel, Ezekiel and Isaiah) whose proper scope is to intimate the Divine Inspiration of John in writing those Prophecies, which were communicated to him by Angelical Ministry upon the appointment of Christ, whose Merit obtained this Revelation from the Eternal Godhead. That this is the genuine meaning of those three Introductory Visions I shall now endeavour to make good in order as they lie.  
And it is exceeding manifest in the first, that the Appearance to John of one in the Pontifical Habit, like that of Aaron, is hugely like that Appearance to Daniel, Chap. 10.5. Wherefore why should this be more a Prophecy than that? But both these Appearances being in the High Priests Habit, who was a Type of Christ, it is a plain Argument that it is Christ himself that appeared or was represented in both places. And this very Appearance dictating the Epistles (sent to the seven Churches) unto John, as if he were his Amanuensis or Secretary, and these Epistles being the Epistolar Prophecy itself, it is plain that it is the first part of the Revelation of Jesus Christ signified to his Servant John. And that God is here in Conjunction with Christ, is manifest from his Pontifical Habit, which is a Symbol of the visible World; as Philo takes notice, though he knew not the right System thereof. But what an excellent Hieroglyphic those Aaronical Habiliments are of the true Pythagorick System thereof I have abundantly made out in the Appendix to the Defence of my Philosophic Cabbala, Chap. 5. Sect. 3, 4. See also the Latin Scholia thereon. Wherefore the Assistance of the Eternal Divinity to the Soul of the Messiah or Humanity of Christ, is hence easily conceived.  
And the like may be observed in that Vision prefixed before the Sealed Book-Prophecy contained in Chap. 4, and 5. It is no more a Prophecy than the Vision prefixed before Ezekiel's Book of Prophecies, and the less likely, it being in a manner the same Vision with it. And therefore why should it be a Prophecy more here than there? Nay, if it be a Prophecy of any King or Queen sitting on their Throne in Christendom, it is a very ancient Prophecy of them indeed. For that Vision in Ezekiel is the very same which Moses and the Elders saw on Mount Sinai. Some intimation thereof is from the mention of the Sapphir stone on which he is said to stand in the one, and to sit in the other; but there is that which is yet more pressing. For as Ezekiel says of his Vision, that it was the Appearance of the glory of the Lord, Chap. 1.28. and the glory of the God of Israel, Chap. 10.19. so it is said Exod. 24. that the glory of the Lord abode on Mount Sinai. Which therefore what it was is amply indicated in the Vision of Ezekiel, which I doubt not but is a Symbol of the spiritual and invisible Kingdom of the God of Israel, where he sits enthroned amidst his bright Angelical Squadrons, and the Psalmist briefly notes, The Chariots of God are twenty thousands, even many thousands of Angels, the Lord is among them as in Sinai: where there was the Representation of his Glory and Majesty in his Angelical Kingdom, and 'tis likely on a Sapphir Throne, whose very Scabellum was also Sapphir, and so his feet (which is all from the Hip to the Toes) rested on Sapphir. For to fancy him standing does not so well agree with the Representation of Majesty. But the strongest Argument is yet behind, viz. That the Cherubims and the order of the Camp of Israel answer so tightly to this Vision of Ezekiel. Whence it must be plain to him that will see, Moses being to order all things according to the Pattern in the Mount, that the order of the Camp of Israel and the Tabernacle, etc. was according to the Representation of the Glory of the God of Israel on the Mount in his Spiritual Kingdom. To the perfection whereof it being not the Lot of the Church of the Jews to reach, they bore notwithstanding the external and Ritual figure thereof in the order of their Camp, Tabernacle, etc. Wherefore that Vision in the Mount again seen by Ezekiel, and lastly here by S. John with some few alterations only, and prefixed before his Prophecy of the Sealed Book, as it is before Ezekiel's Book of Prophecies, how awkward a thing is it to conceit this a proper and formal Prophecy itself, of the same nature that the three main Apocalyptick Prophecies are? whenas it is of no other nature than the Vision prefixed before the Epistolar Prophecy, some parts of which Vision are made use of in the Epistolar Prophecy itself, as there is of this in the Sealed Book-Prophecy. And as that Vision being a Representation of Christ in Conjunction with his Church, may have some general and less distinct significancies of her condition: so this Vision prefixed before the Sealed Book-Prophecy, it being really a Symbol of the Spiritual Kingdom of the God of Israel, may be so framed as to have some glances on those times when this Spiritual Kingdom of the God of Israel in Heaven (which is the chief aim of all) shall descend thence from God, and be found on Earth in the New Jerusalem state of his Church. This being the great scope of all contained in both the Sealed and Opened Book-Prophecies, it is not irrational to conceive this ancient Vision, seen by Moses and Ezekiel, to be so attempered in this seen by S. John, as to have some glances at those most excellent times, of which the Spiritual Kingdom of the God of Israel is the Archetypon, and it being so, it is prefigurative of them naturally of it self. But the special intention of prefixing it here, is to signify in this magnificent manner, that the Sealed Book-Prophecy is the second part of the Revelation of the Man Jesus Christ which God gave him. For it is plain, that the Man Christ Jesus signified by the Lamb that was slain, took the Book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the Throne, Chap. 5.7. which is the Eternal Godhead, and opened the Seals in order Chap. 6. and so communicated the Visions of each Seal to John, a thing which no Creature in Heaven nor Earth nor under the Earth was found worthy or able to do besides him. This therefore is the special and particular design of prefixing this Vision of the Spiritual Kingdom of the God of Israel before the Sealed Book Prophecy; which yet is so attempered, as I said before, that the parties represented in it; seem to exhibit a Dramatical show that hath a prefigurative signification of the Happiness of the Millennial state of the Church. For it is the privilege of the Angelical Kingdom, that they can exhibit Prophetical Shows or Plays, when we Mortals can only exhibit Historical ones. Wherefore, though the more special end of this Vision is that which has been already declared, and such in a manner as of that in Isaiah and Ezekiel, yet the thing so naturally bearing it, nothing hinders but that it may have a kind of general Prefigurativeness of the Joy and Glory of Christ's Kingdom in the Millennium.  
And now for the third Introductory Vision prefixed before the Opened Book-Prophecy, That the special intent thereof is the same with the two former Introductory Visions, viz. to intimate that this third Prophecy is the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him, may appear from hence; In that Christ is understood by this Angel. Which Title or Representation cannot be thought too mean for him, when he is represented and called a Lamb before. Besides, in Isaiah, Chap. 9 he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in Malachy, Chap. 3. Angelus Foederis. And Christ that led the Children of Israel out of Egypt bears the Title of an Angel sometimes, and under this Title and Garb he has appeared unto some of the Patriarches. Wherefore there can be no scruple but for all that he is called an Angel he may be Christ. And that he is really Christ, may appear from comparing Dan. 12.7. with Apoc. 10 5, 6. where both these Angels do the same thing. But he in Daniel is Christ, as has been proved from his Aaronical Habit, which no Angel can appear in not sustaining the person of Christ. Besides, it is said that his Face was as the Sun, which is like that Chap. 1.16. And his countenance was as the Sun shining in its strength, which is said there of Christ; And his feet like Pillars of fire answer to his feet like fine Brass burning in a Furnace, and Pillars will answer to the strength of Brass. And lastly, the Rainbow over his head is an infallible token (taken out of Ezekiel's Vision and that of S. John here again) of the glory of the God of Israel, viz. Christ, according as S. John says, He came to his own, and his own received him not. Furthermore, there being the unsealed or opened Book in his Hand, which the Lamb received and opened, it is the most easy and natural to conceive that the Book remained with the same party now transformed into another shape. Add also that his speech doth bewray him, (that is, his roaring like a Lion) that he is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, as he is called Chap. 5.5. These congruities must needs persuade any one that is not over-tough or stiff, that this Angel is really Christ. And then it naturally follows, that John receiving this opened Book of this Angel, and by eating thereof being enabled to prophesy before many People's, Nations, Tongues and Kings, that this Opened Book-Prophecy is also the Revelation of Jesus Christ which he received of God, for he took the Book from him, Chap. 5. and here signifies the things therein contained to his Servant John in the Visions following.  
Thus we see that this Introductory Vision to the Opened Book-Prophecy serves the same end that the other two Introductory Visions do, and is therefore of the same nature with them, not a Vision that sets out any particular affairs, though it may have some more general Presignificances of the state of things in the times it may thus presignify, as the Introductory Vision to the Sealed Book-Prophecy has touching the Millennium. And that roaring of the Angel like a Lion, to supply the place of the seventh Trumpet, and the seven Thunders uttering their voices the mean time (whereby they naturally divide the seventh Trumpet into seven Intervals, as the seven Trumpets do the seventh Seal) this Roaring and Thundering has a presignificancy in general of the Calamities and Miseries that will befall that Party that this roaring and thundering is against during the space of the seventh Trumpet: So that this Introductory Vision is a kind of Transitionary Introduction to the Opened Book-Prophecy, and dispatches the Sealed Book-Prophecy with that general Account of the Roaring of that Lion-like Angel, and of the seven Thunders during that Roaring, which fill up the space of the seventh Trumpet, and consequently of the Sealed Book-Prophecy, that so there might be an orderly proceeding to the Opened Book-Prophecy, the Sealed Book-Prophecy reaching to the end of the World, as is confirmed by the Oath of the Angel, as I promised to make out, which I do thus.  
This roaring of the mighty Angel is put in the place of the sounding of the seventh Trumpet, and therefore must occupy the same space of time with it, or be Synchronal thereto. And that it supplies the place of the sounding of the seventh Trumpet, is manifest from that it immediately follows the sixth, and also is distinguished into seven Thunders, as the seventh Seal is into seven Trumpets. This may assure any one that is not blinded with prejudice, that the roaring of this mighty Angel supplies the place of the sounding of the seventh Trumpet, and consequently that it is Synchronal thereto. But now forasmuch as Chap. 10.6, 7. that Oath of the Angel in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is maimed sense or nonsense, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there does not signify as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the true translation of this Oath is this: That there shall be no more time, saving in the days of the Voice of the seventh Angel when he shall sound, and the Mystery of God be finished. This is certainly the true and genuine sense of the Oath of the Angel according to the Original Text, as is more fully proved in the Answer to the Remarks. But it is plain from this Oath of the Angel, that the sounding of the seventh Trumpet reaches to the end of the World. Therefore the roaring of the Angel Synchronal thereto, reacheth to the end of the World, and consequently the Sealed Book-Prophecy reacheth thither also, which is the thing that was to be demonstrated. And it suits mighty well with the last Thunder reaching to the end of the World, which falls in with the Conflagration or Lake of Fire, and with the Exit of the Laodicean interval, so called in allusion to Ptolemy's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Laodicea combusta. Wherefore the distribution of the main of the Apocalypse into those three Prophecies which from the beginning of the Church reach unto the end of the World, viz. the Epistolar Prophecy, the Sealed Book-Prophecy, and the Opened Book-Prophecy, and the Introductory Visions belonging to each of them, being thus demonstrably true, I do again pronounce as at first, whoever goes about to interpret the Apocalypse repugnantly to this grand Principle, he must necessarily run himself into the Briars, and fall into such Labyrinths, as he will never be able handsomely to get out of.   

CHAP. XXII. A Mechanical frame of the Seven-sealed Book, so contrived, as is requisite for no more Writing than what belongs to the present Seal, to be seen at once. The different Opinions of Interpreters what this Book signifies. The mistake of the Ancients in conceiving it to be the Bible. What this Book really is the Symbol of. That this Book its being said to be written within and without, denotes a twofold sense, that of the Symbolical Letter, and that of the inward Prophetical meaning of those Symbols. Arguments to prove this to be the right sense of being writ within and without. Ezekiel 's Roll writ within and without, compared with this Seven-sealed Book of the Apocalypse. Three useful Consectaries deduced therefrom.  
IT is a matter of no slight moment to understand clearly and assuredly what is the right meaning of the Book (in the right hand of him that sits upon the Throne, Apoc. 5.) its being said to be writ within and without, to be Liber Opisthographus. In order to which we are first to take notice what was the fashion of the Books of the Ancients, viz. that they were one Membrane, some longer, some shorter, rolled upon a round stick, or some stiff thing, as we sometimes do Maps. Which makes me conceive, that this Book with seven Seals consisted of at least twice seven such Membranes, Parchments or Papers fastened together so at one end, that it might be stiff enough to have all those leaves of paper rolled about it. And, I say, there must be at least twice seven, that no more Writing may be seen than what belongs to each Seal in their order by opening. Therefore there is to be a leaf of paper with a Label at it to cover the leaf that has the Vision of the first Seal, and then another leaf with a Label at it to cover the leaf of the Vision of the second Seal, and so a Label-leaf before the Vision-leaf till you come to the Number of seven in each, that no more of the Writing may be seen at a time than what belongs to each present Seal, saving in the last, where you breaking open the Seal that belongs to the seventh Label, not only the Vision of the seventh Seal is discoverable, which are the seven Trumpets and the seven Thunders, but all the Visions of the Opened Book-Prophecy. So that there must be as many leaves without Labels placed after the seventh Label-leaf, as will serve to contain all the Visions of the seven Trumpets, and also all the Opened Book-Prophecy. Which must be some number of leaves, though writ within and without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, within and on the backside, as the foregoing Vision-leaves are conceived to be, that is, written on the concave and convex side of this Roll of leaves. And thus in the breaking open the Seals, the convex side of the Vision-leaf will occur first, in every unsealing.  
This I conceive is the most probable Mechanical frame of this Book written within and without, and sealed with seven Seals. But what this Book is a Symbol of, there is a wide difference amongst Expositors. The generality of the Ancients, as A Lapide has noted, take it to be the Bible, and that which is writ without to be the Old Testament, and that within the New, the Old Testament being as it were the Velamentum or Covering of the New. Or that which is writ without to be the literal sense, that within, the Spiritual or Mystical. But this general Conceit of the Ancients is but a general Mistake, because this Book was sealed up till the Apocalypse was communicated to S. John, which was at the end of Domitian's Reign, and therefore would imply that the Old and New Testament or Gospel were a sealed Book not to be understood till then. Which yet certainly the Apostles understood, and taught the people rightly to understand it, so that it was not sealed Book to them. But that this sealed Book is a Book that contains all the Prophetic Visions set down after the opening of it in the Apocalypse, is so exceeding plain, that it would amaze a man how it should come into the thoughts of so many of the Ancients, that this Book with seven Seals should be the entire Bible, whenas it is not so much as the entire Apocalypse, but contains only the sealed Book, and the Opened Book-Prophecies, but that the being written within and without, intimates a literal and mystical sense of the Book, how near they come to the Truth therein, we shall observe in the main Point we drive at.  
In the mean time I cannot but approve of Cornelius A Lapide's Verdict in the Case, who says, Liber hic non est aliud quàm Divinae Providentiae consilium & praefinitio, etc. This Book is nothing else but the Counsel and Determination of Divine Providence, whereby God has purposed with himself either to permit or effect things in the World wherein his Church is concerned in such a way as is prefigured in this Book of Prophecies. Which is to the same sense that the Answerer to S. E. has declared touching the Prophecy of the Scripture of Truth, that it is what is decreed and recorded in the Divine Mind. The standing Intellect of God, in which are described all the Laws and Decrees of his Providence, is that Writing or Book of God, which is so often mentioned in the Bible, as Exod. 32. Psal. 56. and 139. And this Book represented to John sealed and unsealed, is but a Symbol of part of this Book or Writing, as I may so speak. And to the Scripture of Truth in Daniel, as well as to the Roll in Ezekiel, in all likelihood may this Apocalyptick sealed and unsealed Book allude.  
And now to come more near to the main Point in hand, though I have given such a Mechanical account of this sealed Book written within and without, yet I am still utterly of the mind of the Answerer to S. E. his Remarks, Apoc. Chap. 5. that it is a childish thing to think that the Book seen by John, was written with all those words contained in that part of the Apocalypse, but it was a Symbol of the Compages of those Prophetical Representations and of the inward meaning of them contained in the Mind of Christ and the holy Angel sent to John. And that as the Book in general was a Symbol of the figurative Representations and the inward meaning of them (in the mind of the Angel) or of the inward Prophetical sense of them, so the being writ within and without, distinctly signifies the latter the external Representations or Symbols of the Prophecies, and the being writ within the real Prophetic sense of those Figures.  
That this is the necessary sense of this Book's being writ within and without, may appear from hence, because there is no evasion from it, but supposing the Visions and Prophecies so large, that the inside or concave side of this Roll of papers would not contain them, to denote the exuberancy or fullness of this Spirit of Prophecy, as that of Poetry.  Scriptus & in tergo necdum finitus Orestes. 
This is the general account of Interpreters, which is a very lank, empty, and an useless account. But this intimation of those two senses I have noted is useful and weighty, the wildness and vanity of those Interpreters being discovered thereby that confound the Symbolical sense with the real or Prophetical, as R. H. has done. See my Epilogue to my Exposition of the Apocalypse, Sect. 10. And there are those so weak, as to give credit to his Expositions. Whence we see how needful it was to give this intimation for this twofold sense of this Book, and worthy the Spirit of Prophecy so to do.  
But that this being writ within and without is not said in regard of the exuberancy of the matter or scantness in the concave sides of the Vision-papers to contain it all, may appear from that necessary Mechanical account I have given of this seven-sealed Roll, if any Mechanical account is to be looked after. For the largest of the Visions of the first six Seals are so little, that they cannot well be conceived to fill so much as one side, viz. the Concave of each Vision-paper. Wherefore how can the exuberancy of the matter cause them to be writ as well on the convex side as concave, or what account can there be of making use of both sides so needlessly, but that it may be said to be writ within and without, as a Symbol of a twofold sense belonging to these Prophecies, that of the Cortex or Letter, and that of the things prefigured. And as the Cortical or literal sense is first and most obvious, so according to our Mechanical frame of this Seven-sealed Book, the Convex or outward side of the Vision-leaf, upon opening each Seal, offers itself first to the eye of the Beholder, the Concave is underneath not to be seen, but by the turning up of the Vision-leaf, and so reading downwards.  
But if John's declaring the Book sealed with seven Seals was written within and without before any of the Seals were opened, insinuate that there was really no such Mechanical frame of this seven-sealed Roll within, as we have described; then it is a plain indication to any one of an ordinary sagacity, that this is said merely to intimate those two senses of the Visions: the external Cortical sense, which is so contrived, as if it were a complete thing of itself, and the real Prophetical sense that lies hid under this Symbolical Cortex. Nor does it seem likely, that John at the opening each Seal saw in the Book those Visions mentioned at each Seal opening, but they were represented to him as other Visions were, and that he saw them no more in the Book at the opening of the Seals, than he read the Opened Book, when it was given him, before he eaten it; but the opening of the Seals by the Lamb, and the Angel giving him the Book unsealed to eat, are only to signify that both those Prophecies of the Sealed Book and Opened Book are the Revelation of Jesus Christ to his Servant John, as you heard in the foregoing Chapter. But if it may be thought, that when John received the Opened Book, he might then observe that there were things written on the convex sides and concave sides of what I called the Vision-leaves, and from hence pronounce in the beginning that this Seven-sealed Book was writ within and without according to some such Mechanic way as I have described, than our former reasoning will take place, and so every way we may be assured that this is the right meaning of the Book (in the hand of him that sat on the Throne) its being said to be writ within and without, that thereby is intimated an external Literal sense and internal Mystical sense, of which the other is but an Hieroglyphic, Type or Figure.  
And this being so plain and assured in this Apocalyptick Seven-sealed Book or Roll, that to be writ within and without signifies an external or literal sense, and a sense internal and mystical. And we finding in Ezekiel a Roll so described Chap. 2.9. And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me, and lo, a Roll of a Book therein. And he spread it before me, and it was written within and without; which answers with strange exactness to this of the Apocalypse, and still more full, if you read the following Chapter: where he is bid to eat this Roll, and does so accordingly, and declares it was in his mouth as sweet as Honey; As if what we find Apoc. Chap. 10. v. 9, 10. were transcribed out of Ezekiel. And as this happened to John after the sight of the Angel with a Rainbow, viz. Christ or the God of Israel, so this happened to Ezekiel immediately after he had seen the appearance of the glory of the Lord, which was as the appearance of the Bow which is in the Cloud in the Day of Rain, which is a further confirmation that it is the God of Israel that is signified by this Note of the Rainbow in both places.  
Wherefore, I say, this being so plain, that to be writ within and without bears such a sense in this place of the Apocalypse, viz. an exterior and interior meaning of the Visions or Prophecies, and this of the Roll in Ezekiel being so exactly parallel thereto, and set at the beginning of his Prophecies after the Introductory Vision, how can we avoid concluding that the Prophecies of Ezekiel the main of them are parts of the Roll written within and without, and have an interior sense as well as an exterior? And so those Visions or Prophecies that in their first or exterior sense may seem only to concern Jerusalem, suppose, and Samaria, Edom and Mount Seir, the Prince of Tyre and Pharaoh King of Egypt, the Army of Gog, the Jewish City and Temple, and the like, may in their interior sense concern the state of the Christian Church or of its Enemies, and prove Types of their condition. Which Consideration will justify against the idle Cavils of the Unskilful what we have writ in Synopsis Prophetica, Book 2. Chap. 16. touching the Visions of the King of Tyre in Ezekiel, applying them to the Bishop of Rome.  
And now in the next place we may also note, That as in Ezekiel, his eating of the Roll does not signify that he was thereby to expound Prophecies, but to utter Prophecies himself: so in like manner S. John's taking the Opened Book from the hand of the Angel, and eating it, and his being bid thereupon to prophesy, does not signify expounding Prophecies, but the uttering Prophecies himself, as he gins to do immediately in the next Chapter; so that a man may justly wonder that any thing should blind any one so, as to interpret John's being bid to prophesy, after his eating the Book, of either preaching or expounding Prophecies.  
And thirdly and lastly, As Ezekiel his sight of the Appearance of the Glory of the Lord, as of the Bow in the Cloud in the Day of Rain, was an Introductory Vision to his eating of the Roll and prophesying; John also seeing this Glory of the God of Israel, this great Angel of the Covenant, Christ, with the Rainbow on his Head, from whose hand he takes the Opened Book, eats it and prophecies: what can this signify more naturally than that this Appearance of this glorious Angel is an Introductory Vision to S. John's Opened Book-Prophecy, as the Appearance of the Glory of the God of Israel was to Ezekiel's Prophecies, as was concluded before in the foregoing Chapter?   

CHAP. XXIII. His reason of inserting here his Demonstration, that the Reformation begun by Luther is the Rising of the Witnesses. The two first Visions of the Opened Book- Prophecy proved Synchronal. The agreement of the foreparts of these two Visions, and the exquisite correspondency of the middle-parts one with another. Whence the Fall of Babylon in the second Vision is proved to be the same with the Fall of the City and Rising of the Witnesses in the first. That consequently the Fall of Babylon in the second Vision is after the sixth Trumpet. That the Fall of Babylon and Rising of the Witnesses is the Object of those Acclamations in Heaven, Chap. 11. and of the Doxology of the Elders. As also of the Song of Moses and the Lamb sung by the Victors over the Beast. That this Song therefore follows the sixth Trumpet. And that all the Viols follow that Song. From whence the  Demonstration is concluded.  
THAT excellent usefulness of having an assured knowledge that the blessed Reformation begun by Luther, and here in England more especially, perfected, was the Rising of the Witnesses, which most naturally must beget a peaceful mind in men, and due value for our Church, makes me resume again the seven Arguments at the end of the Answer to S. E. his Remarks on my Apology, enlarging at least upon some of them more fully, that so useful and necessary a Matter may not be omitted or maimedly managed in these Paralipomena. That the abovesaid Reformation therefore is the Rising of the Witnesses, I demonstrate thus.  
First, We are to observe in the two first Visions of the Opened Book Prophecy, viz. the Visions comprised, the first of them in the eleventh Chapter of the Apocalypse; and the other in the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth Chapters, that they begin from the same Epocha, and that they end in the same times, namely with the last Vial, which contains a full and final overthrow of Babylon or of the Beast and false Prophet. Whence these two Visions must be concluded Synchronal. Now that they begin from the same Epocha we prove thus: They both begin from the beginning of the Church. For the Vision in the eleventh Chapter being the first Vision S. John sets down after his eating the Opened Book, and his being bid to prophesy, that is to say, to prefigure or predict things to come, as Ezekiel did after his eating the Roll, and what is set down Chap. 11. being plainly a Prophecy, it is plain this is the first Prophecy of the Opened Book, and therefore according to indispensable Method, if any Visions of the Opened Book-Prophecy begin from the beginning of the Church, this first must, and not be Visio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a decollated Vision with its head struck off. But that the Vision of the Fight of Michael with the Dragon, and of the Woman in the pangs of Childbirth commence with the beginning of the Church (which are parts of the entire Vision of the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth Chapters) is so plain a thing, that impudence itself, if not stark blind, cannot deny it. Wherefore the Vision of the eleventh Chapter must begin from the beginning of the Church as well as the other, and so must have the same Epocha. And as the fore part of the Vision, Chap. 11. viz. the Temple measured and the Worshippers therein, denote the Purity of the Primitive Times as to Worship: so the forepart of the other Vision, the part contained in Chap. 12. viz. the Combat of Michael with the Dragon and the pangs of the childbearing Woman, denote their fortitude and patience in suffering for the Truth.  
Now that these two Visions end in the same times is plain from hence, in that the end of the first, Chap. 11.19. is a lively description of the seventh Vial. There were Lightnings and Voices, and Thunderings and an Earthquake and great Hail, the same description that is found Chap. 16. v. 18, 21. and no where else are those five Phaenomena put in the whole Apocalypse: So that the first of these two Visions ends in the seventh. Vial. That the second does so too is plain, for that it ends with the treading of the Wine-press, where blood came out even to the Horse-bridles. Which therefore must be the slaughter by that mighty Heros on the white Horse, Apoc. 19 Commander of the Army in the Battle of that great day of God Almighty, which is plainly under the seventh Vial. Wherefore these two Visions beginning from one Epocha, and ending with the seventh Vial, do Synchronize.  
Secondly, As the forepart of these two Synchronizing Visions represent a pure Church conflicting with the Pagans, over whom at last they get the Victory, Chap. 12. v. 9, 10. so in the next or middle parts of these two Visions, the former from v. 2. to v. 11. in Chap. 11. the latter the whole thirteenth Chapter, there is contained the like Conflict betwixt the pure Apostolic Church, and the Apostatised Church or Paganochristians, and a Victory noted Chap. 11. v. 11, 12, 13. in the former and in the latter Chap. 14. v. 8. the foregoing verses being referrable to this Conflict as the description of the Soldiers of the Lamb. So that the middle-parts of the two Visions tightly answer one another, these middle-parts of both the first and second Vision containing a War of the Witnesses or Soldiers of the Lamb or Saints with the Beast: and we are to observe that the event of that War is an actual but partial overthrow of the Beast or Babylon called the great City, as is manifest from Chap. 11. v. 11, 12, 13. unto which answers the actual Fall of Babylon in the second Vision. Which must needs be Actual, else the Angel would speak an untruth in saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, Chap. 14. v. 8. and but partial, because it both answers to that in the first Vision, and precedes the seventh Vial in the second, before which the full and final overthrow of Babylon is not. And whereas Prophecy is anticipatory History, and yet no actual success of the forty two months' War, but this Fall of Babylon is prefigured in this second Vision, it is plain that this is the success thereof, and immediately before menaced by the first Angel, declaring the Judgements of God against the Idolatrous Bestians, and therefore the very same with the partial Fall of the great City and the Rising of the Witnesses in the first Vision: which was in the last Half-Day of the three days and an half, or in the last Half-Time of the three times and an half. Whence the Fall of Babylon the Angel brings news of, must be so too, and not before, because the upshot of that War also was not till then. We see therefore what a perfect Correspondency the middle parts of the two Visions (which parts are terminated in the success of the Beast's War with the Saints or Witnesses) have one with another.  
Thirdly therefore, Forasmuch as the Fall of Babylon in the second Vision is the same with the Fall of the great City and Rising of the Witnesses in the first, and this latter, viz. the Fall of the City and the Rising of the Witnesses is just at the close of the sixth Trumpet, the former must be so too, viz. the Fall of Babylon must be at the close of the sixth Trumpet also, and the third or remaining part of each Vision must be after the sixth Trumpet for the same reason.  
Fourthly, Forasmuch as this Fall of Babylon and Rising of the Witnesses is an ample object of Joy and Thanksgiving to the Evangelici the Witnesses and sealed Soldiers of the Lamb against whom the Beast warred, and was too hard for them all along, though they held out through Patience and Faith and Hope of promised success at last, Chap. 13. v. 9, 10. (these being encouraged as well as the Bestians menaced by the first Angel) therefore as there is a joyful Message by the second Angel of the actual Fall of Babylon in the second Vision, Chap. 14. v. 8. so it is impossible but those Acclamations in Heaven and Doxology of the Elders, Chap. 11. v. 15, 16, 17. should respect the partial but actual Fall of the City and Rising of the Witnesses, it being so ample an Object of those joyful Acclamations and of that thankful Doxology, and there being nothing betwixt but the graceful ushering them in with the sound of the seventh Trumpet. For though they may glance at more enlarged hopes of future Accessions, yet the principal Object and Occasion of this Thanksgiving is the actual Rising of the Witnesses. For were it not so, this signal Providence and illustrious Victory would be without any Doxology or Thanksgiving, which is grossly absurd, that there should be no shout nor sign of Joy at such a surprising Providence as this, namely, at the reviving of the two Witnesses, when they had lain slain three days and an half in the streets of the City: nor at their ascending in a Cloud into Heaven in the view of all the people, the tenth part of their City who slew them, falling in the mean time by an Earthquake, and many thousands of their Enemies buried in the Ruins. How incredible, how unsuitable a thing is it, that so happy a Catastrophe of the Witnesses sufferings as this should pass without a Plaudite? Therefore it is a senseless thing not to make the Rising of the Witnesses and the Fall of the City the Object of those Acclamations and of the Doxology of the Elders, and contrary to the usual Mode of the Apocalypse that ever closeth the good success of the Church with some indications of Joy and Thankfulness: as Chap. 12. v. 10 12. Chap. 19 v. 1. and again v. 21. which concludes with a Feast of Joy and Thanksgiving for the Victory of the Rider of the white Horse. Wherefore it is abundantly plain, that those Acclamations and the Elders Doxology respect this event of the Rising of the Witnesses; And is yet further manifest from that passage in the Doxology itself, v. 27. where thanks is given to God Almighty, because he has taken to him his great Power and hath reigned, viz. in that Fall of the great City and Rising of the Witnesses, in this he resumed a considerable part of his Kingdom which Antichrist had usurped. But if it respect not this, the very Assertion is false, and Thanks is given for nothing.  
Fifthly therefore, We being so well assured that the partial Fall of Babylon and Rising of the Witnesses is the Object of the joyful Annunciation of the second Angel, Chap. 14. and of the Doxology of the Elders, Chap. 11. and meeting in the very next Vision to these, viz. that of the Vials with a Song (prefixed thereto) of Praise and Thanksgiving by the Victos over the Beast for an actual but partial Victory, such as that was over him in the two foregoing Visions (and this in this Song discovers itself to be actual, because it is said therein, Chap. 15. v. 4. For thy judgements are made manifest, viz. in that late Fall of Babylon, and yet the Victory implied in this Song is but partial, because the Song is prefixed before the Vials which are to bring to pass the full and final ruin thereof) and there being no precedent actual and partial Victory but this in the Fall of the City and Rising of the Witnesses, which may be the Object of this Song of Thanksgiving, like that of Moses upon the Overthrow of Pharaoh at the Red Sea, it is impossible but this Song must be to the same effect with the Doxology of the Elders, and synchronize with it.  
Sixthly therefore, It is as clear as Noonday, that that Doxology of the Elders immediately following the sixth Trumpet, this Song of Moses and the Lamb must immediately follow the sixth Trumpet.  
And now Seventhly and lastly, All the Vials following the Song of Moses and the Lamb, it is apparent that they all follow the sixth Trumpet and the Rising of the Witnesses, and consequently there being no part of the two first Visions of the Opened Book (which begin from one Epocha, and end with the seventh Vial) which prefigures that notable and indeed stupendious Achievement of Providence (which therefore cannot but be predicted within this space) in causing so many Provinces, Principalities, Nations and Kingdoms to cast off the Pope in the late Reformation begun by Luther, unless this of the partial Fall of Babylon and Rising of the Witnesses (For all the Vials are after their Rising: And if any one will be so freakish, as notwithstanding to pitch upon some one of the Vials to be a Prediction of the late Reformation, I demand what Event before the Reformation is the fulfilling of that illustrious Vision of the Rising of the Witnesses, for the Event that answers to it must be so notorious, that it cannot be passed by in History) It necessarily therefore follows, that the aforesaid Reformation only, can be the Event that answers to the Vision of the partial Fall of Babylon and Rising of the Witnesses, and consequently be that which the Song of Moses and the Lamb gives thanks for. Which was the thing to be demonstrated.   

CHAP. XXIV. Whether the Witnesses wear sackcloth for any time after their being risen. Whether the Vial-Angels received their Vials before or after the Song of Moses and the Lamb sung by the Victors over the Beast. What is the adequate Visum of the sixth Trumpet. What the full meaning of the Lamb's being found worthy to open the Seals of the Seven-sealed Book. Whether a year in the Apocalypse any where signifies a Year of years. Whether there be any mystical meaning in noting Prophetic Time sometimes by Days, sometimes by Months.  
IT is demonstrated in the foregoing Chapter with Evidence plainly Mathematical, that the Reformation begun by Luther is the Rising of the Witnesses: but there being some ingenious and diligent Studiers of the Apocalypse, who, though they are convinced that the abovesaid Reformation is the fulfilling of the Vision of the Rising of the Witnesses, yet think their wearing of sackcloth may be extended to a longer time; I shall endeavour here to clear that Point. And in order thereto we are first to consider, that the wearing of sackcloth is not literally to be expounded, but is only a Symbol of a mean and squalid condition, and of a grieved and pensive heart, which are things inconsistent with the Witnesses being risen from the death they were in, viz. a Political Death, whose Resurrection implies the contrary, prosperity and respect according to their different degrees of Quality. Wherefore the nature of the thing itself may teach us that the risen Witnesses, in their being risen, did ipso facto put off their sackcloth, and were clad with garments of Joy. Besides, the Text does assure us thereof, Chap. 11. v. 15, 16, 17. For what were those Acclamations in Heaven there, and the four and twenty Elders Doxology, but an intimation what a time of Joy and Triumph it would be on Earth upon the Rising of the Witnesses; and could they themselves then be in such a squalid and forlorn condition as to wear sackcloth? Again, Chap. 15. the Song of Moses and the Lamb is said to be sung by them that had got the Victory over the Beast and over his Image, and over his Mark and over the Number of his Name. Which Victors over the Beast most assuredly are the very Witnesses against whom he warred, this Song being Synchronal to the Acclamations in Heaven and Doxology of the Elders. What then shall we think that these Triumphant Witnesses while they had the Harps of God in their hands, and sung this joyful Epinikion to them, wore sackcloth on their backs, what can be more incongruous?  
But I will yet add a third place, Chap. 7. there is mention of the 144000 sealed ones which synchronize, and indeed are the same with the 144000, Chap. 14. which are the Soldiers of the Lamb, the Saints or Witnesses, and who are warred against by the Beast during the time of the first six Trumpets. For though in the Cortex of the Prophecy this Sealing seems to be done at once immediately before the first Trumpet sounds, yet undoubtedly it is a continued thing all along the time of the first six Trumpets, which is for about twelve hundred years, for such a space the sealed Soldiers of the Lamb, as conflicting with the Beast, are conceived to continue, but at the end of the sixth Trumpet the Victory is obtained, Babylon falls, viz. the tenth part thereof, and the Witnesses rise, and as I noted before, sing the Song of Moses and the Lamb; and as that is the sign of their Victory there, so their being clothed in white Robes, and having Palms in their hands, Chap. 7.9. denotes the same here. And v. 14. in that they are said to be those that came out of great Tribulation, it implies their fresh emergency out of the calamities they suffered under the entire Reign and Tyranny of the Beast. After which Victory of the Saints or Witnesses, you see they forthwith appear clothed in white Robes, which is a plain Argument they had put off their sackcloth, which is the thing I aimed at.  
Nor can the Argument be eluded by pretending, that these here clothed in white Robes with Palms in their hands, are those mentioned Chap. 6. to whom white Robes are given, viz. the Primitive Martyrs who obtain a blessed Resurrection at this time for suffering under the Dragon, as those do at the beginning of the Millennium for suffering under the Beast, the description also of their condition implying it to be their assumption into Heaven, not a state on Earth: For to this I answer, besides the absurdity of making more Resurrections than two, the correspondency of the 144000 sealed ones to the 144000 with the Lamb on Mount Zion, shows plainly that instating of these Palm-bearing Victors in their white Robes, into that State here described, is not till after the sixth Trumpet at the Rising of the Witnesses. There gins the joyful condition of the Palm-bearers, and reaches to the end of all including the New Jerusalem-state and blessed Millennium. Which New Jerusalem-state being so described as to be also a fit Type of the Church Triumphant in Heaven, it is very congruous that this Vision also may be so framed as to be Typical of that state likewise, though in the mean time it is a Prophecy of the state of the Church on Earth. But that those in white Robes, Chap. 6. v. 11. answers so handsomely to the Palm-bearing Victors in white Robes, Chap. 7.9. this is but a pleasant Lemmatosynechia in the Cortex which occurs oft, and which entraps many heedless Readers of the Apocalypse before they be ware. Wherefore I think it is a plain case, that these Palm-bearing Victors in white Robes are the same with the Victors over the Beast, Chap. 15. and they with the Risen Witnesses, Chap. 11. who being upon their Victory and fresh emergency out of great tribulation clothed in white Robes, did not continue any time after their Conquest clothed in Sackcloth.  
Something akin to this protracting the time of the Witnesses wearing sackcloth beyond their Rising, is that opinion of some, who, although they acknowledge the Reformation to be the Rising of the Witnesses, yet will not have the fulfilling of the Vision of their Rising completed therein, but expect a further Rising of them signified, as they would have it, by this very Vision. But the mistake of this Opinion I shall manifestly discover in the following Chapter.  
The next thing I will consider here is this: Whether the Vial-Angels received their Vials before or after the Song of Moses and the Lamb, Chap. 15. That they received them after, any one may be well assured that observes, First, That one continued Vision is divided sometimes into several Chapters: As the Introductory Vision to the Sealed Book-Prophecy, Chap. 4, and 5. as also that one Vision comprised in the 12.13. and 14. Chapters. Which answers to that contained in the eleventh. Secondly, That in like manner the Vision of the Vial-Angels is contained in the 15. and 16. Chapters. Thirdly, That to so large a Vision the first verse of Chap. 15. [And I saw another sign in Heaven great and wonderful, seven Angels having the seven last Plagues, etc.] is but the general Title thereof, and the Vials are not so much as mentioned in this Title. Fourthly; That before he falls upon the Vision itself, there is an Introduction thereto, a kind of Dramatical Interlude, which is not as in ordinary Plays, merely for delight, but for some weighty instruction, else there can be no sense of clapping it immediately after the summary Title of this Vision. What then can it be but to intimate, that the Order of the Vials is to be after this Song of Moses and the Lamb. Wherefore it being said v. 5. After that (that is after the singing of this Song) I looked, and behold, etc. viz. After this the seven Vial-Angels came out of the Temple, having the seven Plagues, but not yet said to have the Vials, but immediately to receive them of one of the four Beasts, and in the beginning of the next Chapter bid to pour them on the Earth. If the sense of this express order of things be not, that the Angels received their Vials after the Song of Moses and the Lamb, we cannot be assured of the certain sense of any passage of the Apocalypse, nor of the whole Bible, no nor of any Writing whatsoever. Insomuch that I have been amazed that it ever came into any man's mind to think otherwise.  
A third thing is, What the adequate Visum is of the sixth Trumpet, i. e. what affairs in the World or Church are noted to fall out during the sounding of that Trumpet. To which I answer, That it is that which is set down Chap. 9 from v. 13. to the end of the Chapter. Whereby is signified the overrunning of the Eastern Empire and the Church by the Turks with the possessing themselves of Constantinople, and the general Impenitency of the Western Church and Empire, notwithstanding this notorious Judgement of God upon the Eastern. Which latter part is fully expressed v. 20, 21. And the rest of the men that were not killed with these Plagues, yet repent not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship Daemons and Idols of Gold and Silver and Brass and Stone, etc. Neither repent they of their Murders, nor of their Sorceries, nor of their Fornication, nor of their Thefts. That this is the adequate object of the Vision of the sixth Trumpet I conceive is plain from hence. First, That immediately after this, instead of the Angel of the sixth Trumpet that sounded, steps in a mighty Angel to roar out the next Interval the last of the seven, divided also into seven Thunders, as the seventh Seal into seven Trumpets. Secondly, Because if this be not the precise Visum or Object of the Vision of the sixth Trumpet, there will be no stop till you come to the 14. verse of Chap. 11. The second we is passed, etc. Which is the most outrageous wild thing to be conceived as can be, the Vision of the Witnesses in sackcloth running up as high as the first Trumpet, to say nothing of the measuring the Court of the Temple and Altar. And thirdly and lastly, which nicks the business, methinks, marvellously well, The Rising of the Witnesses and Fall of the City is a Prophecy of a considerable Reformation, that is, of the Repentance of a considerable part of the Western Church and Empire, or of their ceasing to be impenitent, which was the latter part of the Visum of the sixth Trumpet. Wherefore immediately upon this Rising of the Witnesses and Fall of the City, that is, upon the ceasing of that general Impenitency, it being said the second Woe is past, it is manifest, that the Turks overrunning the Eastern Empire and the general Impenitency of the Western thereupon was the adequate Visum of the sixth Trumpet. And these three Points respect the foregoing Chapter. There are three Points behind that have no such reference.  
The first is, what may be the full meaning of the Lamb's being found worthy to open the Seals of the Seven-sealed Book. For the fullness of this meaning being rightly understood, we shall therewithal better discern how well the Doxologies of the four Beasts and twenty four Elders, and after of those numerous Quires of Angels, and indeed of the whole Creation in this Dramatical Theatre in Heaven, are made to prefigure the Joy and Rejoicing which will be in the blessed Millennium on Earth, when the Power given to the Lamb of opening the Seals shall have that glorious effect in introducing those times of the New Jerusalem, which these Angelical Actors on an Heavenly Stage are made to prefigure in the sight and hearing of S. John after his being caught up into Heaven in his Divine Rapture mentioned Chap. 4. v. 2.  
Wherefore in brief I conceive that the Lamb's receiving the Book, and therewith a power of opening the Seals, implies these two things. The first is the representing to John, by way of Prophetical Vision, the state of the Church and of the World, so far forth as the Church is concerned in the affairs thereof through a long Series of time to the end of all, even to the very Conflagration. That this is one meaning of this power of opening the Seals is plain from Chap. 6. v. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12. and Chap. 8.1. in which seven places the Lamb is said orderly to open the Seals one after another, and upon the opening each Seal a Prophetic Vision follows. Whence it is manifest, that his Power of opening the seven Seals, is the Power of imparting this whole Book of Visions to his Servant John. For at the Opening of the seventh Seal all the whole Book of the Prophetic Visions was opened, as is to be understood from the frame of the Book above described.  
But now forasmuch as the truly opening of the Seals would not be absolutely put into the hand of Christ, unless he had also Power given from him that sits on the Throne to guide the affairs of this sublunary World, so as that he might bring to pass by permission or impulsion and positive motion the things that are prefigured (For the Effect brought to pass both argues the truth and discovers the right sense of the Prophetic Vision at once) this Power of administering all things, and ordering them so, that they shall certainly answer to the Prophetic Prefigurations of them, is necessarily the other thing that is included in this power of opening the Seals given to the Lamb. And hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are ascribed to him as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Might, Power, and Strength as well as Wisdom in those Doxologies of the four Beasts and twenty four Elders, of the numerous Quires of Angels, and of the whole Creation glancing in this Prophetical Rapture at those times wherein the effect of this power of opening the Seals will appear to all the world most resplendent and glorious. So that those Arehetypal Millennial Kings, viz. the twenty four Elders are made to sing the Song of those Ectypal Kings in the Millennium, who will experimentally find what is prophetically set down here in the Song of the twenty four crowned Elders, Thou art worthy to receive the Book, and open the Seals thereof, etc. and hast made us Kings and Priests to our God, and we shall reign upon Earth, viz. in this blessed Millennium which thou hast as well effected as predicted through that Power given thee of thy Father.  
The second Point is, Whether a Year in the Apocalypse any where may signify a Year of years? The meaning of which Question is, Whether that express word [Year] whether it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Time, and in the literal meaning a Year, denotes a year of years in those places where a Time and Times and half a Time do occur, is without question) whether these, I say, any where signify a Year of years, or in correspondence to other places of the Apocalypse are to signify so? That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendered a Year, signifies a Year of years, Apoc. 9.15. where the four Angels on the great River Euphrates are said to be prepared for an hour and a day and a month and a year, seems very probable. Because interpreting a day, month and year; [a year, a month of years, and a year of years] it makes up three hundred ninety six years, which is exactly the time from Togrulbec Prince of the Turks his Inauguration by the Caliph Chaiim Biamrilla (after the taking of Bagdad) to the taking of Constantinople by Mahomet the Second. Which is not probable to be a fortuitous hit, and therefore plain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [a year] in this place signifies a year of years, and it is the only Example in all the Apocalypse. But there is not so much as one Example of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a year of years, but an assurance rather of the contrary, that it signifies a common year consisting of three hundred sixty five days. Otherwise if this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify a year of years, the Millennium would last 365000 years, which seems a thing utterly incredible; though I will not deny but this Millenary Number signifying symbolically, it need not be penned up to just a thousand years, but may extend itself further. And lastly, if any one will contend that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one, and signify both [a year] this is the only truth that can be asserted touching the meaning of a year in the Apocalypse, that 'tis but a single year, though numbered with other names of Time of less quantity, as days and months, that signifies a year of years, but that a year, in Connumeration with other years, which are Times of like quantity with itself, it than signifies a common Year and no more. This is all touching this thing that can be made out of the Apocalypse so far as I know.  
The third and last Point is, Whether there be any Mystery in setting down Prophetic Time one while by Days, another while by Months? To which the Answer is brief and easy, viz. That in those places of the Apocalypse where the Apostolical and Apostatical Church are compared and opposed one to the other, there the time of their conditions is also differenced, the time of the Evangelical Church being reckoned by days, of the Apostatical or Antichristian by months. This is constant in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where days and months are named. But where these Antistaechal Parties are unconcerned in reference to one another, neither month nor day has any such Mystery in it, as in that passage Chap. 9 where the four Angels at Euphrates are said to be prepared for an hour and a day and a month and a year.   

CHAP. XXV. Nine Queries with Notes thereon to a Friend, leading to undeniable assurance, that not a Prophetical Day nor Month but a Semitime is the Unite for the computing the Time of the Event in the Medial Visions.  
Query 1. WHether the Reformation begun by Luther, and propagated into so many parts of Christendom within the space of the seventh Semitime, be not the fulfilling of the Vision of the partial Fall of Babylon, or the great City, and of the then Rising of the Witnesses?  
Query 2. Whether the first six Trumpets and the forty two months prosperous War of the Beast, and the other Medial Visions do not all synchronize one with another?  
Query 3. Whether the War of the Beast with the Witnesses, Chap. 11. and with the Saints, Chap. 13. be not one and the same War?  
Query 4. Whether the three days and an half wherein the Witnesses are said to lie slain, be not the same with the forty two months of the prosperous or victorious War of the Beast against the Saints? Chap. 13.  
Query 5. Whether the issue of this slaughtering and victorious War of the Beast against the Witnesses and Saints for three days and an half or forty two months (wherein their Faith and Patience was so much tried) was not the Rising of the Witnesses or the partial Fall of Babylon or great City?  
Query 6. Whether the Rising of the Witnesses and partial Fall of Babylon be not the final issue of the three days and an half, or forty two months slaughtering War of the Beast against the Saints or Witnesses?  
Query 7. Whether the three days and an half's slaughtering War, or forty two months victorious War against the Saints or Witnesses, can be produced any further than to the final issue of the said War?  
Query 8. Whether the  Reformation, it being the fulfilling of the Vision of the partial Fall of Babylon and of the then Rising of the Witnesses, be not the final issue of the once prosperous War of the Beast against the Saints and Witnesses?  
Query 9 And lastly, Forasmuch as the  Reformation began but a little after the commencement of the last Semitime, and had its full growth before the expiring of the same, the partial Fall of Babylon being effected before the last Semitime expired, I query, Whether it be not evident, nay necessary, that we make a Semitime the Unite in the Computation of the Events of the Medial Visions, however Daniel's Time and Times and Half a Time be varied into twelve hundred and sixty days and forty two months. Which is the main Scope of Arithmetica Apocalyptica. These be the Queries, the Notes follow.  
Note 1. The Affirmative of the first Query we are both agreed in, and I have invincibly demonstrated it in my Apology, and in my Answer to S. E. the Remarker upon the said Apology. The Reader may see what is nearer at hand in 〈◊〉 twenty third Chapter of these Paralipomena.  
Note 2. The second Query I did put, (the Affirmative whereof is demonstrated by Mr. Mede, nor do I believe you do in the least doubt of it) that you may thereby understand that the Medial Vision of the Time of the mournful Witnesses, as also of all the other Medial Visions (which synchronize one with another) expires with the sixth Trumpet, which expires with the partial Fall of the great City and the then Rising of the Witnesses, viz. with the  Reformation.  
Note 3. The Affirmative of the third Query I conceive you will not stick to acknowledge, it being made so clear in the Answer to the Remarks on the Apology. Let the Reader see again these Paralipomena, Chap. 23.  
Note 4. And my Apology and Defence of it against the Remarker, has no less than demonstrated the Affirmative of this Query also. How strong the Arguments are, you will quickly recollect by merely reminding you of them. (1.) The three Times and an half equal to forty two Months plainly answer to three Days and an half. Three Integrals and an half to the three Integrals and an half. (2.) That there is no likelihood that in the Apocalypse a Number should be computed to the curiosity of half a year. (3.) That if the Evangelical Church should ever be reduced to such a condition as is set out by the Witnesses lying slain in the streets, it is incredible they should get up again within three years and an half. (4.) If the three years and an half be restrained to the end of their prophesying, nothing in the Vision is a Symbol of their Political Death to which their Resurrection relates. (5.) They having been politically dead all along the forty two months, and often persecuted, martyred and massacred, it is unimaginable what other more direful condition should befall them signified by their lying slain three days and an half, than what befell them before; so that it must be a Symbol really of their three times and an half sufferings. (6.) And lastly, If the Beast war not with them till they have finished their Testimony, as those that oppose us would have it, then till the end of their prophesying, there is neither any war nor overcoming, nor killing of the Witnesses, which is point-blank against the Truth of History.  
Note 5. The Affirmative of the fifth Query is plain and express from the Text itself, Chap. 11. v. 11, 14. and Chap. 14.8. which intimates the issue of the War of the Beast with the Saints.  
Note 6. That the Affirmative of this Query is true may likewise appear from the Text itself, namely, that it is the final issue of the War. For this Issue is said to be after the three days and an half, Chap. 11.11. which as I doubt not but that it is the same with Daniel's three times and an half, and consequently with the forty two months and twelve hundred and sixty days; so though we should yield they signify but three years and an half, and thus these three days and an half were either the three last years of the twelve hundred and sixty, or three years and an half added to them, yet it does invincibly follow from this Text, that the issue of the once prosperous War of the Beast against the Saints and Witnesses is a final Issue, it being just at the end of the time of that War.  
Note 7. The Negative of this Query is plain at first sight. No man can conceive a War produced further than the final issue thereof. This consideration and what has been said on the foregoing Query, puts all out of doubt. Let us only here note by the buy, that there is no forty two months Reign of the Beast distinct from his prosperous warring against the Saints and Witnesses. His prosperous War or prosperous reigning and retaining the entireness of his Dominions is restrained to this time of forty two months, but his reigning at large is not.  
Note 8. The Affirmative of this eighth Query is manifest from the Affirmative of the sixth, where it is made plain, in what is said thereon, that the partial Fall of the great City, and the then Rising of the Witnesses, is the final issue of the War of the Beast against the Saints and Witnesses. And that the Rising of the Witnesses is the abovesaid Reformation, is the Affirmative of the first Query.  
Note 9 The Affirmative of this last Query is unavoidably true. And therefore we may here adore the Wisdom of God, or his Spirit of Prophecy, who (foreseeing how the Events would be in the Completion of this Vision of the Rising of the Witnesses in the  Reformation, which was to fall out as it did so early in the last Semitime, and was completed so long before the expiring thereof) gives us such a seasonable hint in the Conclusion of the Vision of the two Witnesses (by adumbrating the time of their Sufferings under the Beast by three days and an half, which so obviously reminds us of Daniel's three Times and an half) as thereby to instruct us and warrant us to compute the Event of the Medial Visions by Semitimes. And after the last Semitime current, which answers to the Half-Day, did fall out according to Prediction the partial Fall of Babylon and the Rising of the Witnesses, viz. the late blessed Reformation, and ceased to get further ground or enlargement before the Semitime expired. Which is a Demonstration that this Vision of the Rising of the Witnesses can be continued no further. But whatever Accessions for the future are made to the Kingdom of Christ, by his Victories over Antichrist, they must be prefigured by other Visions. And all the Vials, as has been proved in the foregoing Chapter, follow the Rising of the Witnesses.   

CHAP. XXVI. Whether the forty two months Reign of the Beast commence with the Apostasy, or begin fifty or sixty years after, out of an Answer to a Letter from a worthy Friend. Three Arguments to prove it did not commence with the Apostasy. Several things premised in order to an Answer to those Arguments. An Answer to the first and second Arguments. An Answer to the third. Hints of an Answer to other Particulars in the abovesaid Letter. Of the Author's twofold Rising of the Witnesses, Speciminal and Gradual. And who are properly to be accounted Witnesses. In what sense the Author says they were risen above thirty years ago. Daniel 's Semitimes how illustrated by the Apocalypse. What the forty two months Reign of the Beast. The Extension of Time in the Witnesses Rising not to be eluded by the comparing it to the felling of a Tree at the last stroke. In what sense the Author makes the Days of the Witnesses expire Anno 1652. What is the fullest and largest sense of the Witnesses Political Death.  
THAT the forty two months Reign of the Beast does not commence with the Apostasy, but fifty or sixty years after, these three Arguments are produced to prove the same.  
1. That the forty two months of the Beast cannot begin till Supremacy and Idolatry be joined in one Sovereignty or seventh Head, which was not till the Empire was divided into ten Kingdoms, which is fifty or sixty years after the Apostasy appeared in the Empire.  
2. As the Empire was not accounted the Kingdom of Christ till the supreme Head the Caesars were turned Christian: So the Christian Empire cannot be deemed the Beast till the supreme Head thereof become Pagano-Christian, and this was not till it was actually ten-horned.  
3. The Beast did not come into being until the ten Kings risen in the Empire, and it became divided into ten Kingdoms, forasmuch as the Beast is represented with ten Crowns in the Vision upon his Horns. Which implies the actual Division of the Empire into ten Kingdoms. Which yet was not till about sixty years after the Apostasy.  
Before I answer to these three Arguments I think it not amiss to profess, that I agree with him that produces them in the Conclusion they are produced for, viz. That it is not rational to begin the account of the Beasts forty two months' Reign sooner than the Empire became Idolatrous in the Supreme or Sovereign Power of it. For this Beast is under the seventh Head (though eighth King) and therefore under a Pagano-Christian Head. But I cannot but here take notice of that passage of the Prophecy that indicateth this eighth King, Chap. 7. v. 11. And the Beast that was and is not, he is the eighth. Where he names the Beast itself instead of the Head thereof: not surely as if he had no Head, but to intimate the difficulty to find whom to make this seventh Head or eighth King, whether the Secular Caesars or that Rex Sacrorum the two-horned Beast, which from the beginning had in a manner all the sway in matters of Religion, and is the same with the Woman on the Beast, which from the beginning of the Apostasy she rid and guided, and what is that but to be his Sovereign or Head? As the man is said to be the Head of the woman, because he has the Rule over her, so in this sense may the woman be said to be the Head of the Beast. And indeed from the time of the Apostasy to the Reformation the Roman Empire seems to have been Sacerdotal or Hierarchical, as if the Clay, not the Iron were the Kingdom, as Daniel seems to intimate Chap. 2.41. where he says, The Kingdom shall be divided, but there shall be in it of the strength of the Iron: as if indeed the Clay were the Kingdom, but it should be strengthened with the Iron. So that by this rate the whole Paganc-christianizing Hierarchy (as well Eastern as Western) or the two horned Beast which signifies the same, may prove the eighth King or seventh Head of the Beast.  
Whether this Hierarchical Pagano-Christian Head, or whether the Pagano-christianizing Caesars or Emperors, till the Pope over-toped them even in Secular Power be the seventh Head, the Prophecy seems shy in determining, leaving every one to his own judgement. And truly I have been always very prone to think that the Pagano-christianizing Caesars or Emperors, till the Pope usurped Jus utriusque gladii, were the seventh Head of the Beast. For they giving their Power to the two-horned Beast, and countenancing or conniving at or not opposing his Pagano-Christian Institutes (Qui non vetat peccare cùm possit jubet) they themselves become guilty of Paganochristianism. Besides, that it is no question but they practised with the Church those Idolatrous Superstitions that refer to the Mahuzzim, etc. But if any one will make the Pagano-Christian Hierarchy the seventh Head, there is so much to be said for it, that I will not greatly quarrel with him. And I am inclined to think that this is the very Mystery of that passage in the Prophecy, Chap. 17.11. of naming the Beast himself instead of his Head, to leave it thus in medio, whether you will have it Hierarchical or Caesarean. And having premised thus much, I shall now briefly answer to the Arguments.  
1. To the first than I say, That so soon as the Apostasy came in, which includes in it Pagano-Christian Superstitions and some degrees at least of Idolatry, there was a seventh Head of that very hue, whether you will deem it the Hierarchical Head who were the Introducers of this Apostasy, or the Caesarean, who by countenancing, complying with, or not opposing this Apostasy, became guilty of the same, and chargeable therewith in the Prophecy. But if you will not have the Christian Caesars after the Apostasy chargeable with Idolatry till they make Decrees for it, and incorporate it into the Law of the Empire, as Justinian did the Orthodox Faith out of the Ecumenical Councils, the Reign of the Beast will not begin till six or seven hundred years after Christ. And then the Rising of the Witnesses, which is the final issue of the forty two months' War (and therefore must be at least in the last month, viz. the forty second) will happen in the thirty first or twenty seventh month, so that all will break a pieces.  
2. As to the second I answer, That the supreme Head of the Beast became Pagano-Christian before the Empire was divided into ten Kingdoms, even at the beginning of the Apostasy, as was answered to the first.  
3. To the third I say, The Beast was in being before the ten Kings risen in the Empire. For it was not the ten Horns that made it a Beast, that is, its being divided into ten Kingdoms, but its Pagano-christianizing, its reintroducing old Pagan Rites and Superstitious and Idolatrous usages into Christianity, and so making the Empire the Beast, That was, is not, and yet is. This was a doing, and in some sort done at the sounding of the first Trumpet, which gins with the Epocha of this Apostasy, and brings in those Commanders of the Northern Nations, whose very Invasion of the Empire is the beginning of their catching at Crowns and Principalities, though it was about half an hundred years till they all ten were served or sped, the Church advancing still more and more in her Apostasy as the time went on. And the Division of the Empire into ten Kingdoms signified by the ten Horns, is a sure Note of the beginning of the Apostasy, it beginning at a time of their catching at Kingdoms, which began with the sound of the first Trumpet, and with the forty two months' War or prosperous Reign of the Beast, which ended with the Rising of the Witnesses and last blast of the sixth Trumpet. So exact is the Synchronism of the forty two months and the six first Trumpets rightly. understood.  
Nor is the Beast represented in the Vision with its ten Horns crowned to signify the Empire was not a Beast till it was thus actually divided into ten Kingdoms, but that it was a Bestianizing while the ten Horns were catching at and actually obtaining one after another their respective Kingdoms. So that the Beast began to be at least with the catching at and obtaining a Kingdom by the first of the ten Horns. But all the ten Horns are exhibited as crowned in Counter-distinction to the Representation of the Roman Empire Pagan, where there are seven Heads and ten Horns, but the Horns without Crowns, that we may be sure the Vision belongs to the Empire after it had become Christian. And thus the forty two months of the Beast and the sound of the first Trumpet beginning with the time of the Apostasy, it is evident the twelve hundred and sixty days of the mournful Prophecy of the Witnesses and the rest of the synchronizing Medial Visions commence from the same Epocha, and consequently that the twelve hundred and sixty days expired about thirty years ago.  
The rest of the most material things in your Letter I will answer very briefly. What you allege therefore out of myself, that I allow of a double Rising of the Witnesses (Synops. Prophet. lib. 2. cap. 7. sect. 7, 11.) one quoad speciem, the other quoad gradus, you are to take notice, that that distinction is mentioned by me only to this end, that no man should expect at the Expiration of the forty two months an universal Rising of the Witnesses or total Fall of Babylon, but only speciminal. But that after this speciminal Rising I allow the following Victories of Christ against Antichrist to be called the further Rising of the Witnesses. This, though by some Analogy it may be called (and is so by me called) a further gradual Rising of the Witnesses, yet I must confess I think it now more proper and safe to call nothing the Rising of the Witnesses but what is included within the Time of the forty two months, and intimated by the partial Fall of the City. Whatever other Accessions are made to the Kingdom of Christ under the Vials, must take their denomination from the Vial they happen under. And looking upon the thing itself, those that bore Testimony in those Times that the Cause of Truth seemed so obscure in, that none would own it but those Witnesses, these, I say, have a more special Right to that Title. But the Cause is now plainly decided by the manifest Judgement of God in giving Victory to the Witnesses, and fulfilling tightly the Prophecy recorded Apoc. 11.11. in the blessed Reformation. So that further witnessing in a decided Cause seems superfluous, men now that stick to the Truth decided, are rather honest conscientious Professors of the Truth than Witnesses to it, and they that suffer for it, may rather be said to be murdered than martyred for the Truth, though the Merit of their Suffering is much-what alike to the other.  
And now in this proper sense of the Rising of the Witnesses, when I say they are risen above thirty years ago, this is no contradiction out of forgetfulness to my own sentiments who make the Rising of the Witnesses to begin about the middle of the second month of the last Hexamenon or Semitime, and end about the middle of the fifth from mine own Epocha, Anno 393. or 400. as if hereby I finished their Rising later than about the midst of the fifth month of the last Hexamenon, and so differ about fifty years from myself. For where I say above thirty years ago, I speak in the Language of them that by the twelve hundred and sixty years will have so many years' Extent signified. My meaning therefore is, that even according to them, granting that Extent to them, yet the Witnesses are risen above thirty years ago, counting from the right Epocha, so that there is no further fulfilling of that Prophecy. But though there is no more counting on any further Accessions to the Kingdom of Christ under the Notion of the twelve hundred and sixty days unexpired or Rising of the Witnesses, yet there is from the Effects of the Vials, as I have hinted already: but we go on.  
Daniel's Semitimes are illustrated by the Apocalypse, (1) In that they are by changing them into twelve hundred and sixty days or forty two months declared to be but three times and an half. And (2) it is declared by placing three days and an half at the close of the Vision of the Witnesses, that they are the measure that the Events of the Medial Visions are to be computed by, that is, that a Semitime is the Unite, not a Month or Day. And withal we must remember that the Artifice of Concealment is as well intended in the Apocalypse as the Certainty of Revealment.  
Furthermore, Remember that the forty two months Reign of the Beast is not understood of his Reign at large, but of his prosperous belligerant Reign against the Saints and Witnesses, till their Rising and the partial Fall of the City, so that these necessarily synchronize.  
Your Comparison of the last stroke at the Tree felling the Tree is witty, but not so well fitted to this case. The Rising of the Witnesses, or falling of the City, is rather like the mowing of a Meadow, which is not said to be mowed just at the last cut, as the Tree to be felled at the last stroke of the Axe, but it is mowed and a mowing all the time till the last Sithe-full: such is the nature of the Rising of the Witnesses. Their Rising was in succession, not at one joint Jump, as the falling of the grass is in succession, not all at one stroke of the .  
In Arithm. Apocalypt. pag. 382. I make the twelve hundred and sixty days of the Witnesses expire Anno 1652. speaking according to their Hypothesis that understand the full Extent of so many years by them; yet, say I, they expired in the year 1652. from the true Epocha, though they were so to be extended, and though we did not measure the time of the Medial Visions by Semitimes. But this is but one true Tale to say, they expired An. 1652. from the true Epocha, according to that Hypothesis of some, but that the Witnesses Rising was passed in a different year (from the said Epocha) consulting History and measuring by Semitimes, or making a Semitime the Unite. It's much you did not understand my meaning before.  
And whereas you conceive the Witnesses could not be politically dead from the very beginning of the Apostasy, that word [Political] was the best word I could hit on to oppose to [Natural] death. But it is to be understood in a larger meaning than to be grossly put out of Office. This Death, I mean, is gradual, and the first degree thereof is, when those that stood up for the Truth against the introducing the Pagano-Christian Rites, etc. were found so weak, that they could not stop the Tide of Ecclesiastical Corruptions flowing in, but their attempts were ineffectual, so that as to any efficiency to stop the encroaching Paganochristianism, they were as mere Ciphers or dead men that can do nothing. This is included in [Political Death] in that large sense I take it in. I mean this Inefficiency or Inability to carry on things that appertain to the Order or Polity of the Church, or of the State in Matters respecting Religion against the Authors and Countenancers of the growing Corruptions. And the Apostasy being the very Wilderness of the Church, the Woman was in it as soon as it was. These are Hints of an Answer to your former Letter, I shall offer the like to your latter.   

CHAP. XXVII. Hints of an Answer to a second Letter from the same Hand. A Semitime the Unite in computing the Events of the Medial Visions proved by the Author. Not four hundred thirty two, but three hundred ninety three, the Author's Epocha for the Medial Visions. The odd Semitime in Daniel added to good purpose. The prevailing of the little Horn, Dan. 7. how to be understood. The meaning of [After three days and an half]. His Friend's mistake touching the second Query. His use of a Prophetic Henopoeia in Answer to the sixth Query, but not avoiding thereby but that Luther 's Reformation will be the final Issue of the forty two months' War, and a Semitime the Unite for computing the Medial Visions.  
YOU understand aright what I mean by making a Semitime (which I call also in one word an Hexamenon) an Unite in computing the time of Events in the Medial Visions. But I am amazed that you say I only suppose or assert this, whenas I have evidently demonstrated it in the brief Method of the nine Queries and Notes thereon, if you patiently and closely attend thereto. And I have noted above that from my Epocha the Witnesses began to rise about the midst of the second month, and were rising till about at least the midst of the fifth in the last Semitime. And therefore it is no wonder that so large an Unite as an Hexamenon or Hecatovogdoconthemeron, that is, an hundred and eighty Prophetic days should be the Unite by which so large an Event should be computed. Nor is there any other eventual measure of Time signified by the forty two months or twelve hundred and sixty days than Daniel's seven Semitimes, as I shall remind you again in the Conclusion. And it is not this partial Victory signified by the Rising of the Witnesses, but that total Victory of the Rider of the white Horse under the seventh Vial that secures the Saints for ever falling again under the power of the Beast. Now to your Paragraphs.  
To (1) In Synopsis Prophetica, lib. 2. cap. 5. sect. 4. there I say only, that the Epocha of the Beast's forty two months is at least so early as four hundred thirty two years; but the Epocha I stick to, is three hundred ninety three. And according to that Epocha the Rising of the Witnesses will begin about the middle of the second month, and reach into at least the middle of the fifth month of the last Hexamenon or Semitime. And I say, that all the Variations of the time of the continuance of the Medial Visions signify no more than that they shall continue for seven Semitimes, which are the seven Unites in this Compute. And therefore if the Continuance reach into the seventh Unite (especially the Event aimed at filling that Unite so competently well as it does, viz. the Rising of the Witnesses and partial Fall of the great City) the fulfilling of the Prophecy is plain and exact.  
To (2) What you say here is neat, supposing your Epocha of four hundred fifty six years, when the Beast became ten-horned, were true. For than Luther's beginning the Reformation would fall short of the seventh Semitime. But I stand to that one Epocha of three hundred ninety three years, according to which the Rising of the Witnesses will begin about the middle of the second month of the last Hexamenon or Half-time, and reach into the midst of the fifth month at least. So that the Half-Time is added to the three Times to very good purpose in Daniel.  
To (3) The little Horn prevailed against the Saints for a time and times and half a time; but in the last Half-time he was not so prevalent or prosperous in his War, but that part of his Kingdom was given to the Saints in the Rising of the Witnesses, as it is said Dan. Chap. 7. v. 26. And they shall take away his Kingdom, which was in part done in the Rising of the Witnesses and Fall of the tenth part of the City, viz. in the Reformation; but the consuming and destroying it to the end is left to the Vials that succeed the Rising of the Witnesses, and will be completed under the seventh, at that great Battle under the Conduct of the Heros on the white Horse with a Sword issuing out of his mouth. And the Vials succeed the sixth Trumpet, and consequently the Time and Times and Half a Time. Which Vials would have no Kingdom of the Beast left to be poured upon, if the fulfilling of the Vision of the Rising of the Witnesses and Fall of the City were more than partial. What can be more plain?  
To (4) After three days and an half, or after three times and an half, doubtless is to be understood of the Three and Half current, not expired. But this Expression [After] does plainly assure us, that this is the final issue of that forty two months' War of the Beast with the Witnesses, and that the final issue of that War is but a partial Fall of the City, and no more Rising of the Witnesses than was commensurate thereto, I pray you think seriously on that. The regaining of the tenth part of the Kingdom of Antichrist into the hands of Christ, and the Rising of the Witnesses in that tenth part, is plainly the final Result of the forty two months (that is, of the Time and Times and half a Time) War of the Beast with the Witnesses. The Vision says so expressly.  
As for your Answer to my second Query; It is not my Query you answer to. For my Query is, Whether the forty two months prosperous War of the Beast does not synchronize with the first six Trumpets, and you give your Answer touching the Reign or War of the Beast at large; which indeed reigns still, and wars still, but not with like continued success, as in the forty two months continued War noted in the Vision.  
In Answer to my sixth Query, it's a pretty ingenious use you make of the Prophetic Henopoeia, and I acknowledge there is a Prophetic Henopoeia in this part of the Vision, the Rising of the Witnesses. For though in the fulfilling of the Prediction the Witnesses risen in several places and at several times successively one part after another, and with some Intervals of time betwixt, though still within the last Semitime, yet by an Henopoeia all these Rise are represented as one Rising, this is acknowledged. But here we are carefully to observe, that all these Rise put together is by the Vision itself restrained to a partial Rising, forasmuch as it is said, That the tenth part (at the self same hour) of the great City fell, and it is most certain the Rising was extended no further than the falling of the City. But this partial Fall and Rising was after the three days and an half, and consequently after the forty two months and twelve hundred and sixty days equipollent only to Daniel's three Times and an half or seven Semitimes, and the Reformation is this partial Fall of the City and Rising of the Witnesses commensurate thereto, nor any other than a partial Reformation is represented by the Prophecy; wherefore the Reformation being said to fall out after the three days and an half current, it is hence evident that both the Reformation is the final issue of the three Times and an half's prosperous War of the Beast, and that we are to reckon the Medial Visions (the time of their Event) by Semitimes, the Reformation being both begun and ended within the last Semitime, and taking so large a space therein. This wants nothing but freely and closely thinking of, and it will appear as clear as the Sun. If the Rising of the Witnesses were universal, or there were a total Fall of the great City at the close of the sixth Trumpet when this is, forasmuch as the Vials certainly follow the sixth Trumpet, there would yet be then no Kingdom of the Beast left for them to be poured upon, as I noted above. Think seriously on this.   

CHAP. XXVIII. Hints of an Answer to a third Letter. Further Victories against Antichrist after the Reformation not to be called any Rising of the Witnesses. Who Competitors for being the seventh Head or eighth King. An Hierarchical Pagano-Christian Head, how easily conceived to precede in order of Nature before the Caesarean, and that it was as soon as the Apostasy came in. That the Author affirms not that the Caesars continued purely Christian an hundred and twenty years. That the Christian Caesars complied with the Apostasy of the Church from the beginning amply made out by Reason and History. In what sense the forty two months' War of the Beast may be said to commence as early as the Apostasy. The Beast is in being before the ten Kings, the Empire ipso facto becoming a Beast by the Apostasy, which commenced before they were risen. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoc. 13.5. does not signify to continue at large, not supposed by the Author, but proved by him.  
1. WE are both agreed, that there will be further Victories over the Beast besides this of the Reformation. But I absolutely deny that those Victories belong to the forty two months' War, or that they are (if we speak properly, and keep to the Apocalyptick stile) to be called the Rising of the Witnesses, but are to take their denomination from the Vials they happen under.  
2. Whereas you say, it does not appear to you difficult at all to determine, whether the two-horned or ten-horned Beast be the seventh Head or eighth King; I say it is impossible the Ten-horned Beast should be the eighth King or seventh Head; because the Beast is not his Head. But it is a figurative Speech when it is said, The Beast that was and is not he is the eighth. By a Synecdoche the whole Beast is put for part, viz. his Head. Therefore the Competition is not betwixt the two-horned Beast and Ten-horned, that is, betwixt the Whore or Apostatised Hierarchy and the Empire divided into ten Kingdoms, but betwixt the said Hierarchy and the Apostatising Caesar's.  
3. There was an Hierarchical apostatising Head so soon as the Apostasy came in, viz. the two-horned Beast, the same with the Whore that rides and guides the Beast, and therefore has the Office of an Head, as I noted in my former. And Vigilantius who lived about the end of the fourth Century, how he was against the worshipping of the Relics of Martyrs, how he said the Miracles done at their Monuments were the prestigious delusion of Devils, that he condemned also the burning of Wax-Candles at their Altars in the daytime, and how sharply he was inveighed against by S. Jerome for this, is too too well known in History. These Idolatrous Superstitions therefore coming in, and being thus countenanced by the lapsing Hierarchy, and the Hierarchy being the Head of the Empire quoad Spiritualia, it is plain there is a Pagano-Christian Head so soon as the Apostasy came in. And it is the two-horned Beast, Rev. 13. that is the Maker of the Image of the Beast, And as for the little Horn appearing after the ten Horns in Daniel, Chap. 7. it is said v. 8. that he appeared or came up amongst them. Nor is he said to come up after them, v. 20. and v. 24. where he is said to rise after them: from the Greek and Hebrew it may signify no more than behind them, he stealing his growth upon them and with them; or it may refer to the time of his more eminent and conspicuous growth, respecting by an Idiconoea the Papacy chief. And though the Vision of the Rise of the two-horned Beast follow that of the Ten-horned Beast, Chap. 13. yet the Method of thus placing them is good, the Effect being notius nobis than the Cause. Wherefore this strange Phaenomenon of the Re-paganizing Empire is represented in the first place, and the Efficient cause thereof the Apostatical Hierarchy in the second, which is the two-horned Beast and Maker of the Image of the Pagan Beast, which the ten-horned is. So easy is it to conceive an Hierarchical Pagano-Christian Head at least in order of Nature before a Caesarean. But there is no likelihood but the Caesar's Religion was immediately conformed to the prevailing Hierarchy all along, and Mr. Mede you know makes the two-horned and ten-horned Beasts to synchronize.  
4. Now for the Christian Caesar's continuing purely Christian for an hundred twenty years, according to my own account, this is an odd passage and to be wondered at, and contrary to what I precisely profess in the place you allude to. Synops. Prophet. lib. 2. cap. 5. Consect. 2. and Sect. 4. where are these very words: But what I leave more lax here will be more particularly bounded in the proportion of the Inner and Outer Court of the Temple, which will gird in this time a little within four hundred years. And do not three hundred ninety three years do so? Which is the Epocha I stand to.  
5. That is also somewhat harshly said, That it does not so much as appear probable that the Christian Caesars complied with the Apostasy of the Church from the beginning thereof; whenas it was their Interest to comply with that which had the more common vogue of Holiness in the Empire. But it appears de facto to be true: Else why did Arcadius and Honorius the Emperors in Vigilantius his time not side with him against the sway of the two-horned Beast, so much given in those times to the Superstitious and even Idolatrous Veneration of the Relics of Martyrs? Where is there one Edict to stop the current of Superstition and Idolatry in the whole Succession of Emperors from Theodosius M. his time till Leo Isaurus the Iconoclast? But they were all asleep till at last they seemed to be awakened by the Judgements of God in the Invasion of the Saracens, I mean Leo Isaurus and some of his Successors. Is it not a marvellous thing that Valentinianus, Theodosius and Arcadius should be so curious as in their Edicts to take notice of the hair of Deaconesses, and say nothing against the exorbitant. Veneration of Martyrs and their Relics, unless they complied therewith? And how easy was it for the Christian Emperors in those days to swallow down with sweetness all that extravagant Devotion towards the Martyrs and their Relics, who did not disgust, but assume such suspected Titles as these to themselves, Nostrum Numen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Our Godhead, our Divinity wills thus and thus? Which Phrases occur in the Rescripts or Edicts of Theodosius M. and Justinian, and is by some noted as a kind of Political Idolatry. To say nothing how they did not with sufficient severity and earnestness forbidden (no not any of them) the circumgestation and Adoration of their own Images. For speaking against which Chrysostom incurred the displeasure of the Court. And S. Jerome, otherwise superstitious enough, says, Those that worship the Emperor's Statues or Images do that which the three Children denying to do were wellpleasing to God, comparing thus the worshipping those Images or Statues with the worshipping the golden Statue which Nabuchadnezzar had set up. And yet, as Gotfredus observes in Cod. Theodos. de Imaginibus Imperialibus, Sed neque insania cò hactenus processit, ut ingenti numero sumptuque hae statuae excitarentur, verùm ut cum Adorationis fastigio erigerentur exciperenturque, quomodo & alias hoc aevo Divina pleraque Imperatoribus tribuebantur, quae hujus Aevi labes fuit. And this was the very Age in which the Apostasy began. Is it therefore not so much as probable that the Christian Caesars complied with the Apostasy of the Church from the beginning, who were so insensible of the Idolatry committed on themselves? And as the Superstition and Idolatry in worshipping the Saints and their Relics increased, so did this Political Idolatry toward the Emperor's Images. For as the  Gotfredus citys it out of the second Council of Nice, the people, when those Imperial Images were sent into the Provinces, met them with Tapers and Incense, as if it were the Image of some God. What scruple therefore is there now left but the Emperors swum down in the common stream of Superstition and Idolatry from the first Apostasy of the Church to Leo Isaurus' time, and that therefore from the very beginning of the Apostasy till the Pope played the Caesar, and would be above the Emperors, the Emperors themselves were the Pagano-Christian Head of the Beast.  
And yet that the Emperors were more positively active in the Apostasy of the Church, appears plainly out of History. For to omit Constantine (who with an innocent zeal towards the Martyrs, caused the holy Relics of Andrew, Luke and Timothy to be with pompous Solemnity translated to Constantinople, there to be entempled in more illustrious Temples; though Cyril against Julian plainly shows, that the most famous Temples of the Heathen were in truth no other than the Sepulchers or Monuments of the dead; but Constantine intended nothing but a kind of civil Honour hereby to the said Martyrs:) Arcadius also in a time when the generality of the Empire grew mad after the Relics of Saints and Martyrs (having a superstitious confidence of strange Virtue in them, of preserving them from Evil and the place where they were entempled) ordered the Bones of the Prophet Samuel to be translated out of Judaea into Thrace with marvellous Pomp, the people receiving the Relics of the Prophet with Adoration, but not to him forsooth, but Christ, as S. Jerome says, and is the present excuse of the Romanists at this day. And how active Theodosius was in translating Chrysostom's Relics to Constantinople you may see in Spondanus and others. And that of S. Austin here is also worth the noting: Videtis Imperii nobilissimi eminentissimum Culmen ad sepulchrum Piscatoris Petri submisso diademate supplicare. So that it is plain the Emperors went along with the practice of the Church and People.  
Nay, as to the ordering of the Relics of Saints and Martyrs and the translation of them in those Times, nothing was to be done sine affatibus Augusti, without the permission of the Emperor. And therefore Theodosius M. made an Edict against the vagabond Monks selling of Relics, but therein allows the entempling of them with all Magnificence: which yet plainly answers to the entempling the Pagan Heroes. As the Athenians after the Spectrum of Theseus had appeared fight for them in the Plains of Marathon, were bid by their Oracle to find out the Bones of Theseus and bring them to Athens, and to build an Heroon to him or Temple, and give him Religious Worship, that thereby he might become the Safeguard of their State and City. The Egyptians also frequented the Sepulchre of the Prophet Jeremy with great Devotion, because they conceited he defended them from Asps and Crocodiles. And the Successors of Alexander strove who should translate his Body into their Dominions, and build an Heroon to him, as deeming thereby that they should engage him to be a Defence or Safeguard to their Kingdom.  
This is the genuine meaning of the Pagan's entempling the Bones or Bodies of their Heroes. And this was the Conceit of the generality of Christians toward the latter end of the fourth Century, and the beginning of the fifth, that the Relics of the Saints and Martyrs in their Martyria or places they were entempled in, were the Forts, Bulwarks, and the Defenders of the City and Country where they were enshrined. This was not only the ordinary Conceit of the common people, but the voice of the Fathers in public Sermons in those Times. Whence we may be sure the Emperors (having such a deference for the Bishops, especially Theodosius M.) were successively imbued with the same sense of things, which yet is no less than to be guilty of the Worship of the Mahuzzim, in thus reposing their confidence in them, when no invisible Power is to be confided in but God alone. See Chemnitius and Mr. Mede.  
And lastly, The Care of Religion belonging also to the Emperors (though they mainly entrusted the Hierarchy with it) and they giving no check by any Edict or Rescript from Theodosius M. his time to Leo Isaurus, as I noted above, this not forbidding is plainly encouraging, commanding or assuring them in this erroneous way; as he that rides an Horse and has the reins in his hands, is supposed to approve of the way the Horse goes, if he checks him not with the bridle, and so direct him into the right way. So that the Apostasy thus begun under the Emperors, it is manifest they stand guilty thereof, and so became Apostatical or Pagano-Christian Heads of the Beast so soon as the Apostasy began. Which is the thing that was to be demonstrated.  
6. And that the forty two months' War of the Beast commenced as early as the Apostasy, may be easily understood by any body that understands the Genius of the Apocalyptick Style, which is highly figurative and of a lofty vigorous sense-striking strain, using the fullest and strongest Metaphors; and therefore it is no wonder that all the Contest and Tug betwixt the Apostatising Empire and the Witnesses from the beginning to the end of the Contest, is set out by that one high-sounding Word or Phrase of War; though at first it was only a Dispute and Contest in words, as in the Case of S. Jerome and Vigilantius: And the Metaphor is so easy and natural, though so grandisonant, that our Theological Controversies and Disputes are ordinarily called Polemical Divinity, that is in plain English, Warring or Warlike Divinity. And this War is not said to be betwixt the Head of the Beast and the Witnesses (as if the War could not begin till the Head of the Beast positively opposed the Witnesses) but betwixt the Beast and the Witnesses; so that even while there was no Edict of the Emperors against the Witnesses, yet the War might be begun and continued betwixt the Beast and the Witnesses; unless a man will be so humoursom, as in the Fight of an Horse with a Bear, because the Horse bites not with his head, but only kicks with his heels, to deny he fights with the Bear. And yet how positively the Emperors did concur with the Apostatising part of the Empire, has been declared above.  
7. That the Beast was in being before the ten Kings risen in the Empire, is demonstrated from your own Concession, viz. That the Apostasy of the Empire was before the ten Kings risen in the Empire. For the Apostasy into Paganochristianism is that very Form or Essence that turned the Empire into that state which the Prophetic Style calls, The Beast that was, is not, and yet is. And its being divided into ten Kingdoms, confers no more to its being a Beast, than quartering a slain Mutton into four quarters by a Butcher, contributes to its being a slain Mutton, which it was as fully before. So that this Division in neither case is a Causa sine qua non, of the thing being so. Nor does it follow because the Apostatised Empire is represented by the Beast with ten Horns crowned, that therefore it was not a Beast before those ten-crowned Horns, no more than it follows that the Apostatised Hierarchy represented by the Whore, Chap. 17. so drunk with the blood of the Saints, and so gorgeously apparelled, was not a Whore till she was grown so extremely sumptuous in her Ornaments, and barbarously cruel in her Persecutions. The use of the ten Horns crowned in the Representation of the Beast, Chap. 13. is not to signify it was not a Beast till those actually crowned Horns, but to distinguish him from the Dragon with ten Horns uncrowned, Chap. 12. and so to intimate that this Beast, Chap. 13. is a Representation of the Empire after it had degenerated into a Pagano-Christian State. For the Division of the Empire into ten Kingdoms was not till after it had become Christian.  
8. And lastly, As for your Postscript: I do not ground my distinction of the Beast's forty two months prosperous Reign from his Reign at large upon the different Readins of Rev. 13.5. but prove that their Reading that read v. 5. That power was given him to make forty two months' War with the Saints, or that he was to proceed prosperously, or do prosperously forty two months (and not to continue at large) is the best and truest sense. As is proved in the Preface to the Answer to the Remarks. I say that Reading or sense I contend for, is not supposed, but proved; forasmuch as the issue, even the final issue of that War is but a partial Fall of the City and correspondent Rising of the Witnesses. I pray consider the sixth, seventh and eighth Queries and the Notes on them, and I think it will be impossible for you not to be convinced.   

CHAP. XXIX. Hints of an Answer to a fourth Letter. That the Rising of the Witnesses, Rev. 11. denotes a partial Regaining only of the Kingdom of Antichrist into the hands of Christ. A further Enforcement of the same Truth. The Event of the forty two months' War of the Beast in what sense partial, in what final. The whole Event of the Rising of the Witnesses the Object of the Prediction. The Times and Halfpenny reach not beyond the sixth Trumpet. The Object and Subject of the three Wo-Trumpets not the same. The continued Conflict betwixt the Antichristian and Evangelical Party with the Effects thereof to what Visions referrable. Passages in Daniel, Chap. 7. amply explained. That even from our Antagonists Epocha the Reckoning not by Years but Semitimes in the Medial Visions is necessary. No hopes of foretelling from the Medial Numbers to a year or thereabout, when the Church's Affliction shall cease, proved by many Arguments. The danger of forcing out pleasing Interpretations of the Prophetical Visions when they will not afford them.  
1. TO your first Paragraph I say, That which falls out after the War of forty two months, equal and Synchronal to the three days and an half, to the three Times and an Half, and to the rest that synchronize with these, and is the issue of this forty two months' War is the final issue thereof. But the Rising of the Witnesses falls out as the issue of that War betwixt the Beast and them after the three days and an half (equal and Synchronal to the forty two months) according to the express intimation of the Text, Chap. 11.11. Wherefore the Rising of the Witnesses commensurate to the partial Fall of Babylon or of the great City, is the final issue of the forty two months' War of the Beast against the Saints and Witnesses, according to the express indication of the Vision. This is the final issue of the forty two months' War which closes with the Exit of the sixth Trumpet which the Vials follow, and are intended for a further Ruin of the Beast afterwards. So that this so plain a Truth is not inconsistent with the regaining of larger shares, nay the whole Kingdom of Antichrist into Christ's own hands again. And these first Acquists are as it were the Primitiae and Pledges thereof. So plain is it every way that this Vision, Chap. 11. touching the Witnesses, drives only at a partial regaining of the Kingdom of Antichrist into the hands of Christ. The Judgement indeed is here begun of the little Horn, they begin to take away his Dominion, but consuming and destroying it even unto the end, that is the work of the Vials.  
2. To your second. Bring by a Prophetic Henopoeia as many Rise of the Witnesses, and as distant in time and place as you will, and fancy them as strongly as you will to be made within the last Semitime, or before the forty two months, according to your Epocha, be expired; yet the Vision does expressly declare, that all this can amount to no more than the Fall of the tenth part of the City Babylon, and a commensurate Rising of the Witnesses. Upon which consideration one would think it were impossible but you should find yourself in a wrong Box, and that my way is the genuine Interpretation of the Prophecy. But that your Epocha is also false, is abundantly made out from what we have said to your third Letter, viz. That the Beast and his War with the Witnesses commenced as early as the Apostasy which yourself acknowledges to begin about four hundred years after Christ, which is above fifty years earlier than your Epocha. This, if you thoroughly consider it, is a full Answer to whatever you offer in your second Paragraph. And it is tedious to me to multiply words.  
3. To the third. This invincible Reasoning of mine touching this Vision you seem to be ware of in this next Paragraph, and yet you are not sufficiently pierced by it, but would shuffle it off by saying, If the Event of this forty two months' War be but partial, how can it be final, as if there were an inconsistency therein, because the one signifies there is more of the same kind to follow, whereas final signifies the contrary? Answ. But this is a mere piece of Sophistry; The pretended inconsistency not observing the Laws of real Opposition, which must respect the same thing. But final here respects the Extension of the forty two months' War, but partial, the Extension of the Kingdom the Witnesses or Saints warred against, the vanquishing of part whereof may well be the final result of the forty two months' War or of the Time and Times and half a Time's War, though there may be more of the same Kingdom still behind to be conquered and subdued. This is so open a Fallacy, that it needs no illustration to set off the inconsequence thereof. But you proceed.  
4. To your next I answer briefly, That [After three days and an half, or three times and an half] I understand to signify as much as, After the last Unite, of the Eventual Computation, current, which is a Semitime, as I have demonstrated in my Arithmetica Apocalyptica, and more concisely in my Nine Queries and Notes. And a Semitime being the Unite in Eventual Compute, and so adapted to the nature of the Event predicted, too big for either a Prophetical Day or Month; and not the beginning of the Event, but the whole Event itself being the Object of the Prediction, and the whole Event reaching from about the midst of the second month of the last Hexamenon or Semitime into the fifth, if not sixth thereof, the Accomplishment of the Prediction is as exquisite and complete, as if the Unite in Compute had been a Year, and the Event had fallen out after the last year current of suppose twelve hundred and sixty years. This, if you consider it, is a plain and full Answer to what you allege in this Paragraph.  
5. In the next many things are said, but nothing that in the least infringes that grand Truth, viz. That the final issue of the forty two months' War betwixt the Beast and the Witnesses is only the Fall of the tenth part of the City and the Rising of the Witnesses proportionate thereto. You readily grant that the Vials succeed the sixth Trumpet, but you say, that the Vials succeed the three Times and an half, does not thence follow, unless I had first proved that the Three times and an Half reached no further than to the end of the sixth Trumpet, which you say you never yet saw proved. This I wonder at, because Mr. Mede has sufficiently demonstrated, that the Woman to be nourished for a Time, and Times and half a Time in the Wilderness, synchronizeth with the first six Trumpets. Consult his Table of Synchronisms, and you will see it, and peruse his little Treatise of Synchronisms, and there you will find it proved. Besides that, till after the three days and an Half the second Woe, or sixth Trumpet is not past, Rev. 11. And this is a plain demonstration that the final issue of the forty two months' War is but a partial Fall of Babylon or partial Ruin of the Kingdom of the Beast and not a total, because there would be no Beast left to be ruined by the Vials after the Expiration of the sixth Trumpet and last Semitime. Think seriously on this.  
You say the three Woes have the same subject and the same object, which is a mistake. For the first two Woes are the Invasion of the Saracens and Turks upon the Idolatrous Empire at large the Ten-horned Beast, and belong to the Sealed Book Prophecy, but the third Woe more peculiarly respects the two horned Beast or Idolatrous Hierarchy, and belongs to the Opened Book-Prophecy. But all three agree in this, that they are Woes, and so the transition is from one Woe to another. But that proves not that they have one adequate Subject and Object, no more than that they belong to one and the same Prophecy, whenas it is manifest the last Woe belongs to the Opened Book-Prophecy, the other two to the Sealed. Nor is the last Wo-Trumpet divided adequately into seven Vials, but into seven Thunders, and the first Thunder into the seven Vials: which is needless here to insist on, and you may find satisfaction elsewhere. See the Answer to the Remarks on the place, and also Appendicula Apocalyptica. So that there is not the least pretence of continuing the forty two months' War betwixt the Beast and the Witnesses beyond the partial Fall of the great City and the Rising of the Witnesses proportionate thereunto.  
That there is still a struggle betwixt the Antichristian and Evangelical Party, and that the Evangelical Party may sometimes receive damage, is true: yet this is not to be reckoned to the forty two months' War, but to take denomination from other Visions or Prophecies, from the Menaces to the Church of Sardis, and from the Vials especially. And their attacks to do the Evangelical Party mischief, is to be referred to their noisome and grievous sore as an effect thereof inflicted on them under the first Vial, and sticking to them, or at least irritable in them all along; as this sore is mentioned even in the fifth Vial. And when so horrible a War was raised against the Evangelical Party here in England in Eighty eight, and that by the great Providence of God they were so defeated; this is referrible to the third Vial. And if in the midst of the sedulous Attacks of the Antichristian Party, some mighty Potentate in Christendom should by God's Providence be raised up in their behalf, the hearts of Kings being in the hand of God, this were referrible to the fourth Vial. But according to the Apocalyptick Style, this is to be accounted neither any part of the forty two months' War, nor of the Rising of the Witnesses. It is something tedious to insist on things so plain.  
6. In your sixth Paragraph you lay great stress upon that Passage Apoc. 17.17. touching the ten Kings that God has put into their hearts to fulfil his Will, and to agree and give their Kingdom to the Beast until the words of God shall be fulfilled, which words of God you understand of Daniel's Prophecy of the little Horn having the Saints given into his hands until a Time and Times and dividing of a Time; And of those other words of Daniel, where he says, I beheld, and the same Horn made War with the Saints, and prevailed against them until the Ancient of days came, and Judgement was given to the Saints of the most High, and the time came that the Saints possessed the Kingdom, Dan. 7.21, 22. and then you skip from v. 22. to v. 27. adding, And what Kingdom that is he tells in the following words (but they follow a great way off) The Kingdom and Dominion and the greatness of the Kingdom under the whole Heaven. And you say, you suppose, I will not say this Kingdom is so given and possessed yet; and if not, how can you say the little Horns making War with the Saints, and prevailing against them for a time and times and half a time, is expired? I pray you, Sir, think seriously on this.  
Answ. Well, I have thought seriously on it, and find what you lay such great stress on, has no strength in it at all. I easily admit those words of Apoc. 17.17. may allude to these passages of Daniel. But there is nothing here that infers that the forty two months' War of the Beast with the Saints extends any further than the partial Fall of the great City, and the then commensurate Rising of the Witnesses. Which Time I call the prosperous Reign and War of the Beast, which are the Time and Times and half a Time here mentioned in Daniel, and in which Fall the last Semitime current he made War, and prevailed against the Saints, as Daniel also has foretold. And this was till the Ancient of Days came, and Judgement was given to the Saints of the most High, v. 22. which is further explained v. 26. (which you wisely skipped over) But the Judgement shall sit, and they shall take away his (viz. the little Horns) Dominion, not all of it at once (as it was not at the Fall of the tenth part of the City and commensurate Rising of the Witnesses) but leisurely by degrees. Which Apocalyptick Vision therefore is an excellent Commentary on this Text of Daniel. God has adjudged the Cause to the Evangelical Party by this partial Fall of Babylon and the then Rising of the Witnesses. This taking away part of the little Horns Dominion, is a Pledge of the having it consumed and destroyed even to the end. But this destruction and consumption is not the issue of the forty two months' War, wherein the Beast prevailed for such a time against the Saints, but at last he was partially vanquished, but it is the result of the Effusion of the Vials; so that things that lay so close wrapped up in Daniel, are thus distinctly and explicitly set out in the Apocalypse, and the Explication found to be the easy and natural sense of Daniel. Do not wink wilfully against Truth, and you will easily discern it. See my Exposition of Daniel's second Vision on this place, v. 26.  
And though this is so easily answered, yet you are earnest with me again at the close of your Letter to observe that the Time, Times and half a Time reach as far as till the Ancient of Days shall come, and till the Judgement shall be given to the Saints, etc. Which thing I grant you, viz. That the Time and Times and half a Time of the Horns prevailing War against the Saints, did reach so far till the Ancient of Days gave him so notorious a check and counterbuff in the partial Fall of the City and the then Rising of the Witnesses. This was the final issue of the forty two months once prosperous War of the little Horn or Beast against the Saints. Which Time and Times and half a Time is not where mentioned in the Vision of Daniel, Chap. 7. but in v. 25. then comes that in the 26. verse, which is evidently to be expounded as I have above expounded it, That upon the Judgement being set. his Dominion in part was taken away in the partial Fall of the great City, to which the Time and Times and half a Time do reach and comprise in the last Semitime. This is the issue of the three days and an half's War or seven Semitimes War of the little Horn or the Beast with the Saints. But the consuming and destroying his Dominion to the end, that is the work of the seven Vials, which being done, than it follows v. 27. And the Kingdom and Dominion and the greatness of the Kingdom under the whole Heaven shall be given to the Saints of the most High. For then is the descent of the New Jerusalem in opposition to the great City of Babylon now quite abolished, and after comes in the blessed Millennial Reign of Christ upon Earth, which is the greatness of his Kingdom under the whole Heaven. All which glorious Providences you would crumple up within the three Times and an half, whenas it is demonstrated in Mr. Mede, that the three Times and an half reach but to the Exit of the sixth Trumpet, which you acknowledge the seven Vials to follow. Consider seriously these things. But to proceed to the seventh Paragraph.  
7. Here I only briefly advertise you, that the first appearance of the Rising of the Witnesses, falling some eighteen years short of the last Semitime, according to your Epocha, or not reaching it by eighteen years, that this is a greater Argument against the truth of your Epocha, than against my Hypothesis, that a Semitime is the only Authentic Unite in the Eventual Computation of the Medial Visions. For according to your Epocha the Rising of the Witnesses will not begin after the seventh Semitime current but before it, which is expressly against the Text [After three days and an half] which absurdity cannot be salved but by making the entire Resurrection of the Witnesses the adequate Object of the Prediction, and so it will reach about seventy years at least into the last Semitime or Hexamenon, that is, into the third month thereof; Though this is but a defectuous scambling thing in comparison of what falls out according to the true Epocha I have pitched upon. But that your Epocha is false, I have in my former demonstrated, it being not pitched in the beginning of the Apostasy and of the War of the Beast with the Witnesses. And in the mean time you see plainly, even according to your own Epocha, that the seventh Semitime is not superfluous, and that the reckoning not by Years, but by Semitimes, is necessary.  
8. And now eighthly, Whereas you say you hope the more the time of the End of the Church's affliction from her Enemies draws near, the more God will stir up here and there some to look more diligently into those Divine Prophecies which tell us how long and no longer it shall last, and to enlighten his people that they better understand them for the encouragement and consolation of his Church: I do not question but this may be a pleasing and pious hope in you. But if this respect any of the Numbers of the Medial Visions (and the true Epocha of the two thousand and three hundred Evening-Mornings in Daniel taken in a Typical sense, defers the cleansing of the Sanctuary till about four hundred years hence) I must ingenuously confess I think your hope is groundless, for any one to tell to a year or thereabout from any of the Medial Numbers when the affliction of the Church shall cease. And my Reasons are these,  
First, That computing from the true Epocha (as I have proved it) the Medial Numbers twelve hundred and sixty days or forty two months expired above thirty years ago.  
Secondly, The number of three days and an half, or three times and an half Synchronal to the twelve hundred and sixty days or forty two months are assigned to indicate only the time of the ending of the prevailing War of the Beast or little Horn against the Witnesses, by a partial Fall of Babylon and a commensurate Rising then of the Witnesses. Which I have demonstrated as clearly as any thing is demonstrated in Euclid. Wherefore the Medial Numbers cannot possibly tell us, nor any one from them how long and no longer the Church's Afflictions shall last.  
Thirdly, It is better and more expedient for the Church not to know so precisely for a year or thereabout how long and no longer her afflictions shall last, lest upon a lazy confidence that God will then be as good as his word and deliver them, they neglect the fitting themselves for that deliverance and the prosperity thence ensuing. Which fitting themselves consists in an hearty Holiness of life by virtue of real Regeneration, in an inviolable Loyalty to their Prince, in prudent Conversation and sincere Benignity to all men.  
Fourthly, This predicting how long and no longer (to a year or thereabout) the afflictions of the Church should last, is a Privilege that was not granted to the Primitive Christians themselves, who yet lay under more grievous Persecutions, than the Mercy of God is like to permit his Church to suffer during the space of the pouring out of the Vials that is yet to come. And yet they had no more precise notice how long and no longer, than the order of the six Visions under the first six Seals could indicate to them. And such an indication have we, and every whit as certain from the Order of the seven Vials. And when the true Christianity shall more generally appear in the Reformed Churches accompanied with a most faithful and fast Loyalty to their Sovereigns, and ready and cheerful obedience to all lawful Commands for Peace, Order and Safety in Church and State, this will be an indication of the near approach of the pouring out of the fourth Vial on the Sun, and of the greatest Potentates in Christendom their inclining to reform and to shake off the servile Yoke of Antichrist and all the Idolatrous Trumperies thereunto belonging, and of ordering things so, that a great deadness and darkness will seize upon the Seat of the Beast, and prove the pouring forth of the fifth Vial. And the sixth is manifestly touching the Conversion of the Jew●● And when the lovely Philadelphian Spirit shall more universally break forth and shine in all the Enjoyers of, or Well-willers to the Reformation, then let them look up and lift up their Heads, for that more consummate Redemption and vast enlargement of the true Church draweth nigh, and will be achieved in the Battle of that great Day of God Almighty under the auspicuous Conduct of that mighty Heros on the white Horse, out of whose mouth goeth a sharp Sword, and whose Title is the Word of God, which is sharper than any two-edged Sword, and this is to fall out under the seventh Vial. And after this is the descent of the New Jerusalem or Creation of the New Heaven and New Earth, wherein Righteousness shall dwell upon the dissolution of the former Constitution of Things, whether Pagan, Infidel or Antichristian Polities. Wherefore then seeing, as the Apostle speaks, that all those things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought we to be in all holy Conversation and Godliness, not only looking for, but hasting on (as the Original has it) the coming of the day of God, even of that great day of God Almighty in the Battle . But if this Day was fixed to a certain year or thereabout, how could we be said to either hasten it or slacken it? But there is no such fixed time set, that we be not tempted to wanton security and laziness, but reminded of our duty, may hasten, as much as in us lies, that great day we expect and desire by perfecting Holiness in the fear of God, if we be sincere and not Hypocrites. But this thing I have touched upon already. In the mean time it appears we have at least as certain indications of the Time of the Church's deliverance as the Primitive Christians had before us, in which we are to acquiesce with humility and thankfulness, and improve them to our best advantage to confirm our Faith, and support our Courage.  
And therefore fifthly and lastly, There being so visible and palpable an order of Revolutions of the Affairs of the World under the Series of the Vials, whereby the nearer and nearer approach of the consummate deliverance of the Church of Christ and enlargements of his Kingdom may plainly be discerned, it seems altogether needless that the Numbers of the Medial Visions should signify any thing more than the terminating the forty two months prosperous War of the Beast in his unprosperous counterbuff by Divine Providence, in the partial Fall of the great City and commensurate Rising of the Witnesses in the last Semitime current, according to what I contend for, and have so manifestly demonstrated.  
9 And now in the last place to answer to what occurs in what I will call your ninth and last Paragraph, where you say, You cannot but look on those labours as ill bestowed which tend to obscure those Prophecies (I suppose you mean of the Medial Visions and that of the prevailing War of the little Horn against the Saints for a Time and Times and half a Time) as if we could not by them take any measure of the Time of the Church's sufferings and her deliverance out of them. To this I answer, That pains may be faithfully and judiciously bestowed by them that remonstrate to the World, that the Numbers of the Medial Visions indicate only a partial deliverance, a thing which I have invincibly demonstrated. And I have shown even now, that though there be no Prediction (unless we recur to the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings, whose full Exitus is at least four hundred years hence) how long and no longer to a year or thereabout, till the deliverance of the Church will be fully consummated and perfected; yet the Order of the Vials, which reach to a full Victory of the Church and complete deliverance, gives us some measures to collect the nearer approaches to that happy Time. So that in this case to complain is to be unthankful; especially if we consider that we are at least as well provided for as the Primitive Christians were in their most grievous Persecutions under the red Dragon.  
Wherefore those that would squeeze out of the abovesaid Medial Prophecies, whether of the Apocalypse or Daniel, such a precise determinate time of the Churches full deliverance, when the nature of those Medial Numbers and Prophecies will not afford it, what shall we say of their labour? Is it not in vain? if not worse. For without good ground to set a precise time of the general deliverance of the Church, from a pretended true Interpretation of the Holy Prophecies, when there is really no such thing predicted by them, is to make ourselves more wise and benign than the Divine Spirit the Author of these Prophecies, as if he had omitted what was so requisite for his Church, and is to delude and mock the expectation of God's people, and to slur the Holy Prophecies themselves, and discountenance all pretence of rightly interpreting them. Which has been the Fate of many curious Interpreters, who from the Numbers of the Medial Visions, have presumed to calculate the final Ruin of Antichrist to a very year. And therefore those that have made it their business to demonstrate the groundlesness of this Pretence, I hope their labours will prove well bestowed, nor be found vain in the Lord, being earnestly pursued for him and the Honour of his Word, who is the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, and predicts nothing but what will come to pass, and therefore we must not make him predict any thing that will not, either as to time or the thing itself.   

CHAP. XXX. Two Arguments out of a fifth Letter from the same hand to prove, That the Roman Beast under the seventh Head was not in being till the ten Kings signified by the ten Horns were risen up in the Empire. Certain things premised in order to an Answer to the said Arguments. Amongst which is the true Notion of the Head of a Beast in the Prophetic Style, in counterdistinction to his Horns. An Enumeration of the Heads of the Beast, and what the fullest sense of the seventh Head. An Answer to the first Argument. An Answer to the second Argument. Two Arguments of the Author 's to prove, that the Roman Beast under the seventh Head was in being before the ten Kings signified by the ten Horns were risen up in the Empire. That the placing the Epocha of the forty two months' War of the Beast in the beginning of the Apostasy is unexceptionably right, with the gross absurdities of the other Opinion.  
THE first Argument. If the Roman Beast under the seventh Head did rise before the ten Kings in the Empire, than these then Kings will make an eighth Head of themselves, or at least conjoined with the Emperor as one of their number, when the other nine had possessed so great a part of his Empire, and were as absolute in their Kingdoms as he in that share was left to him, he having no preeminence above them but what was merely Titular or Honorary. Wherefore these together, and not the Emperor's separately, ever made the seventh Head of the Beast. For the seven sorts of successive Governors in Chief of the Roman Empire as Idolatrous, they as such made the seven Heads of the Beast, and these ten Kings taking in the Greek Emperor, made one Head of the Beast as being such. For they ruled as Chief in the Empire, and their Government was Idolatrous. Wherefore or they are the seventh Head (nor was the Beast revived before its Head) or else the Emperor's separately before was the seventh Head; which cannot be. For then the revived Beast would have an eighth Head, whenas there are but seven Heads of Blasphemy according to the Visions. Therefore the Roman Beast under the seventh Head was not in being till the ten Kings, signified by the ten Horns, were risen up in the Empire.  
The second Argument. There being seven sorts of Government, but all agreeing in this, that they are Idolatrous, the Sovereignty of the ten Kings ruling the whole Empire, every one in his share ought to be deemed the seventh Head, it being a seventh sort of Idolatrous Government; whenas the Pagano-Christian Caesars, though Idolatrous indeed as the six preceding sorts of Government were (accounted the first six Heads of the Beast's) would not be properly the seventh Head of the Beast, but the sixth Head again brought into being, as being again Idolatrous Caesars or Emperors. Wherefore since the Beast cannot be conceived to be in being without an Head, nor is supposed to be again in being according to the Visions before the seventh Head, and the Pagano-Christian Caesar's separately being only the sixth Head revived, not a seventh, it follows that the abovesaid ten Kings are the seventh Head, and that the Beast under the seventh Head was not in being till they were risen in the Empire.  
These two Arguments are pretty press and close to the purpose, and therefore before I go about to answer them I will premise some few things, and settle some Terms or Notions that occur in the Question and the Prophecies.  
1. First therefore, We are to consider what in the Prophetic Style is such an Head of a Beast as may be said to have Horns on it, so that there may be some distinction betwixt the Head and the Horn or Horns thereof, and that they may not seem to denote the very same thing. Such an Head therefore of a Beast as here we are searching for, I conceive to be this according to the Prophetic Style, viz. Idolatrous Sovereignty in the general abstractive comprehension and succession thereof: Something like that in the Apocalypse touching the Woman the Church our Mother, which comprehends the whole Community of the Church in a general Notion, and yet if you speak of any particular persons of that Community, though the whole be the Woman (which whole takes in all) yet those particular persons belonging to that Community are her Seed or Children according to the Prophetic Style. But to come yet nearer to the matter; This Notion is plainly ratified by that passage in Daniel, Chap. 8. v. 5, 21. where the Kingdom of Greece is set out by an He-goat with a great Horn betwixt his eyes, and it is said v. 8. that when that great Horn was broken, four other Horns risen after it. Here is plainly a Beast the He-goat with its Head: for there is mention of its Eyes and of a Horn on its Head betwixt these two Eyes, and of other Horns rising successively on this Head, we may be sure (not on his Back) and yet that great Horn is said to be the first King: And if so, than the other four Horns must be four Kings after him, and yet there is an Head distinct from the Horns plainly in the Vision. Wherefore what can that Head be but the Idolatrous Sovereignty in this Beast the Goat in the general abstractive comprehension and succession thereof? And therefore the Kings that in concreto are the real Heads of the Greek Empire are in this abstractive Generality called the Horns thereof. And hence it is plain, that the Idolatrous Sovereignty in the general abstractive comprehension and succession thereof is the Head, according to the Prophetic Style, of which the succeeding Kings may be said to be the Horns.  
2. The next thing which we will premise by way of Postulate is this. That the revived Beast set out Apoc. 13, and 17. was not revived without an Head, there being nothing more absurd than to imagine a Beast to recover out of the state of Death, or Nonexistence, and leave its Head behind it. And it being acknowledged on both sides, that its Recovery is not till under the seventh Head, we premise also that the abovesaid Beast did not recover till the seventh Head, and that there were no more Heads than seven.  
3. Thirdly therefore, We are to inquire what in truth this seventh Head of the Beast in the full sense thereof is, and in what it differs from the other six, forasmuch as all seven are acknowledged on both sides to be Idolatrous. The seven Idolatrous Sovereignties or Heads of the Roman Beast are these, The Regal, the Consular, the Tribuno-Consular, the Decemviral, the Dictatorial, Imperatorial, and Hieratico-Political or Ecclesiastico-Secular Sovereignties or Heads of the Beast. Which last is most palpably differenced and specifically from any of the six former, so that this is the very seventh Head. Which will appear, if we seriously contemplate the Vision of the Beast, and the Whore riding him, Apoc. Chap. 17. Here we see the Beast and the Whore. By the Beast undoubtedly is understood the Civil part of the Empire, which must also have a Civil Head for his Civil Horns to be grass upon, which is nothing else but Secular Idolatrous Sovereignty in the general abstractive comprehension and succession thereof, as was noted above. It is also agreed on both sides, that the Whore is the Sacerdotal or Hieratical part of the Empire. But in that this Whore rides this Beast, it is apparent that she rules him, and guides him, and governs him; as an Heros on a Pharos or goodly Steed is the very Symbol of an Emperor. Wherefore here is plainly in the Vision two Sovereignties Hieratical or Sacerdotal, and Political or Civil, distinctly described, and both supposed Idolatrous.  
But now for their Coalescency into one seventh Sovereignty, that is as apparent as the other in the Vision. For the Whore having the guidance of the Secular Head of the Beast, has the guidance of the Beast and his Horns as they come up, come they up as fast or slowly as they will. Wherefore the Head and Horns being at the guidance or governance of the Whore, and both aiming at the same end, the advancing or maintaining the Idolatrous State of the Empire (for that is that which the Vision drives at, not Secular affairs) they do evidently constitute this complex Sovereignty (to which there is nothing like in all the six foregoing Sovereignties) which I call Hieratico-Political or Ecclesiastico-Secular, the Ecclesiastic and Secular Sovereignty complying together to make the Empire a Beast again, that is, bloody and Idolatrous. So that whereas in my former Answers I was at a loss in a manner to define, whether the Hieratical Sovereignty or Secular was the Head of the Beast, here I have fairly and solidly, I hope, compounded the matter by making them both but one Hieratico-Political Head of the Roman revived Beast or Apostatised Empire. With which, as I have noted in my former Answers, that passage in Daniel excellently well agrees that seems to make the Roman Empire in the time of the ten Toes of the Metalline Image, rather Sacerdotal than Secular, Chap. 2. v. 41. The Kingdom shall be divided, but there shall be in it of the strength of Iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the Iron mixed with the miry Cla●. There shall be of the strength of the Iron in this Kingdom; as if that was but accessary to it, but the Kingdom itself. Clay, i. e. Sacerdotal. And so the Iron is said to be mixed with the miry Clay, as if the Clay (which is the Sacerdotal Sovereignty or Empire) were the Principal again, the Iron accessary. As when the greater share is of water in the Cup we say there is Wine mingled with the Water; but if the greater share be Wine, we say Water is mingled with the Wine. And out of this Sacerdotal Empire, how naturally does the Pope rise at last quite to over-top all, and how easily is the Papal Hierarchy conceived to be the little Horn arising properly out of the Hieratical part of this Complex Sovereignty of the Empire?  
4. Fourthly and lastly, We will take notice of the genuine meaning of those words, Apoc. 17.12. That the ten Kings receive power as Kings one hour with the Beast; whose natural and unforced sense is this, That at what time the Empire began to be a Beast, and to Apostatise into gross Superstitions and Idolatry, the ten Kings would be catching at and obtaining Kingdoms, some here, some there, some sooner, some later till about the four hundred and fifty sixth year after Christ they had all sped. For that this one hour does signify a pretty latitude of time all Interpreters consent, and History witnesses that it was at least forty years till there appeared ten Kingdoms in the divided Empire. And therefore if the Beast be not till the tenth King appear, they cannot be said to receive Kingdoms with the Beast but before him. Which is plainly to contradict the Text of the Prophecy. These things being premised, we answer,  
To the first Argument, (1.) That what is here presumed is not proved, nor will prove true, if examined, viz. That the Emperors had no more Sovereignty over the other Kings than what was merely Titular or Honorary. For it is well known that those Kings submitted to the Laws of the Roman Emperors, which Justinian caused to be collected, not for the use of his share only of the Empire, but for the use of the Roman Empire at large, insomuch that some fancy that to be the reviving of the Roman Beast again, or making his Image. (2.) History calling them Roman Emperors, that is, the Emperors of the Roman Empire, and Prophecy being but Anticipatory History, and the Emperors of an Empire being the Heads thereof, it is wonderfully easy and natural to imagine the Pagano-Christian Caesars to be the seventh Head of the Beast, till the Pope played the Caesar himself, and perked up above them. (3.) The secular Head of the Beast upon which the Horns grow, is of a more general and abstracted nature, than to be confined either to the Idolatrous or Pagano-Christian Emperors separately, or to the ten Kings taking the Emperor in for one. It is only a Pagano-Christian or Idolatrous Secular Sovereignty in the general abstractive comprehension and succession thereof, which is the seventh Head of this revived Beast; as the He-goats head in Daniel, which takes in the great Horn, but one, and the four Horns after, with their successions, and this all but one Goat's Head, and therefore the Idolatrous or Pagano-Christian Emperors separately, and after taken in as one of the ten Kings, all this makes but one seventh secular Idolatrous Sovereignty or seventh secular Head of the Beast, as may appear out of the first and third Premises. (4.) And lastly therefore, The Emperor's separately first, and then in Conjunction with the Kings to make them ten, being but one continued Idolatrous or Pagano Christian Sovereignty (which is all the Vision aims at) and so but one Head of the Beast, it is manifest that an eighth Head is shut out of doors, and the force of the first Argument plainly enervated; And that therefore for all this, the Beast was in being before the Kings were risen, and commences as high as the Re-paganizing Caesars and Apostasy of the Empire. Which is also confirmed from the fourth or last Premiss.  
To the second Argument we answer, (1.) That the Pagano-Christian Caesars or Emperors, though they be Idolatrous and Emperors, yet it does not follow that they are only the sixth Head (which was Idolatrous Emperors) reintroduced on the Stage, not a seventh. For these Pagano-Christian Emperors, though they be Idolatrous, yet they are considerably Christian in their way, they professing the true Fundamentals of Christianity, and therefore are rightly deemed a distinct Head of the Empire as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the other not yet come) is accounted a distinct King or Head of the Empire for being purely Christian. He is according to the Declaration of the Angel the seventh King or Head of the Empire, though not of the Beast, the Empire then ceasing to be a Beast in his Reign. Wherefore if Christianity did constitute the purely Christian Caesars or Emperors a seventh Head of the Empire distinct from the sixth Head (the Idolatrous Emperor's Pagan) during the Time the Empire ceased to be a Beast, surely Pagano-Christianity or Idolatry mixed with Christianity in the Caesars and Empire will make the Pagano-Christian Caesars or Emperors, the Christianity in them, a Head distinct from the sixth Head the Pagan Idolatrous Caesars; and the Idolatry in them will make them, not the Head of the Empire ceasing to be a Beast (as it did under the Reign of the purely Christian Caesars) but the Head of the Empire grown a Beast again by its Apostatised condition into Idolatry. And thus the Pagano-Christian Caesars will prove plainly the next Successors to the sixth Head of the Roman Beast, though not of the Roman Empire, and therefore will consequently be part at least of the successive Sovereignty, that is, the seventh Head of the Beast. (2.) But in the second place I answer, That the real, full and complete seventh Head of the Beast is that Hieratico-Political Sovereignty described in the third Premiss: nor do I doubt but that it is the most full and perfect Notion of the seventh Head of the Beast. And this Hieratico-Political Sovereignty commenced as early as the Apostasy of the Empire, as may be made out from my Answers which declare the early complying of the Emperors with the Apostasy of the Empire into Paganick Superstitions and Idolatries, etc. Whence it plainly follows, that to restrain the seventh Head to the time of the ten Kings risen in the Empire, upon pretence that there was not seventh Head distinct from the sixth till then, is to conclude a thing upon no sufficient grounds. For at the very first sight this Hieratico-Political Head is manifestly a sort or Species of Head distinct not only from the sixth Head of the Beast, but also from all the five foregoing Heads in the very Constitution thereof. The thing is so plain of itself, that there wants no insisting upon it. Consider but the third Premiss, and the thing will be abundantly clear.  
Thus are these two Arguments for the proving that the Roman Beast under the seventh Head was not in being till the ten Kings, signified by the ten Horns, were risen up in the Empire, utterly defeated. I shall hint only now two brief Arguments against the Conclusion the other two would infer, to prove the contradictory thereto, and so conclude; that is to say, to prove, That the Roman Beast under the seventh Head was in being before the ten Kings signified by the ten Horns were risen up in the Empire.  
1. My first Argument shall be grounded on the fourth or last Premiss, which is the genuine sense of Apoc. 17.12. The ten Kings receive power as Kings one hour with the Beast. Of which the easy and natural sense is, That at what time the Empire grows into that state of Apostasy, viz. into Paganish Superstition and Idolatry, that according to the Prophetic Style, it may be called a Beast, at that very time will the barbarous Commanders that invade the Roman Empire be catching at and obtaining Kingdoms, some here, some there, some sooner, some later for a matter of forty or fifty years together at least, till all ten appear upon the Stage. Wherefore if the Beast be not under the seventh Head till then, the ten Kings, at least nine of them, will not receive their Kingdoms with the Beast, but before the Beast is, which is point-blank against the words of the Prophecy. Wherefore this alone may demonstrate, That the Beast was in being under the seventh Head, unless you will make an headless Beast of him (which shall be my second Argument) before the ten Horns, i. e. the ten Kings risen up in the Empire.  
2. The other Argument is taken from the second Premiss. So soon as the Empire apostatised into Paganish Superstition and Idolatry, the Empire became a Beast, according to the Prophetic Style, and as soon as it was a Beast again it had an head, and that very seventh Head exhibited in the Prophetic Visions, by Premiss the second. But this State commenced at least fifty years before the ten Horns, that is, the ten Kings were all risen up in the Empire. Wherefore the Beast under the seventh Head was in being before the ten Kings or ten Horns were risen up in the Empire. Which was the thing to be demonstrated, and which I conceive can never be confuted, nor solidly answered by any one that acknowledges the Apostasy began at least fifty years before the ten Kings appeared in the Roman Empire. In the interval indeed betwixt the Pagan and Pagano-Christian Caesar's there was no Head of the Beast, but that was the time wherein there was no Beast. It was that time in which that part of the Name of the Beast was made good, viz. [Is not] (was and is not) as that part is made good under the Pagano Christian Caesar's, or at large under the seventh Head, viz. [Is not and yet is]. For than it is rightly said of him, He is not that old Pagan Beast; and yet being again then revived into the Image of the former Pagan Beast in this Pagano-Christianity, it is rightly said of him that he is, and so the whole is fulfilled, [Is not and yet is]. But certainly  he was, either in his primitive or revived state, he was not without an Head by Premiss the second.  
And thus we have seen how solid and unexceptionable their Opinion is, that place the Epocha of the forty two months' War of the Beast with the Saints or Witnesses as high as the Apostasy of the Empire into Paganish Superstition and Idolatry, that is to say, about three hundred ninety three or four hundred years after Christ. According to which Epocha the Reformation begun by Luther, which is the partial Fall of Babylon, and the then commensurate Rising of the Witnesses will commence about the middle of the second month of the last Hexamenon or Semitime, and reach into the middle of the fifth, if not into the sixth month, which is a wonderful, easy, natural and congruous completion of the time of the Event of that Vision. But if the Epocha of that forty two months' War be placed fifty or sixty years later, viz. at the Rising up of the tenth King or tenth Horn in the Roman Empire, the Rising of the Witnesses will begin about twenty years before the last Semitime, which is harsh and incongruous. Besides that it would not reach the end this Epocha is intended for: viz. to show there will be a further fulfilling of this Vision of the Rising of the Witnesses even to a full ruin of the City of Babylon or the Beast, so that the deliverance of the Church will be fully completed before the Expiration of the forty two months. Which is plainly repugnant to express indications in the Vision itself.  
For first, The partial Fall or Fall of the tenth part of the City is plainly said to come to pass after the three days and an half, which is the same with a Time and Times and half a Time or forty two months. So that it is as evident as if it were writ with a beam of the Sun, that the final issue of the forty two months' War of the Beast with the Saints or Witnesses, is no other than the partial Fall or Fall of the tenth part of the City, and not of the whole City, and a Rising then of the Witnesses commensurate thereto.  
And then in the second place, If the completion of this Vision of the Fall of the City and Rising of the Witnesses were (within the forty two months' space) extended to a full deliverance of the true Church and an utter Ruin of Babylon or the Beast, since the fulfilling of this Vision of the Rising of the Witnesses is before the Exitus of the sixth Trumpet, Apoc. 11.14. and that it is confessed on both sides that the Vials all of them follow the sixth Trumpet, and are in the seventh, and that yet these Vials are to be poured upon the Beast; by this reckoning there will be no Beast left for them to be poured upon. Which is a most manifest Repugnancy.   

CHAP. XXXI. The Ichnography of Ezekiel 's Temple, according to Villalpandus, with two ways of computing the proportion of the Outer Court to the Inner thereby.  
THE right and assured understanding of the Extent of the Symmetral Times of the Church being of so good use and great moment, and that depending upon the knowledge of the proportion which the Outer Court has to the Inner; which proportion is to be understood out of the Ichnography of Ezekiel's Temple, which that learned, industrious, and judicious Writer on this Subject Johannes Baptista Villalpandus has delineated: I shall first set down this Ichnography of the Temple, so far as is useful to this purpose, according to the mind of Villalpandus, and after prove the truth and solidity thereof.  
sweet Africus.  
NW Caurus  
SE Eurus  
NE Aquilo   map of temple 
The entire Area of the whole Temple, on which it is built, viz. a. b. c. d. is five hundred Cubits long, and as many broad, and therefore is a perfect Square. A perpetual Porticus, noted with three Lines, of which the middle is punctulated or made by points, fifty Cubits broad divides this whole Area into seven equal square Area's sweet. NW. X. Y. SE. Z. NE and into one oblong Area, α. β. γ. δ. having the length of two hundred and fifty Cubits, but the breadth of an hundred Cubits. And there is a perpetual middle Ambulation or Walk in this perpetual Porticus; And the middle Line, viz. that which is punctulated drawn through the midst of this Walk, doth fitly and that perpetually divide the Porticus, in respect of the said Area's into exterior and interior. Which being done, it will be manifest that the oblong Area with the interior Porticus lying about it, and appertaining to it, viz. ε. ξ. η. θ. will bear precisely a double proportion to each of the seven Area's with their interior Porticus' belonging to them, and looking into them single, as in ε. ι. χ. λ. and so of the rest. For the interior Porticus' look into their own proper Area's or Courts, the exterior into their neighbouring Courts or Area's, excepting the outmost of all, as μ. ι. ρ. ν. and the rest which are placed on the Perimeter. For these look out into the fields. But from hence we may understand how naturally all the Porticus' which have Courts and Area's placed on both sides, as σ. α. γ. ν. and φ. χ. ψ. ω. are divided long-wise into two equal parts, and that those parts only which look into the next Area, are to be reckoned to be the Porticus of that Area. And therefore whenas that long Porticus which on all sides compasseth the rest of the space of the Temple, can be rightly thought to look into a neighbouring Area only by one half of itself divided long-wise, it is very reasonable that that interior half part only of the Porticus should be every where assigned to its adjacent Area. Whence seven Area's with their interior Porticus' that encompass them (for the exterior belong not to them) will be exactly equal. And all the seven single Area's entire, consisting of themselves, and of the addition of the Spaces of the interior Porticus' that encompass them, will have a sub-double proportion to that oblong Area mentioned above, and consisting of itself and the space of the Porticus' twenty five Cubits broad, and encompassing it. Whence the entire Area's of the seven Courts with their Porticus' reckoned thereto, will be to the entire oblong Area with its Porticus' also taken in to the Reckoning, as seven is to two.  
And truly this, as it is sufficiently congruous and handsome in itself, so it may have some further use not at all to be contemned. For whereas Villalpandus will have in Solomon's Temple a certain Court of the Gentiles, exterior to the Court which is termed Atrium Israelis, why may not the exterior part of this Porticus which is adjacent to the whole Perimeter of the Temple be accounted for part of the Court of the Gentiles, and be encompassed with a Wall (of which there is mention Ezek. Chap. 4. v. 5.) a Reed broad and a Reed high, although at what distance it is from this Porticus, there is no certainty at all. For if what occurs Chap. 42. v. 16, 17, etc. in the Hebrew Text is to be retained, that measuring by Reeds is to be mystically understood which prefigures a large extent of the Church of the Gentiles in comparison of the Jewish Church. But that there was some other Wall without, or at least one represented to the Prophet by way of Type, seems very probable, and that the exterior part of the Perimetral Porticus has a reference thereto. For this description of the Temple is a Prophetical Vision, and exhibited for the use of the Christian Church which was to come.  
In the mean time it is plain out of what has been said, that this is one way from whence we may understand that the proportion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Outer Court to the Inner, that is, of the Court sweet. X. SE. Z. NE. Y. NW. to ε. ξ. η. θ. is as 7. to 2. or Ratio iripla sesquialtera. But there is yet another Method less operose, nor haply less true for all that, to be understood from what has been delivered; namely, if letting go the Porticus' we compare only the Nine square Area's each an hundred Cubits long, and as many broad, of which seven belong to the Atrium Israelis or the Outer Court, the other two are found in the Court of the Temple and Priests. For those seven in the Atrium Israelis, viz. sweet. X. SE. Z NE. Y. NW. have to the other two α. β. ν. ξ. and ο. π. υ. δ. Rationem triplam sesquialteram, the proportion of three and an half to one. And verily, which is worth the noting by the buy, Castellio in his Description of the Temple doth acknowledge, that there are nine such equal square Area's, though he had not the skill or luck to place them right.  
But now this second way seems to me to be most expedite, if it may be fitly applied to the Text. Let us therefore try what will become of it, Apoc. Chap. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Rise and measure the Temple of God and the Altar. Here no man imagines that the Temple itself and the Altar are to be measured, no more than those that worship there literally are, but as much as respects place, that the Area's on which the Temple and Altar are seated, are to be measured. But we have noted above, that there is a square Area, α. β. ν. ζ. upon the greatest part whereof the Temple T stands, measured by the Angel, as we shall note in the next Chapter; and that there is another such equal square Area measured by him, viz. ο. π. γ. δ. upon which the brazen Altar stands: and that therefore this Area is to be measured, and not the Altar itself, is evident. Nor is there any need that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here should be understood of the place where they sacrificed, in force of the following words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, forasmuch as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not only signify [in] but [at] or [near by]. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may also be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Temple. Wherefore when these two square Area's upon which the Temple and Altar were built, are here understood to be the Object of measuring, it is very easy and natural by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the outer Court of the Temple to understand those seven equal square Area's of which the Outer Court did consist (leaving out again the Porticus') to be the Object of that commanded Rejection, by the Angel, from being measured. And thus evidently the Outer Court to the Inner will be as 7. to 2. And this is a very easy and perspicuous Compute, and as firm as the former, and both of them sufficiently firm, if so be Villalpandus his delineation of the Temple be so, which we will now out of him or other how endeavour to prove.   

CHAP. XXXII. Three equal square Area's of the Temple measured by the Angel full East, full North, and full South. Another square Area equal to the former belonging to the Inner Court, and placed in the midst of the former, with Inferences therefrom. A full West square Area equal to the former, measured by the Angel, with Villalpandus his descant thereon. How from these five equal square Area's in form of a Cross, and from the discovery of a North-West square Area, Villalpandus collects the whole Edifice of the Temple to be both square, and also to have nine equal square Area's appertaining thereto. Another way of proving the Squareness of the whole House of God or Temple. A Description of the North-West Court out of Ezekiel, with Villalpandus his descant thereon. A Confirmation of Villalpandus his dimensions of the Courts of the Temple from the Heathen Oracle recorded in S. Austin. The Pagan Daemons not unskilled in Mathematics, proved from Apollo 's bidding the Greeks double his Altar in Delos.  
THREE equal square Area's of the Outer Temple the Angel measured in the beginning of the Vision thereof. The first towards the East, Ezek. 40. v. 19 Then he measured the breadth from the forefront of the lower Gate unto the forefront of the inner Court from without an hundred Cubits Eastward and Northward. This is the Area Z. an hundred Cubits square. That the Septuagint have put instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it is certainly, I think, a mistake in them, they not sufficiently heeding the conciseness and Ellipticalness of the Prophetic Style, otherwise they would not have interserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but would have followed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrew of which the sense is plain, if the Ellipsis be supplied thus: He measured from the forefront of the lower Gate unto the forefront of the inner Court from without an hundred Cubits Eastward, and he measured also an hundred Cubits from South to North. Or more briefly thus: Vminnegeb meah ammah hatzaphon. And an hundred Cubits from the South to the North.  
sweet Africus.  
NW Caurus  
SE Eurus  
NE Aquilo   map of temple 
The second Area Y is full North, Ezek. 40. v. 23. And the Gate of the inner Court was over against the Gate toward the North, and toward the East, and he measured from Gate to Gate an hundred Cubits. According to the Hebrew read thus: And the Gate of the inner Court against the North Gate (and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and the Gate of the inner Court against the East Gate. The East Gate is at E, the North Gate at N: and when it is said he measured from Gate to Gate an hundred Cubits, it may be understood from Gate to Gate in Z as well as in Y, though it chief speaks of the Square Y, but implies that from Gate to Gate in each it is an hundred Cubits. This is the best sense, unless haply for towards the East 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was to be writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 toward the South. The third Area is full South, viz. the Area X, Ezek Chap. 40. v. 27. And there was a Gate in the inner Court toward the South, and he measured from Gate to Gate toward the South an hundred Cubits.  
But now in the midst of these three the Angel measured another square Area, viz. the Area A equal to the foresaid Area's, which he calls the inner Court, Ezek. Chap. 40. v. 47. So he measured the Court 100 Cubits long and 100 Cubits broad four square, and the Altar before the House. Where note, That this middle Area being expressly said to have the length of 100 Cubits, and the breadth of 100 Cubits, and that it is square, that its being placed in the midst of the three other Area's, which were measured only from Gate to Gate, and found 100 Cubits, that the Squareness of this Area shows them to be 100 Cubits Cross-ways, as well as from Gate to Gate, and consequently that all four are equal square Area's. And it is here further observable from this Note, that though the Septuagints reading were admitted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet but allowing an hundred Cubits from the East Gate to the West Gate, this East Area will be an hundred Cubits from South to North, in virtue of the positure of that middle square Area A.  
And now lastly, The Angel measured another square Area on the West, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the greatest part of which the Temple itself or House of God T stands upon, Ezek. 41. v. 15. And he measured the length of the Building over against the separate place which was behind it, and the Galleries thereof on the one side, and on the other side an hundred Cubits, with the inner Temple and the Porches of the Court. Note, That [on the one side and the other side] must of necessity be understood of the North and South sides of the Buildings about the Gisrath, the separate place. Forasmuch as the breadth of the Gisrath or Temple is not an hundred Cubits; so that there must be a square Area on which the Temple is placed, is most certain: which is the Square 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But let us hear Villalpandus himself descant upon this last Verse: This measure, says he, is duly to be considered, as being that which seems most necessary for fully conceiving the measures of the Courts or of the general Ichnography of the Temple. For here, says he, a certain Occidental Area of the Temple is described, having the length and breadth of an hundred Cubits, which hitherto the Angel had not measured. Which Area equal to the others, and of the like positure with the others, which had been measured in the beginning, plainly shows both that the whole entire Area of the Temple was square, and that Porticus' likewise ran through the whole Ground-plot of the Temple, and divided it into nine equal square Area's, as you see in the Ichnography thereof.  
It is evident from the places quoted, that there are five equal square Area's with their Porticus' disposed into the form of a Cross. But now it is plain out of Ezekiel, Chap. 46. v. 19, 20, 21, 22. where he speaks of the Courts for boiling and baking, that there is a square Area encompassed with like Porticus' over against the fifth square Area upon a great part of which the Temple stands; forasmuch as there are four Atriola or little Courts in every corner of that exterior Court so placed, as was said. And there is the same Reason of the other three Courts which answer to this in situation, viz. that there are three other such Courts encompassed with like Porticus' toward the South-West quarter, Southeast quarter and North-East quarter, viz. those noted with sweet. SE. NE. as this toward the North-West quarter with NW, unless we will have the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Temple at large to be very maimed and deformed. And what has hitherto been said proves the space on which the Temple with its Courts and Porticus' is placed, not only to be square, but to be divided into nine square Area's encompassed with their respective Porticus', all of them quite round, save the fifth, and the next lying full East of it: these two have Porticus' only on three sides.  
But that the squareness of this whole Space on which the Temple stands, is rightly gathered by Villalpandus, may further appear from Ezek. Chap. 42. v. 15. Now when he had made an end of measuring the inner House, he brought me forth toward the Gate, whose Prospect is toward the East, and measured it (viz. the House) round about. When he had finished the Measures of the inner House, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the House as to its inner parts, and nearer to the Centre of the whole House, which is in the middle point of the Thysiasterion A, he brought me by the way of the Gate which looks toward the East way (so the Original) and he measured it; not the East way, as I noted above, but the House. For the Hebrew has it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the affix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Mascline gender, and agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the House, not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the way. For if that had been intended, it would have been the Feminine affix to show that it agreed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Feminine as well as Masculine. Besides, the East way cannot be measured round about, because it is only one side; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies through the whole Perimeter of the House. Which plainly implies, that there were Porticus' or a Building [Binian] all along the whole Perimeter, otherwise the Perimeter of the House had been Cruciform or Cross-like, nor would have been toward each of the four quarters of the World five hundred Cubits, but two hundred only, measurable in one and the same Line. Wherefore the House of God itself or holy Edifice, in account of its Binian or Porticus', that it was extended into a Square, is clear from hence, and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relating to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inner House, intimate a Perimetral dimension thereof, namely of the House, not of a mere Wall, as Castellio is fain to make a Wall about, square, five hundred Cubits each side thereof, though he makes no Porticus' go along with it. But it's plain the exterior House itself is here a measuring. And the Septuagint say expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And he measured the Platform of the House round about in order, and so finds each side five hundred Cubits to each quarter of the World. Five hundred Cubits in the measuring Reed (so Ludovicus Capellus, Castellio and others) not five hundred Reeds. And whereas it is said v. 17. He measured the North side five hundred Cubits, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 round about, how can one single side be round about? Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as if he should say, in Perimetro, in the Perimeter. Doubtless that is the genuine meaning of that word in these places here. For the sides single do not encompass the House, but all put together. But every single side is part of the Perimeter, which does really environ this square House or Building.  
sweet Africus.  
NW Caurus  
SE Eurus  
NE Aquilo   map of temple 
And yet there is still a pretty odd confirmation of the matter behind, which I conceive is worth the noting. It is indeed a Paganick Oracle, and such as implies the Pagan Daemon to have supposed or rather known the proportion of the outer Court to the inner according to these Dimensions of Villalpandus. The thing is recorded in S. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, lib. 18. cap. penult. & ult. In the year of our Lord 313. the Gentiles were informed by the Oracles of their Daemons, that Peter, forsooth, had so bewitched the World, that the Name of Christ should be worshipped for three hundred sixty five years, but after the said number of years being completed, forthwith there would be an end, viz. of this Worship of Christ. And to this Oracle, says the Father, the Gentiles gave such great credit, that they were called back from the Christian Profession, nor would embrace it till the end of the said years, after they had found the Oracle to be false. Now that the Oracles of the Daemons should circumscribe the continuance of the Worship of Christ within three hundred sixty five years, verily it is hugely difficult to divine whence they drew that Conjecture, unless from that Apocalyptick Vision, Chap. 11. (where John is commanded to measure the Temple and Altar, but for the outer Court to cast it out to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles for forty two months) compared with the Courts of Solomon's Temple, whose dimensions, by reason of their great Longevity, they very well knew and discerned the outer Court to have to the inner Rationem triplam sesquialteram, the proportion of three and an half to one. From whence they easily collected the outer Court being to the inner as the Conculcation of the Gentiles for forty two months to the Worship of the Name of Christ, that the Worship of Christ was to continue but twelve Prophetic months, or three hundred and sixty years. For as seven is to two, so forty two to twelve. But for greater Caution they added five years, which might answer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the five adjectitious days in the Egyptian year. So careful, forsooth, was the Devil in framing the Prophecy, lest his Clients might over-hastily expect the Event, and so himself seem to have been deceived. And being he was so careful of not seeming to be deceived, it's a sign he would not have given out this Oracular Compute, unless he had been sure of the proportion of the outer Court to the inner: which is a notable confirmation of Villalpandus' dimensions of the said Courts of the Temple. But as cunning as he was, the Devil was egregiously deceived in this, that he thought the Worship of Christ would cease at the end of those years, whenas the Vision only intimates that his Worship after three hundred and sixty years would be contaminated with the Idolatrous Rites and Superstitions of the Gentiles, but not that pure Paganism should ever return again.  
Some haply may be ready to laugh at this Mathematical skill in the Devils, of measuring the Courts of the Temple, whereas in the mean time they themselves are more to be laughed at for their own unskilfulness or ignorance in History, which informs us, that the Oracle told the Inhabitants of Delos, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that their present Evils and of the rest of the Greeks would cease 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if they doubled the Altar in Delos, as Plutarch relates in his De Socratis Genio. Which Answer of the Oracle Plato interpreted of the study of Mathematical Sciences: as if those studies were recommended to the people by Apollo, whose Oracle was at Delos; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For it is not the work of a bad or dull-sighted Wit, but of one extremely well exercised in the skill of Lines, to find or take two middle Proportionals. And yet this is the only way of doubling, suppose, the Cubick Altar at Delos. But it was much more easy to find the proportion of the outer Court to the inner, that no man distrust but the Devil might accurately effect that, whenas it is plain their skill is much greater. But in the mean time this does notably confirm the truth of Villalpandus' dimensions of the Courts of the Temple, when both their Computations conclude the same proportion betwixt the outer and inner Court, and the same years of the Church as yet not lapsed into her Apostasy. And the Daemons could not be ignorant of the true Symmetry of Solomon's Temple, they being so longaevous, and many of them in all likelihood having looked down upon it and contemplated it.   

CHAP. XXXIII. Four Questions touching some Particulars in the Vision contained in the fourth and fifth Chapters of the Apocalypse, with Answers thereto. As, what meant by Opening the Seals. Who the Sitter on the Throne. Who the Assistants about the Throne. And who the slain Lamb.  
THESE four Questions upon occasion of some Papers from one not unversed in Apocalyptick Speculations, I think fit to consider and to answer touching the Vision contained in the fourth and fifth Chapter of the Apocalypse. (1.) What is meant by opening the Seals of the seven-sealed Book. (2.) Who is he that sits on the Throne with that Book in his right hand. (3.) Who are that Company that are assistant or about the Throne. (4.) Who is that Lamb slain to whom the Book is given. I shall first set down the Opinion of those Papers orderly one after another, and then give my own Judgement.  
1. I affirm, says the Author of those Papers, that by opening this Book of Prophecies is meant explaining it and making it intelligible to those that read it. For the truth of this Proposition I appeal to the constant and unquestionable use of that Phrase of opening a sealed Prophecy wherever it is used throughout the Scripture, there being no one instance, that I know of, to the contrary. But where sealing signifies concealing the sense of a Mystery, and opening signifies explaining it, there are many. As Dan. 9.24. Seal up the Vision, and 12.4. Seal the Book even to the time of the end. Where also the Phrase is made parallel to shutting up the words of it, viz. that they might not be understood till the time of the end. Also Isai. 29.11. mention is made of a sealed Book, viz. a Book which no man could understand. Also that Opening signifies Explaining is manifest from Luke 24 32. where Christ is said to have opened the Scriptures. And Acts 17.3. S. Paul is said to have opened and alleged (viz. out of the Prophecies of the Scripture) that Christ must needs have suffered. Whence it cannot be doubted (as to me it seems) but that by opening the sealed Book, or Mystery, is meant explaining it.  
Answ. This makes a pretty confident show, and may impose upon the heedless. But the wary will easily perceive, that unless he could prove that the word Opening simply in itself signified Explaining; and sealing, hiding the sense of a Writing by mystical Aenigms, the Argument proves nothing. That obvious Phrase of opening a Bible and opening a Text shows plainly, the word Opening has its determinate sense from the thing it is spoken of. To open the Bible is to unclasp it, and so open the Book, that we may come at the Text. To open the Text is to explain the sense of it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to explain Mysteries, or to open Mysteries sometimes; but Luke 4.17. it signifies only to open the Book where the Mysteries lie, viz. the Book of Esay the Prophet which passed into the hand of Christ, he is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to open the Book and to find the place, etc. It is one thing therefore to open a sealed Book where the Prophecy is, and another to open a sealed Prophecy. The Book may be first opened to come at the Prophecy. Which is plainly the case here of the seven-sealed Book. But to make the opening the Book and losing the Seals to be the explaining the Prophecies of this Book, Chap. 5.2. is a plain contradiction to the very Text, Chap. 6. where the opening the first six Seals is the exhibiting to John so many particular Prophetical Visions of things to come, not the explaining those Visions. And so the opening the seventh Seal is the exhibiting the Visions of the seven Trumpets, etc. Chap. 8. and not the explaining of them. So that I wonder it should ever, against so palpable an intimation to the contrary, enter into any man's mind that the opening the Book and losing the Seals should be understood of explaining the Prophecies, and not of a power of coming at the Prophecies themselves set out in Enigmatical Visions, and to be afterwards explained by the Servants of Christ, and the meaning of the Aenigmata discovered. But to make this latter to be understood as a Completion of this Vision of the opening of the Seals, is a plain repugnancy to the Visions Interpretation of itself. The Completion of this part of the Vision of opening the Seals, is our having these Apocalyptick Visions in our hands and under our eyes, no other Completion is to be dreamt of.  
2. Touching the second Question the abovesaid Papers declare thus, That by him that sitteth on the Throne with the Book in his right hand is not meant God himself, but rather some Man of highest Authority sitting in the Throne of God, and representing him there. A reverend and learned Doctor fancies him to be the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Author of the Papers to be some earthly King.  
Answ. But this to me seems point-blank against the Text, nor has Grotius himself the confidence to interpret it of any other than of God Almighty, by reason of that Hymn, I suppose, or Doxology, v. 8. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. This Hymn is sung to him that sits on the Throne the Eternal, who is said to live for ever and ever, v. 9 Now as this is but one single visionary Hymn, so no man can have any just ground to imagine any more than one visionary Person on the Throne, there is not the least show or shadow in the Vision of any more. Whence comparing this Hymn with that single Person, it must of necessity be God Almighty himself, no earthly Potentate Representative of Him. Nor is the Hymn fit to be sung to a Representative (though of God) sitting on the Throne. For if to Him, he is the Object of this Doxology, and the Text says expressly, it is to him that sits on the Throne. And therefore it must be to God himself that sits on the Throne, unless we will make this a visionary Scene of palpable Idolatry, which I take to be a gross absurdity. Besides that, as for earthly Potentates, Kings or Monarches, they are most lively described in the twenty four crowned Elders, like so many Millennial david's, playing on their Harps before God. The Rainbow also plainly intimates it, as in Ezekiel, to be the Representation of the glory of the God of Israel. So that I find no congruity or probability in this Opinion.  
3. Now for the third Question, the words of the Paper are these. I affirm, saith he, that the fourth and fifth Chapters of the Revelation are a description of a Church, or a Company of faithful people on Earth; adding, This is so evident, that I know of no man that denies it. This therefore he takes for granted without any further proof.  
Answ. Here I refer the Reader to what I have wrote in the twenty first Chapter of this Book touching this Introductory Vision to the sealed Book-Prophecy. Where, though it be an Introductory Vision; and a Symbol of the spiritual Kingdom of God in Heaven, yet I acknowledge that it is in some things so attemperated, that it is significative also of the State of the Church on Earth; as that suppose of the Millennium. And that the Church on Earth is some way and in some things concerned in this Vision, is plainly intimated Chap. 5. v. 10. And hast made us Kings and Priests, and we shall reign on the Earth. But this will not serve the end of these Papers.  
4. And lastly, for the fourth Question, By the Lamb slain, according to those Papers, some good King or other (some mystical Christ, as Mr. Mede calls Constantine upon Rev. 12.5.) is to be understood, who after his having suffered like a Lamb, was to be again advanced to the Throne of God. Some such sense, quoth he, as this we shall be obliged to put upon it; forasmuch as it exceeds all belief to think that when the Book aforesaid shall be to be opened, God himself in Person shall appear amongst us sitting on a Throne with a Book in his right hand, and that after Proclamation made for one to open it, in the Ears of all the World, his Son Jesus shall appear coming to his Father, and take it out of his hand, etc. Or which is equally absurd, the four Beasts and twenty four Elders shall be taken up into Heaven to see the same things acted there. Whence it is concluded, That the sealed Book is not to be opened by the Lamb himself in person, but by some mortal man or other whom he shall employ in this service.  
Answ. This is argued handsomely enough, were it not upon a double false Foundation: The first is, That opening the Seals is explaining the Prophecies, which I have already shown to be a mistake. The other is, That this Vision is an absolute Vision, not an Introductory Vision to the Book-Prophecy, which point I have cleared Chap. 21. nor need I here repeat things. And in the third and last place. The individual Person of Christ is so tightly described, that no other but himself can be meant. For besides that he is said to be slain, and to have redeemed us with his Blood, and to have made us Kings and Priests, he is styled the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and the Root of David. How is it possible that any one but Christ himself can be meant by this description? This is no description of a mystical Christ, but of the very Person of Christ himself. I am thus brief in answering this last Question, because there will be an abundant supplement made in the answering the Confutatory part of his Papers, where he endeavours to entangle my Hypothesis with as many difficulties as he can. Wherefore I will in the next Chapter give a summary Account of my sense of this Vision, and then answer to his Allegations against it.   

CHAP. XXXIV. A summary Account of the  Vision, and the sense of several Particulars acknowledged by the Expositor. Ten Objections to entangle the abovesaid Account and the sense of the Particulars. Distinct Answers to the said ten Objections.  
COncerning this Introductory Vision comprised in the fourth and fifth Chapter of the Apocalypse, I have spoke so fully in the twenty first Chapter of this Treatise, that I may well be allowed to content myself only with a summary Account of that Vision here, which is this. This Vision (impressed on the raptured Imagination of S. John) is a Theatrick Representation of the Glory of the God of Israel in his Angelical or spiritual Kingdom in Heaven, which, besides that common use of all the Introductory Visions (which is to signify that the succeeding Prophecy, (as this Book-Prophecy in counterdistinction to the Epistolar Prophecy) is the Revelation of Jesus Christ obtained of God, and communicated to his Servant John) it is framed in such a Dramatical way, as both to be prefigurative of several things appertaining to the glorious and joyful state of the blessed Millennium, and also significative what a dear regard God has to his Son Christ, even according to his humane Nature, and what an inestimable value is to be put upon this Book-Prophecy, in which is comprehended both the sealed Book-Prophecy and the opened Book-Prophecy. This is a brief summary Account of this Vision.  
In which we admit that the four Beasts and twenty four-Elders, though they represent the spiritual or Angelical Kingdom in Heaven, are also prefigurative of Believers some time to be on Earth. We likewise further assert, That he that sits on the Throne is God Almighty himself, and no other. That the slain Lamb is no other than Christ in his own Person. That the seven-sealed Book is a Symbol of the secret Counsel and Foreknowledge of God touching the affairs or state of his Church and of the World as much as concerns his Church from the beginning thereof to the last Judgement. And God his giving this Book to Christ, signifies his communicating these his Secrets to him. And the Lamb or Christ his opening the Seals in the sight of John, denotes his imparting this Scene of future things to his Servant John, though no man yet understood the meaning of those Typical Prefigurations. All this for my part I own, whatever other Interpreters do. And now let us see what the ingenious Objector can say to entangle so solid an Hypothesis.  
1. I demand only, says he, these few things. First, Where was ever any such loud Proclamation made at God's delivering this Book to his Son, as is spoken of Rev. 5.2?  
2. Secondly, How unlikely a thing is it, that the things therein contained, being only in the Mind of God (as is supposed) there should be any such Proclamation made at all to find out one that was worthy to know them. For it may seem to be too much trifling in a weighty matter.  
3. Thirdly, But if any such Proclamation were ever made,  heard it? For it must needs be supposed that the Proclamation was made in the ears of a great many.  
4. Fourthly, And where was Christ when this Proclamation was made, that it is said, No man in Heaven, in Earth, or under the Earth was found able to open the Book, or look on it?  
5. Fifthly, But if the meaning be, that none but Christ was found able, how comes S. John to weep for that? Who could he expect or desire should do it besides?  
6. Sixthly, How comes an Elder to know of Christ's taking the Book out of his Father's hand sooner than S. John himself?  
7. Seventhly, What Elder was that that gave the first notice to S. John, that Christ had prevailed to do it?  
8. Eighthly, Who are they all that are set so near the Throne of God and of Christ, as these Beasts and Elders are said to have been, when God communicated the knowledge of these things to his Son, and who are said upon that occasion to have sung a new Song with Harps, etc. to this effect: Thou art worthy to take the Book, and to open the seven Seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, etc. and hast made us Kings and Priests unto God, and we shall reign upon the Earth. And there is the like reason of the Angelical Address that follows, etc.  
9 Ninthly, Interpreters interpreting this Angelical Address, of Angels literally so called (as they also interpret the strong Angel v. 2.) contradict themselves and all Interpreters in other places who expound Angels to be meant of men.  
10. Tenthly and lastly, But the greatest and most manifest Omission of all, saith he, is that whereas in the next place it is said, That every Creature in Heaven, in Earth, and under the Earth, etc. I John heard saying, Blessing and Honour and Glory and Power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever: no Interpreter shows this to have been done after Christ's taking of the Book, more than before. From whence it is plain to me, saith he, that they go upon a wrong Hypothesis. For if there had been any such things done on Earth, no doubt some footsteps of it would have been found in History. These few things, as he calls them, being thought by him pressing and weighty, I am concerned to answer, that the truth of my Exposition may not seem to be obscured thereby.  
1. To the first than I answer, That this Proclamation was made only in this Dramatical Vision, and is no more than a visionary Proclamation, and brought in in this Dramatical manner to signify the singular Prerogative of Christ given to him by his Father, that he should have the ability of predicting and effecting such things as no Creature besides in the World had the like; general Proclamation being made to find them out, if there were any such. And the Angel is said to be strong, and his Voice loud, that it might pierce as it were through the Universe, to summon any one that would pretend to such a Prerogative as has been described.  
2. To the second I say, There is neither any unlikeliness nor trifling in this Proclamation, because it sets off the peculiarness of Christ's Prerogative, in that it was given to him to open the sealed Book. And it being not yet opened, but being known in general to be a Book of Secrets as yet only in the Mind of God, what unlikeliness or Indecorum is it, that Proclamation be made who he is, that shall be vouchsafed this power of opening the Book, and distinctly knowing those Secrets which were only in the Mind of God before?  
3. To the third I answer as to the first, That the Proclamation is only visionary, and of what it is significative I have already said, nor need again repeat.  
4. To the fourth, I say, it seems a kind of capricious Query, as if it implied from that account of the Proclamation made, that no man in Heaven, on Earth, or under the Earth was found able to open the Book, that Christ was not where then, else he would have been found able. But as S. Paul says, 1 Cor. 15.27. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest he is excepted which did put all things under him; so say I, whenas this Proclamation was made to remonstrate to the World, that no man in Heaven, nor Earth, nor under the Earth was found able, saving Christ himself, to open the Book, it is manifest he is to be excepted out of that Negative Catalogue, as being the only Creature that was able.  
5. To the fifth, Incogitancy I think suggested this Query to the Objector. For it implies S. John wept after he understood that Christ had obtained the power of opening the sealed Book, whenas his weeping was before. He says so plainly himself, v. 4. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and read the Book, neither to look thereon. Which is also a Dramatical passage on this Theatre intended to signify nothing else but the great Needfulness and Desirableness of such a Book of Prophecies for the use of God's Church and their guidance in all the Toss, Changes and Revolutions in this transitory World. Such a Book was so necessary and requisite, that it would grieve any good Christian at the very heart, who is solicitous for the Church, to want such a Load-star or Cynosura.  
6. To the sixth I answer, That these crowned Elders, though they be prefigurative also of the Millennial Kings or Monarches, they are here some principal Angels of the spiritual Kingdom of the God of Israel in Heaven. And why may not such an Angel be thought to be wiser than John, and able to instruct him. There is nothing incongruous or indecorous in this Dramatical passage, and John was called up into Heaven to be instructed by his Betters. This celestial Actor may well be conceived to know how the Scene would go, though John in the mean time was as yet ignorant thereof.  
7. To the seventh. Truly this is a very curious Question, if it imply that one should declare who this crowned Elder was by Name. It is sufficient to say it was one of the Elders that was next him, and so most conveniently placed to instruct John, and comfort him upon his weeping, and so take that cue to carry on this Divine Scene from v. 4. to v. 8. till the slain Lamb had taken the Book out of the hand of him that sat on the Throne, and had obtained power to open it. By which no Event is prefigured that was to come to pass some Ages after John's receiving the Apocalypse, but it is only signified in this pompous Dramatical way, That this Book-Prophecy is the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him, and which he imparted to his Servant John. So that the curiosity of naming the Party whom this Elder may prefigure, vanisheth.  
8. To the eighth I say, Those that are set so near the Throne of God are Members of his spiritual or Angelical Kingdom in Heaven, but prefigurative withal of his Millennial Kingdom on Earth, which is the main scope of his Providence over his Church, that it shall at last come to pass, that the Heavenly Jerusalem in Image and Resemblance shall descend from God on this Earth, and his Tabernacle be with men. And therefore the glory of the God of Israel is here so represented, that it may also prefigure the State of the Church under the New Jerusalem, as the other Introductory Visions have some glances or more general strokes at Prophetic Events in some passages. And now for the new Song sung by the four Beasts and twenty four Elders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dignus es qui acciperes, Thou wert worthy to receive the Book (for so the Original is interpretable) and to open the Seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, and made us Kings and Priests to reign upon Earth: This new Song is prefigurative of the Joy and Happiness of that State of the Church, of which it is said, Apoc. 21.5. Behold, I make all things new, which is the New Jerusalem state. In which there will be such triumphant Praises sung unto the Lamb, when it will be so evident he has carried his Church safe, for whom he gave his Life and Blood, through all the predicted conditions thereof, and at last has placed them in that happy and glorious Millennial State by his faithful Conduct, Wisdom and Power. Which are included in the Faculty granted him by his Father of opening the Seals of the Book, as I have noted elsewhere. And whenas presently afterwards the whole Universe is made to ring with a loud Doxology from numerous Quires of Angels and of all Creatures in Heaven and Earth and under the Earth, and such as are in the Sea, and all that are in them, to him that sits upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb, to what times possibly can this belong but to the holy, happy and glorious Millennial Reign of Christ in his Saints upon Earth? The Song of the twenty four Elders and four Beasts prefigure the Joy of the Millennial Monarches and People, that of the Angels the Joy of the Angels in Heaven at this flourishing State of the Church on Earth, and that of the rest of the Creatures the Conviction of all the World, that the Lord Jesus was no less than he declared himself to be, the Son of God and Saviour of the World, to whom the Father had given all Power in Heaven and Earth, of which this Millennial State of the Church is a most illustrious and glorious Effect filling all the World with wonder and amazement. And this I hope may satisfy the eighth Query.  
9 Ninthly, To the ninth Allegation I answer, That the Doxology of the Angelical Quires does prefigure the Joy of Angels in Heaven for that blessed condition of the Church in the New Jerusalem state on Earth. So that though this Vision which is a Representation of the glory of the God of Israel in his Spiritual or Angelical Kingdom, in the Dramatical frame of things, is so contrived, that the four and twenty crowned Elders and four Beasts prefigure also the Monarches and People of the Millennium, yet there are left numerous Quires of Angels in counterdistinction to these to signify Angels literally so called, and the Song is to signify their Joy at this State of the Church on Earth. Nor has that strong Angel that makes the Proclamation any other sense than so, that he was one of the Angelical Retinue of the God of Israel in Heaven. Nor is that Rule of interpreting Angels of men in the Apocalypse universally true, I am sure not in the Introductory Visions. The word Angel occurs in several places of the Introductory Visions where it stands for an Angel literally so called, not for a man, to say nothing of other places. So little force has this ninth Allegation.  
10. And lastly for the tenth, which urges, That if there had been any such universal Doxology to Him that sits on the Throne and to the Lamb after he had taken the Book, that there would have been some traces or footsteps of it in History. To this I answer, That it is a marvellous groundless conceit and expectation, that what is here Parabolically and Dramatically set down only to express that Joy and Happiness which would redound to the whole Creation from Christ's being invested with this Power of opening the seven-sealed Book, that is, to be enabled both to foretell and guide the affairs of his Church so, as that the state thereof will be so glorious and prosperous at last here upon Earth, that all the World will be convinced of his stupendious Foresight, Wisdom and Power: that therefore there shall be such an universal Te Deum— sung to him throughout the whole Universe at once, so that the Solemnity might be recorded in History. This is not the meaning of the Prophetic Style. And besides if it were, the time is not yet come when this is to be. For such expressions as these can suit with no meaner State of the Church on the Earth, than that of the Millennial Reign; when the four and twenty Millennial Monarches including both the Jewish and Gentile Sovereigns or Princes, may seasonably sing this Song, Thou hast redeemed us with thy blood, and made us Kings and Priests, and we shall reign upon Earth, viz. in Christ's Millennial Empire. But to expect Records of such a Doxology in History before the Doxology has been, is a great Incongruity. Wherefore I hope any indifferent eye may easily discern, that notwithstanding all these ten Allegations, my Exposition of this Vision, comprised in the fourth and fifth Chapters of the Apocalypse, is unexceptionably true.   

CHAP. XXXV. Three Objections from a considerate hand. The first against our making the three Times and an Half, the forty two months and twelve hundred and sixty days to be the same time. The second, against owned affirming the Euphratean Horsemen to have subdued the Eastern Roman Empire with Fire-Guns. The last, against our making the Egyptian year to consist only of three hundred and sixty days in Arithmetica Apocalyptica, but in Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, of three hundred and sixty five: with Answers to all three.  
THE first Objection. Every day in the forty two months signifying a year, makes in the whole twelve hundred seventy seven years at least, there being really in every year (not three hundred and sixty, but) three hundred and sixty five days. This seems to make the three Times and an Half or forty two months and twelve hundred and sixty days not to be the same.  
Answ. That the forty two months are Egyptian Months, and consist of just thirty days apiece, is manifest, in that thirty times forty two make just twelve hundred and sixty days. And these days and those months are the time of the mourning of the Witnesses and of that which all along occasions their mourning, viz. the outer Court being trodden down by the Gentiles, which is a plain indication that the twelve hundred and sixty days are a note of no more nor less time than the forty two months, and that therefore they must be Egyptian Months. And as it is plain that the months are Egyptian, so we must conceive that the years in the three Times and an Half are so many Egyptian years and an half consisting of Egyptian Months, which therefore make, each of them, three hundred and sixty days. See Rev. Chap. 12. v. 6, 14. This is their solid Year consisting of so many months, to which they add the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as they are called, the Dies adjectitii, which are five, which here the Spirit of Prophecy takes no notice of, but resolving the forty two Egyptian months, which is three solid Egyptian Years and an half, into just twelve hundred and sixty days, shows that no more years than so are to be understood thereby. And this not respecting at all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or five adjectitious days in this Compute of the Time of the Medial Visions (all which synchronize one with another) complies excellently well with that Truth which I have made out, viz. That the eventual measure of the Medial Visions is not a Year (which has been thought hitherto so to be) but a Semitime, in respect of which seventeen years or more is not at all considerable. So that there was no need of being so precise as to take the Dies adjectitii into the Reckoning, and so to make the whole twelve hundred and seventy seven years at least, as you would infer. Wherefore though every day in the forty two months stands for a year, yet these months being Egyptian months, and consisting of just thirty days apiece, and there is the same reason of the three Times and an Half, it will not amount to twelve hundred and seventy seven, but twelve hundred and sixty years only.  
2. Object. In Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, pag. 91. the Turks are said to invade the Roman Empire An. Dom. 1289. subduing them with Fire-Guns, etc. (Chap. 9 v. 18.) which is ninety one years before the use of Fire-Guns is said to be made known to the World, viz. An. Dom. 1380. Notes on v. 17. pag. 92.  
Answ. The words in the Text, Chap. 9 v. 18. are these. By these were the third part of men killed by the Fire and by the Smoke, etc. that is to say, whenas the Saracens vexed the Roman Empire, but could not utterly subdue it, and so seize on it and possess it, the Turks quite vanquished it, viz. the Eastern Empire by those Fire-Guns in the taking of Constantinople, and so seizing on the whole Eastern Empire, which they have done for so long a time. So that the Prophecy seems to respect those times more especially when Constantinople was taken, as appears from v. 15. also. And the Angels were loosed which were prepared for an hour and a day and a month and a year for to slay the third part of men, that is, utterly to subdue them, and to seize and possess the Eastern Roman Empire. For from the Inauguration of Togrulbec by Caliph Chaiim Biamrilla to the year Constantinople was taken, is a Prophetical day and a month and a year, that is, three hundred ninety six years. And the use of Fire-Guns in that taking of Constantinople is notorious, as you may see in Laonicus Chalcocondylas De Rebus Turcicis, one of the Byzantine Historians, lib. 7. who there makes mention of a Cannon of so vast a bigness, that it was fain to be drawn by seventy yoke of Oxen and two thousand men. You may guests at the rest by this as to the use of Fire-Guns in the kill the third part of men. And the vast number that is said to be at this Siege, v. 16. two hundred thousand thousand, I say by this definite vast number is understood an huge indefinite number; as indeed there was at the Siege of this one City, viz. about four hundred thousand, as Laonicus Chalcocondylas sets it down in the same place: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which is another intimation that the Prophecy has an eye to this famous Siege. But this only by the buy.  
Wherefore the Prophecy pointing chief at this Achievement of the Turks, there is no necessity at all that the Turks should be conceived to have had the use of Fire-Guns from their very first irruption into the Empire. And though their irruption was ninety one years before the use of Fire-Guns, yet it was above seventy years before the Turks took Constantinople, that the use of Fire-Guns was known in War. And if Zieglerus his account be as Authentic as Alstedius his, which for aught I know it may be, that Germane invention of Guns was about the year 1354. and then the use of Guns will be an hundred years before the Turks took Constantinople. Nor is it requisite in the Prophetic Representations of any Body Politic, that those Characters it is set out by be every one of them of the same continuance with the said Body, but that they be notorious and of a Characteristic nature, and such as tends to the assuring the sense of the Vision. An Observation so obviously true, that I need not at all insist thereon: which alone may serve to take away this scruple.  
3. Object. In the 359. page of Arithmetica Apocalyptica the number twelve hundred and sixty varied into forty two months, makes three hundred and sixty days to each year; but in Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, pag. 87. the year is three hundred sixty five, the Prophetic day, month and year being there accounted three hundred ninety six years. The reason of this difference I understand not.  
Answ. Here again the account is Egyptian, because it is taken for granted, that the month is just thirty days. And the Egyptian year here has its full extent, that is, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or five adjectious days are added to the thirteen Egyptian months (which make just three hundred ninety days) so that the whole is three hundred ninety five days, to which adding the odd day, the sum is three hundred ninety six Prophetical days, that is to say, years. But the pinch of the scruple is this, Why should the full Egyptian year be made use of here, and take in the five adjectitious days, when only the twelve Egyptian months is the solid year in that place of Arithmetica Apocalyptica here noted, leaving out the five adjectitious Days? But the reason of this is obvious enough. For here the Spirit of Prophecy intended to foretell an Event, viz. the taking of Constantinople to the preciseness of a year, as is plainly insinuated by the mentioning a single day, and therefore there was a necessity of computing the time, not by thirteen months and a day, but by a day and a month and a year, including all the days therein, the five adjectitious days not excepted. But, as was noted in my Answer to the first Objection, the Eventual measure or Unite in computing the Time of the Medial Visions being not a year, but an Hexamenon or Semitime which is equivalent to an hundred eighty years, it was to no purpose to have any regard to the five adjectitious days in the Egyptian year, in that case seventeen years being inconsiderable when the Eventual measure or Unite is an Hexamenon or Hacatonogdoconthemeron. Therefore the comparing of these two places together does the more confirm what I said in my Answer to the first Objection: That the eventual Measure of the Medial Visions, or Eventual Unite, in which, if the Vision be fulfilled, the Prediction is sufficiently verified, is not a Year, but a Semitime, or an Hecatonogdoconthemeron, the space of an hundred eighty years.   

CHAP. XXXVI. A fourth Objection from the same hand, against that Conjecture from Dan. 11.45. of the peril of Rome 's being some time taken by the Turk, as being inconsistent with the expiration of the three hundred ninety six years of the Turks Commission to kill the third part of men, which is to expire this year 1685. the year after this Objection was sent. The Answer thereto.  
THIS fourth Objection is this, The four Angels which are loosed (Chap. 9 v. 15.) An. Dom. 1289. pag. 91. and prepared (or as it seems to me commissioned) only for an hour and a day and a month and a year (viz. for three hundred ninety six years, pag. 87.) to slay the third part of men, will have their Commission expire An. Dom. 1685. and then it is unlikely that the Turk will plant the Tabernacle of his Palace, etc. in Rome, Dan. 11. v. 45. For it seems to me, that their being prepared for so long a time implies, that at the Expiration of that time, the power given them to kill the third part of men, will expire.  
Answ. This Objection looks handsomely and ingeniously on't at the first sight, and it is a very desirable thing to us Christians that it should be solid and true. But the grounds thereof I conceive are not firm: For it only supposes, does not prove that the losing the four Angels, An. Dom. 1289. is the precedent year to the Epocha of three hundred ninety six years, at the ending whereof they shall have slain the third part of men. For first, though three hundred ninety six added to twelve hundred eighty nine make sixteen hundred eighty five, yet it is a precarious business to place the Epocha of the three hundred ninety six years after, and not in the very Year 1289. Moreover, if the Year 1289. be the Epocha of the three hundred ninety six years, the Turks will have done their business of slaying the third part of men, that is, of abolishing the Eastern Roman Empire, quite vanquishing it and possessing it to themselves, and utterly extinguishing the Succession of the Constantinopolitan Emperors above two hundred years before the Expiration of these three hundred ninety six years, wherein they were to do the Feat. Whence there is a necessity of taking Mr. Mede's Epocha, viz. the year of Togrulbec's Inauguration by Chaiim Biamrilla into the Turkish Empire. And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Participle of the Preterperfect tense, and signifying as much as, [having been prepared] that intimates that the losing them is after their being prepared, and respects the time of their being bound in the great River Euphrates, there forthcoming and in readiness, being once loosed to slay the third part of men at the time appointed, viz. at the Expiration of the three hundred ninety six years, which commence from the Inauguration of Togrulbec, and therefore terminate in the taking of Constantinople, and so extinguishing the Eastern Roman Empire and Succession of the Constantinopolitan Emperors.  
Togrulbec was inaugurated Emperor of the Turks in the Year 1057. and the Angels let lose in the Year 1289. so that the time of their being bound in the River Euphrates is two hundred thirty two years. All which time they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forthcoming or in readiness after they were once loosed, to slay the third part of men at the Expiration of the three hundred ninety six years, commencing from their first being bound, or indeed from their first being a Turkish Kingdom upon the Inauguration of Togrulbec or Tangrolipix, as others call him. This is the genuine sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place. But there is no Example in any Greek Author, that I know, where it signifies Commissioned. And if it did, and this Commission commenced with the losing of the Angels in the Year 1289. whenas Constantinople was taken in the Year 1453. they must then have executed their Commission above two hundred years before they had Commission so to do, as I noted above. Add unto all this, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could signify Commissioned, viz. to slay the third part of men for three hundred ninety six years only, it does not at all thence follow, that when they have slain, that is, quite vanquished the Eastern Empire, and seized on it, that they may possess it no longer than so, but on the contrary it seems improbable but that they should enjoy the possession of it some considerable time.  
And I must confess I find no limitation of their time in the Visions but that it may reach into the seventh Vial, when they with other Nations will be vanquished by the Army of that Divine Heros on the white Horse with a Sword coming out of his mouth. And the Turks, according to the general consent of the best Interpreters, are concerned in the sixth Vial, which is next to the seventh. And most certainly the Exitus of the sixth Trumpet, as being passed at the Rising of the Witnesses and partial Fall of Babylon, does not terminate the Turkish Empire: But the entire Visum of the sixth Trumpet is the Turks vanquishing and possessing themselves of the Eastern Roman Empire, and the general Impenitence of the Western thereupon. Which general Impenitence ceased to be in the Rising of the Witnesses and partial Fall of the great City, which is the Close of the sixth Trumpet, as is evident Apoc. 11.14. Whence we see, that the kill of the third part of men was passed before that, as appears from Chap. 9 v. 18, 20. and the supposed Commission executed and expired before the Reformation. So that the Turks have continued about the matter of an hundred years from the Exitus of the sixth Trumpet already, and how much longer they may continue, God alone knows. And therefore for any thing hence appears, the Turk may some time plant the Tabernacle of his Palace in Rome, according to what I have declared, but yet only by way of a rational Conjecture upon Dan. 11. v. 45. But whether the Conjecture be really true, Time alone can discover. A general Repentance of those sins that are charged upon the Western Empire, Rev. Chap. 9 v. 20, 21. why may it not prevent so great a Judgement? and I wish the experiment were tried. For surely it must be very acceptable to the God of Truth and Mercy, that those that profess to worship him, abstain from Idolatry and the Effusion of innocent Blood.   

CHAP. XXXVII. Why the Author of the Apocalypsis Apocalypseos did only take up as an Hypothesis, but not formally prove [that when there is any promise or threatening before the Epiphonema in the Epistles to the seven Churches, it indicateth things Political touching the State on Earth; but if placed after the Epiphonema, an invisible State or Concerns of the other World] and yet adventured to argue therefrom.  
THIS mentioned, in the Argument, I must confess is taken up as an Hypothesis, nor did I ever go about to prove it, the fitness of the application of it proving itself to be a true Hypothesis, that is, not a mere Hypothesis, but a real Truth. And what way was there to prove it but by Induction, advertising it was true in every part? Which I will now intimate to make a supply for the former defect. And first we will consider those promises that come after the Epiphonema, they being the fewest, and respecting only the three first Epistles.  
It is evident, that the Promise after the Epiphonema in the Epistle to the Ephesine Church [I will give to eat of the Tree of Life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God] is understood of the state of the other Life, viz. of Heaven, as is manifest from Luke 23.43. and 2 Cor. 12.4. And so the promise after the Epiphonema, to the Church in Smyrna [Shall not be hurt by the second Death] this is plainly a promise of being made partakers of the first Resurrection, as appears from Apoc. Chap. 20.6. And it is the sense of the Primitive Church on this place, as you may see in Mr. Mede. And so respects the state of the other life. And lastly, the promise to the Church in Pergamus after the Epiphonema, it is plain it is not of a visible and Political nature, but of things invisible, viz. [to eat of the hidden Manna] and [to receive a white Stone and a new Name therein written, which no man knoweth, saving he that receiveth it] This is no Political or visible State, but spiritual and invisible. So that the Induction is full and firm touching the Promises after the Epiphonema, so far as they go. And these immediately following the Epiphonema, being of an invisible and spiritual nature, it is a fair hint that those that immediately precede should be of a visible nature and Political, and that as well in the rest of the Epistles as the three first. But we shall make it good in every one of them.  
Now therefore for that Threatening to the Church in Ephesus [I will remove thy Candlestick out of its place] All Interpreters agree that it concerns the visible State of the Church, as it is manifest that Candlestick signifies the Church. And it is as easy and natural an Interpretation of [to be removed out of its place] to be moved from the state and condition it was in, namely, of peace and rest to that of trouble and persecution. Which Commination was made good in the very next Interval. The Church in Smyrna being exercised with no less than ten Persecutions. And so that promise to the Church in Smyrna that precedes the Epiphonema [I will give thee the Crown of life] Forasmuch as it corresponds so well with the Crown that is given to the Rider of the white Horse under the first Seal, which is the Imperial Crown, and this promise was made good in the very next Interval the Pergamenian when Constantine turned Christian, and seeing it would imply a needless Tautology, if it were understood of an Heavenly Crown, that being promised after the Epiphonema in the promise of partaking of the first Resurrection, or not being hurt by the second Death, which intimates the same, this may assure any unprejudiced Reader, that the promise of the Crown of Life here placed before the Epiphonema signifies Politically. As in the Epistle to the Church in Thyatira the promise before the Epiphonema is most evidently Political, viz. [Power over the Nations to rule them with a rod of iron] And [the Morningstar] in the Prophetic Style signifies also Political Sovereignty. And in the promises to the Church in Philadelphia before the Epiphonema, they are all along Political and visible. As that of the Synagogue of Satan worshipping before her feet. The Caution also, that no man take her Crown, that Political Sovereignty intended for her. And her being a Pillar in the Temple of God, etc. intimates a permanent visible State of that Church, and the Name of the City of my God the New Jerusalem; is a most manifest indication of a Political sense indeed. Wherefore it being so evident in these four, Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira and Philadelphia, that the Threatening and Promises are of a nature Political and visible that precede the Epiphonema, if the Threatening or Promises in the other three will bear this sense, we are in all reason to conclude, that such a sense belongs unto them.  
Wherefore that Threatening to the Church in Pergamus [I will come unto thee quickly] according to that most constant tenor of the sense before the Epiphonema, must signify some visible and external dealing with those in the Church of Pergamus here blamed and threatened severely, but conjoined with a Commination also against the Enemies of the True Church, or against the False one the Baalamites. The fight against whom with the Sword of his mouth (which is the Word of God convincingly preached) is the attacking and fetching off whole Nations by the preaching of the Word (which is that Sword of the Spirit) from the Baalamitish Church to the pure Faith of Christ, which accordingly came to pass in the next Interval. In which this fight with the Sword of his mouth continued so much in earnest, that in the close it cut off whole Kingdoms from the Idolatrous Church of Rome. So well is the Political sense of these Threaten verified by the Event. See my Exposition on Chap. 2. v. 16. And now for the Promises to those few Names in Sardis of being [clothed in white raiment] That that Phrase signifies prosperous success in affairs in the Prophetic Style, is a thing undoubted; and so he that overcometh [the not blotting out his Name out of the Book of Life] is the like indication of the continuance and increase of those few Names, or pure and unspotted Christians, till they emerge into the Name of the Philadelphian Church, nay of the New Jerusalem itself, not extinct, though disguised at the last under the Name of Laodicea, which lasteth even to the very Conflagration. And this I think is a sufficient completion of this Promise of [not being blotted out of the Book of Life] in such a sense as the Imperial Crown promised to the Church in Smyrna is called the Crown of Life, signifying their security from the Persecutions of the red Dragon, and here the prosperity and security of the Church (whose seed were those few Names in Sardis) from all their Enemies, even to the end of the World, Gog and Magog being not able to take the holy City. Such shall be the success of those few Names in Sardis, for which they are also in a more special manner recommended to God by Christ, and to the Ministry of his holy Angels. And from whom but these can the Philadelphian Church and New Jerusalem spring? So easy and natural is the application of those Promises made to these few Names in Sardis to an external and Political sense. Whence we may be sure that that is the sense here as well as in other such like Promises in the other Epistles before the Epiphonema.  
And now lastly, For the Promise to him that overcomes in the Church of Laodicea, viz. That he shall sit down with Christ in his Throne, etc. That this Promise is of a nature external and Political, or hugely akin to it, is plain from hence, that the performance thereof will be at that general visible and indeed most illustrious Assizes, when there will be the Appearance of all the dead before the Tribunal of Christ, and the Saints as Co-assessours with Christ shall in their Thrones judge the lapsed Angels. So that though I have argued from the  Hypothesis, as then seeming but an Hypothesis, yet the obvious Applicability thereof to the explaining these Epistles, and the now distinct proof that it is a true Hypothesis, or a real Truth, shows that it is a safe Topick to argue from. Which was the thing aimed at.   

CHAP. XXXVIII. Four Objections taken out of a Letter of a learned and ingenious Friend touching the Kingdom of Christ on Earth, as if all his suffering Adherents should be rewarded in that Kingdom in the New Jerusalem; with Answers thereto.  
THE first Objection upon Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, pag. 4. To be Kings and Priests unto God signifies as much as a Sacerdotal Kingdom, as Exod. 9.6. a Kingdom, because of the reigning Estate; Sacerdotal, because of their Priestly Employ; and in some places (as Apoc. 20.6.) because of the unstainedness of their condition as to Externals. Now it is acknowledged that there is a Kingdom designed here on Earth for Christ and Christianity, and there are a great many places that seem to promise all his faithful Adherents, at least his faithful suffering Adherents, of all times, a share in the glory and felicity of that Kingdom-Estate, as if the Martyrs of the Primitive Times and of all Times should have a Recompense for their Sufferings in the New Jerusalem-state of things, as Apoc. Chap. 2. v. 26. where you acknowledge that the Ruling the Nations and the Morningstar are matters Political. If these be confined to the successive Intervals of the Church, the Sardian and Philadelphian Times suppose, what will they signify in the literal Interpretation? And pag. 23. of Apoc. Apocalypseos it is said the bright Morningstar belongs to the Philadelphian Interval, which is at a great distance from the Thyatirian; how shall the Martyrs and Confessors in the Thyatirian Interval have any share in the happy Philadelphian state of things? Or what will such a promised felicity signify to their encouragement, wherein not they, but their Successors only of following times are to have an interest? It is needless to mention many other places that appertain to this matter. But I could never untie this knot of difficulties in the Apocalypse, that is, I could never conceive it possible that Christian Sufferers of all Times and Ages should partake of the Jerusalem-state of things, nor how the Apocalypse can be interpreted so, as not to assert it. Which is the more probable, because the Kingdom-state, which is designed for Christ, is a kind of Heavenly Kingdom-state upon Earth.  
Answ. The New Jerusalem-state is nothing else but the Triumph of the truly Apostolic Church emerging into Universal Power above their Enemies into undisturbed Peace and an Heavenly Holiness of Conversation here upon Earth. Which at last she will obtain, and it is an encouragement to the present suffering Martyrs, that the cause they suffer for, will at last appear so glorious and triumphant here on Earth, while they in the mean time are better rewarded in Heaven, and it were a bidding them to their loss to have them exchange their Heavenly felicity for this Earthly, though gloriously flourishing condition. And lastly, look but on the Apostolic Church, according as the Prophetic Style represents it, as one continued Body from the beginning to the end, and all these promises to the Pergamenian and Thyatirian Sufferers are made good to them, as being still the same Body of the Church in their Successors. Nor is this Heaventy Kingdom of Christ upon Earth otherwise to be understood Heavenly, than that the Spirit and Conversation of Christians in the New Jerusalem-state will be truly Holy and Heavenly. So that I see no difficulty at all in this Point, if we rightly conceive the matter. And it will further ease the Reader's mind, if he consider what I have writ Chap. 20. That though the New Jerusalem be a Prophecy of an excellent State of the Church on Earth, yet the description of that State is an intended Type also of the State of the Church Triumphant in Heaven.  
Object. 2. Upon pag. 22, 23. To have power over the Nations seems to signify, That he shall be of Power over Nations or of Regal Dignity in that Kingdom-estate upon Earth, which is designed for Christ by his Father, Chap. 2.27. And the promise of the Morningstar confirms such an Interpretation. For it is the Star of Empire, and the white Raiment promised Chap. 3.5. is an Ensign of Regal Dignity.  
Answ. The ingenious Objector seems to mistake in the propriety of the Prophetic Style, which as in the Symbol of a Woman, a Man or Beast, does not intimate one single Individual, but a Body of men and their succession, so by the single person [He] is not meant this or that single Man, but the whole successive Body of men that are Overcomers; which according to the Prophetic Style are signified by this single person [He] Those that stand out through Faith and Patience to the last in those Countries where the Paganochristians domineered over them, these with their Princes and Rulers will have the Dominion over the Paganochristians, and will become the beginning or commencement of the great Empire of Christ. So far as the Father of our Lord Christ has enlarged his Kingdom in the Sardian Succession, so far these Overcomers partake thereof with him. And this Sardian State of the Kingdom of Christ is the promised Morningstar, but the Jerusalem state the bright Morningstar. And lastly, Though white Raiment may be a Regal Ensign, yet it is most safely interpreted of prosperous Success, and may answer to that in the next Epistle, v. 8. Behold, I have set before thee an opened door, etc.  
Object. 3. Upon pag. 31, etc. It is observable touching the Church of Philadelphia, that there are many passages that represent her in a state of Trial. She is said to have a little strength, and to have kept the word of Christ's Patience, she is exhorted to hold fast that which she hath, that she lose not the Crown for which she was conflicting, she is exhorted to overcome, and encouraged to behave herself heroically. Now, Sir, how will this agree with the New Jerusalem-state of the Church? Besides, it is promised to the Philadelphians as a thing to come, Chap. 3.12. But it is more observable that it is promised to the Philadelphians, that their Christian Champions shall be Citizens of the New Jerusalem, and that Christ will write upon them his new Name, which I believe you rightly interpret King of Kings, etc. This therefore seems to countenance what I said before, That all Christ's suffering Adherents shall have a share of the New Jerusalem-felicity here on Earth, and have preferments in that Kingdom-Estate. Which may seem to be further countenanced from the promise to Laodicea, Chap. 3.21. That they shall sit with Christ on his Throne.  
Answ. This Objection is grounded on a mistake, as if the Philadelphian Interval and New Jerusalem-state did synchronize. Whenas the Philadelphian Interval gins sooner, and ends sooner than the New Jerusalem-state. Wherefore those Exhortations belong to that part of the Philadelphian Interval that goes before the Jerusalem-state. Whence their emerging at last into that state, is promised to them as a thing to come. Now as for their Christian Champions, etc. as if it were understood of some select Persons, this difficulty is grounded upon the old mistake, viz. That [He] signifies a particular person, whenas in the Prophetic sense and style it here signifies the whole Body of the faithful Philadelphians, predicting that that sort of men, by their Faith, Patience and powerful preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, will at last have so glorious and victorious success, that they with their Successors shall bring in the New Jerusalem-state or Millennial Empire of Christ; so that all that is predicted of the New Jerusalem shall be fulfilled in them here on Earth, while all Christ's suffering Adherents in the mean that are dead, enjoy themselves in Heaven. As for the Promise to the Laodicean Overcomers, it is not the promise of an Earthly Throne, but an Heavenly, as to be Assistants of Christ coming to judge the People, as the Word signifies in the Close of this Interval of the Laodicean Church: which Interval may be so denominated, as for other reasons, so haply by way of Allusion to Ptolemy's Laodicea combusta (as I have more than once noted) the Conflagration closing this Interval.  
Object. 4. Notwithstanding the great Learning which you have employed, Sir, in the Exposition of the seven Churches, it seems a somewhat lubricous business. But the rest of your Exposition is matter of much greater Certainty. But it is no disparagement for any man that is thus assured of the truth and meaning of the Apocalypse, as to the main purport of it, to acknowledge there is great difficulty in interpreting several particular passages. Touching the New Jerusalem I cannot but observe, that there are a great many passages in the Apocalypse which seem to argue the time will come, when God and the Son of God will hold his Estate and Court here upon Earth. Which how strange soever it may seem; is not so strange as that the Son of God should be crucified here upon Earth. And if this Hypothesis might be thought solid and well grounded, all the passages of this Book aforementioned and many more, would be sufficiently clear, and the description of the New Jerusalem in the two last Chapters would be easily intelligible, which I think cannot be well understood without it. These places, Rev. 21. v. 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15. and Chap. 22. v. 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15. sound this way, at such a rate, that they almost force me, whether I will or no, to believe some such thing. But how far and in what manner these things may be true, may be troublesome to conceive.  
Answ. This business would not seem so lubricous to the learned Objector, if his Reason and Fancy was but once well enured to that Figure of the Prophetic Style, which we call Henopoeia, which takes not place only in a Man, Woman or Beast, made the Symbols of some Society or Body Politic: But the Pronoun [He] which so often occurs in these Epistles to the Churches, has also in it this Figure, and signifies not a single Person, but such a Body or Society of men so or so behaving themselves together with their Successors. This successive Body by a Prophetic Henopoeia is represented as one single Person by the Pronoun [He] He that overcometh. This once admitted, all difficulties vanish as to the seven Churches. And if the Objector did but observe how full of Hylasmus' and Israelismus' the Apocalyptick Style is, he would easily be reconciled to such a sense of these places of the twenty first and twenty second of the Apocalypse, as the Expositor has given of them, though they bear so hard upon his Fancy for the present, as to drive him to expect a personal Reign of Christ upon Earth. Consider also here what we intimated above, That the Description of the New Jerusalem is so drawn, as to be a Type also of the Church Triumphant in Heaven. But to proceed. We aver moreover, That Christ's Personal Reign here on Earth would be infinitely more strange than his Suffering here, because the Reasons of this latter are so palpable. But I see no reason at all for a Personal Reign of Christ upon Earth; whenas the Spirit of Christ within us, in that measure and efficacy it will be in those days, will serve all intents and purposes that his Personal Reign can be supposed to serve to. And this reigning by his Spirit is a greater perfection in his Church, than if he should guide them by his personal Presence and Voice here on Earth. Inward Regeneration by the operation of the Spirit into the living Image of Christ, is a greater Privilege, I say, than to be guided by the external Person and Voice of Christ amongst us sounding in our ears. As, if the thing could be, it were better for an Horse to be turned into a perfect man, than to be rid by the bravest Heros that is. And lastly, That Opinion touching all the suffering Adherents to Christ, that they should become Citizens of this New Jerusalem on Earth, which is conjoined with the Opinion of Christ's personal Reign, is not agreeable to Reason, in that it brings down the persecuted Saints great Reward in Heaven which Christ promiseth, Matt. 5.12. to a lesser reward here on Earth.   

CHAP. XXXIX. Two Objections more out of the same Letter: The first touching the Palm-bearing Company, whether they synchronize with the New Jerusalem. The other touching the Intricateness and Obscurity of the Vision of the two Witnesses; With Answers to both Objections.  
THE first Objection is upon pag. 67. Mr. Mede's Arguments, saith he, for the Synchronism of the Palm-bearing Company with the New Jerusalem seems not firm. If they were, and we could be assured, that the Palm-bearing Company were personally Citizens of the New Jerusalem, it would argue that the New Jerusalem-state is designed to be premiant to the suffering Christians. And indeed it seems to be the main scope of the Apocalypse to predict that Divine state of things. But however the Palm-bearing Company are plainly the Triumphant Army of Martyrs, and are of great affinity with those Rev. 20.4. saving only that the latter are the Martyrs under Antichrist, the former seem to be the Martyrs under Paganism. And since these Martyrs are described as personally rewarded with their white Robes, etc. it would be strange for us to think they are rewarded by Proxy in the prosperity of others in the Jerusalem-state. Besides, that it is too early of the Apocalypse to have a formal Vision of the New Jerusalem state.  
Answ. That the Palm-bearing Company synchronizes in part with the New Jerusalem, besides what Mr. Mede alleges, the Methodicalness of the Apocalypse may assure us. For the prefixing of the 144000 sealed ones, with the Residue of that Vision in that Chapter before the seven Trumpets, is according to exquisite Method, the seven Trumpets being a more distinct and particular Representation of the affairs of the same Time. Nor does it follow from the Palm-bearing Company's being Citizens of the New Jerusalem, that those individual Martyrs that suffered either under Paganism or Antichrist, that they live in the New Jerusalem here on Earth, but, by a Prophetic Henopoeia, the whole successive Body of the pure Apostolic suffering Church under the Persecution of Antichrist being understood; when this one succeeding Body emerges out of their Persecutions into a Victory over the Beast, etc. then they become the Turba palmifera, and that gradually: First, in the Sardian Interval; after more gloriously and copiously in the Philadelphian, which is coincident with the New Jerusalem. Nor need they be thought, those that suffered under Antichrist or the Dragon, to be, in the prosperity of the New Jerusalem state, rewarded by a Proxy (which is wittily expressed) they, according to the Genius of the Apocalyptick Style, being looked upon as the same individual Body Politic still, as it is manifest in the Rising of the two Witnesses. And lastly, It is not too early of the Apocalypse to have the Jerusalem-state glanced at in a Vision Synchronal to the seven Trumpets, which reach to the last Judgement, and therefore include in them the Time of the New Jerusalem, the ligher glances at which partake of the nature of that fuller description, Chap. 21. and therefore are also Typical of the Martyrs Triumphant State in Heaven. Consider our twentieth Chapter again of this Treatise.  
Object. 2. Upon pag. 102. The Vision of the two Witnesses hath always seemed to me one of the obscurest parts of the Book-Prophecy. And he that reads what you have written on that Subject with due consideration, will be apt to think it is scarce possible to employ more Wit than you have done to void the difficulties of it. There are several things in the business of this Prophecy that seem to me of rational Conception. (1) It is rational to think that the Apocalypse speaks stilo Judaico, as all men observe, quòd saepissimè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (2) That these two Witnesses are two Judaical Prophetic Reformers, Reforming Powers (Movers and Mourners for Reformation) mystically understood. (3) That the Spirit of Prophecy speaks of them and characterizes them stilo Judaico, as the two Olive-trees, two Candlesticks, of Elias-like zeal and terror, and Elias-like and Mosaic Wonder-working Power. (4) That the cause of their mourning is the desolation of Jerusalem, the holy City being trodden under foot. (5) They are bipartite or of a twofold nature and quality, and therefore represented by two Witnesses. (6) It is rational to think that the Beast (the ten-horned Beast the secular Power) should kill them about the commencement of his Reign to rid the World of such troublesome Fellows.  
But then the following Particulars seem to be as rational. (1) The Text sets down things as they were represented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and leaveth us to spell out the things signified corresponding to the Visional Representations or Iconisms; and though the Rind and Pulp must not be confounded, yet they must be connex, correspondent and go hand in hand. Wherefore (2) it should seem that the Witnesses prophesying, upon their death, quite ceaseth, for mortui nihil agunt. (3) That upon this account the Nations rejoice and send gifts because they are rid of them and their Testimony. (4) That therefore they had been tormented by them and their Testimony for a long time before they were rid of them by their Death. And (5) That the Beast himself was provoked and enraged by their long continued Testimony before he sets upon them to slaughter them. And (6) That during the time of their Prophecy they could not be dead in the sense of the Prophecy, because during that time they were as Olive-trees and Candlesticks standing before God, and had and exercised all their Wonder-working Power mentioned Ch. 11.5, 6. And (7) That their death in the Prophecy is represented as an effect and consequent of their prophetic Testimony, so long continued to the Prejudice of the World. These, Sir, are the best Objections that I can make against your Method of interpreting this Prophecy, which surely is desirable it should be true. But I cannot make all ends meet, which possibly you may do. But I entreat you consider, Sir, How it is possible that the Witnesses should be as dead Carcases, and yet be in Action all the while? For if they be but Politically dead, they must by the Text be as Politically dead: If I could solve such Objections, the Rising of the Witnesses sounds so like the Reformation, that it would go down with me without chewing: but I have tried several Methods of reconciling things, but none of them will do.  
Answ. The six first Particulars represent truly enough the Cortical meaning of the Prophecy. But as to the latter part of the first of the following seven Particulars, where it is required that the Rind and the Pulp, though they be not to be confounded, yet that they be connex, correspondent and go hand in hand, what the ingenious Objector would have by connex and going hand in hand I do not so well know, but that there is a parallel correspondency I not only allow but assert. And I say that their Political Death, that is to say, their Inability of reforming things amiss in the Church and Religion, this PITH runs parallel with the RIND, viz. with their lying three days and an half as dead Carcases in the street of the City. And those three days and an half (viz. three times and an half) the RIND, again run parallel with the years (the PITH) that they are in this Death Political. And what more exact Correspondency can be required? But while they are thus dead as to Political power, it does not at all imply that they are so to power Spiritual and Prophetical, which they may exercise, though at their peril, and so in Individuals be naturally killed also, though the Prophetic body or succession continue, upon occasions prophesying, and thereupon persecuted or suffering Martyrdom, etc. from whence appears the invalidity of the second Particular. For though the Witnesses be politically dead, yet they are not so to spiritual Power and Prophecy. And mortui nihil agunt reaches no further than to what they are dead to. Otherwise the Souls of men departed would be asleep; who, though they be dead to the things of this life, yet they are alive to the things of the other. And as for the third, fourth and fifth Particulars, their invalidity will be discovered, if we consider the Prophetic Style how Henopoetick it is, representing frequently repeated Acts, as it were but one single Act, whereby notwithstanding there is understood as well succession of Acts as succession of Persons under one single Beast and these two single Witnesses. Wherefore the Inhabiters of the Earth sending gifts to each other upon the slaughter of the Witnesses, is the RIND in this part of the Vision, but the PULP is a successive or repeated rejoicing of the earthly minded Church and enjoying the World in keeping down these Witnesses the true Evangelici, and outing them of all Political Power in Church or State, and sometimes of their Lives and Fortunes, and in the mean time sharing the World amongst themselves, and rejoicing therein. Wherefore the third Particular has no force against our Exposition of the Vision, if we consider the nature of a Prophetic Henopoeia, that embellishes the RIND of the Prophecy. Which consideration destroys also all the force of the fourth and fifth Particulars. For there was a successive Political (and sometimes Natural) death inflicted on the Witnesses in a manner all along the three days or three times and an half or twelve hundred and sixty Prophetical days. There was tormenting with their Testimony and suffering a political Death, at least in a large sense, for their Testimony and rejoicing at their suffering all along in a manner, nor was the Beast any long time provoked till he took his revenge in some degree or other. These are entangling Inferences from the blending or confounding the Pulp with the Rind.  
And to the sixth I say, That during the time of their Prophecy they might be dead according to that 〈◊〉 the Prophecy intimates them to be so, namely, politically, as having no power or stroke to reform things amiss in the Church and God's Worship, and yet in the mean time, though at their own peril, might prophesy and testify against the miscarriage of things, and might in that sense which is intended, be Olive-trees, Candlesticks, and in a mystical sense do such Wonders as relate to Elias and Moses, methinks there is no difficulty at all in this. And now to the last, Their political Death, and sometimes being martyred, is an effect of their Prophetic Testimony, but both the Cause and the Effect is successional through many Ages, and one did not begin considerably later than the other, their political Death later than their Testimony, but went on continuedly and repeatedly in a manner hand in hand, though by a Prophetic Henopoeia in the Rind the Death seems inflicted at the end only and at once. Wherefore if the Objector consider well what is said hitherto, he will easily find it possible that the Witnesses should be as dead Carcases, as to any political Power or Efficacy, and yet as to another life (of Spirit and Prophecy) as occasion required, be in action all the while they were politically dead, and lay as Carcases in the street: As a man may be dead as to this World, but alive to the other, according as I noted above. If we but heed not to confound the Pith and the Rind, these things will appear as clear as the Sun. Consider the latter part of Chapter the twenty sixth, where we define what is the fullest and largest sense of the Witnesses political Death.   

CHAP. XL. Whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoc. Chap. 11. may signify the sacred Revenue of the City of Babylon. How far the Woman was helped from being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Spew of the Dragon, through the Nicene Council. Of the dead dying in the Lord, Apoc. Ch. 14. and of the Harvest and Vintage. And whether the Prophecy of the destruction of Babylon, Chap. 17, and 18. imply the ruin of the Material City of Rome; in Answer to three more Objections from the same hand, in the abovesaid Letter.  
OBjection the first, upon pag. 108. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems not to bear the Exposition of Tithe, if we consider the sense of Language, and no more. But Earthquakes shake Cities and ruin them. Wherefore an Event analogous thereto must come to pass in this great Earthquake, and another correspondent to the slaying of seven thousand Names of men consequent thereupon. These things naturally cohere. And it seems to be upon the account of these Events that those words are immediately subjoined, The second woe is past. It seems, Sir, a great force upon the Text to make seven thousand Names of men signify no more than Estates of men belonging to the seventh Head of the Beast.  
Answ. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may not signify Tithe, and that the sacred Revenue of the Church, I see no Reason: For the same Tithe may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in reference to the Substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Neuter Gender, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference either to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Feminine. Nay, we may see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promiscuously used in one and the same Verse, Levit. Chap. 27. v. 32. And concerning the Tithe [or Tenth] of the Herd of the Flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the Rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord. In the first place it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in both places by Vatablus rendered Decima. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurs frequently in the Books of Moses, Numb. Chap. 18. v. 24, 26, 28. Deut. 12. v. 11. and Chap. 26. v. 12. Also 2 Chron. Chap. 31. v. 6, 12. and elsewhere. So that about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there can be no scruple. But now these Tithes or sacred Revenues could not fall from the Pontifician Party, but that part of the City where they fell would fall with them, and the Earthquake requires it should, as the ingenious Objector well observes, and I will allow, that it chief implies the Ruin of the tenth part of the City itself, or Roman Polity, being an analogous' effect to that of the Earthquake. But this Fall of the City being nothing else but the dissolution of such a share of the Papal Hierarchy, which was not by killing of men, but dissolving that Pontifician Power to such an extent, under the seventh Head of the Beast, nothing can be more natural than the expounding the seven thousand Names slain, of extinguishing those several Orders and Offices of men, and nulling their power in such and such Kingdoms or Countries; so that they were only Politically slain, as the Witnesses most-what were before. This is extremely congruous and natural. Consider what is said on the Text in Apocalypsis Apocalypseos.  
Object. 2. Upon pag. 120. It ought to be considered how much the Council of Nice helped the Woman, Rev. 12.16. who was never in so much danger and distress as after that time, all the World almost turning Arian, and Christendom was made a Cock pit of fight, Rage, and all manner of Enormities. What if we should wave the Council of Nice, with their term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which may be of good Interpretation, but it may be also of bad Interpretation) and refer this help that was afforded the Woman to Julian's defeat by the Persians? Which was a signal help to the Woman indeed.  
Answ. This is a material Objection: But I answer, That the Dragon spewing out such a Flood of Heresy and Contention that the Woman might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby, that is, might be carried away, drowned and lost, the most proper means to obviate this Evil was an Ecumenical Council. And though the Council of Nice did not so far absorb this Flood, as that the Heresy and Contention utterly ceased, yet it abated it so far as that the Woman was safe from being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby. Nay, it was in a manner all drunk up by the Earth (the Clayish Earth or Ecclesiastic Councils) by that time Theodosius came to be Emperor, which was a little before the Woman entered into the Wilderness. And the Church had such Anchorage in this first Council of Nice, that such Arianism [Erat quando non erat] as was properly condemned by that Council could never hold up its head again. But the eternal Generation of the Son was acknowledged (begotten of the Father before all Worlds, as the Nicene Creed has it) and Arius expressing himself more compliantly with this Creed, was readmitted into the Church by the favour of Constantine, who, you may be sure, would never have readmitted him, unless he had come to some such tolerable compliance. And the whole Controversy after that, seems only to have been, Whether the Son should be deemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his Father; which being difficult to decide, there were those that would have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being too hard for the people, nor mentioned in Scripture, to be left out of the Creed, giving that deference to the Nicene decision as not to pronounce it false, but overcurious. So that there was no peril of the Churches drowning in this Flood when the Nicene Council was so nearly observed even by those that seemed to oppose it. And for the Homoüsians and Homoeüsians, there wanted nothing but a dextrous Critic to show how both their terms are consistent one with another (if you will but exclude Sabellianism out of the account.) For making the Father and the Son two real Hypostases, though indiscerpible or indivisible one from another, they are not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as it may aim at a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of one and the same Individuous Substance, but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of like substance, because according to Aristotle himself there is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Similitude betwixt Substances. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Identity of Quality, whether Essential or Accidental, is a sure ground of Similitude. And the Son being the eternal Image of his Father, how can they but be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unless you run into Sabellianism, and will have nothing to do with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Substance, and acknowledge a Trinity only of words, qualifications or second Notions. So that we see what a manifest Influence the Council of Nice had to keep the Woman from being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and perishing in the Draconick flood. And that not only from the benefit of this one Council, which was purely Orthodox, but even from those Councils which were with a general and promiscuous appellation called Arian, though not such Arians as were first condemned by the Nicene Council. So that though these Arian Councils were less Orthodox than they should be, yet one part of the Christian Populacy adhering to them, and the other part to the Orthodox Councils, the Woman was so well buoyed up by the help of these Councils, as young Swimmers are with Bladdders or Bulrushes, that she was safe from sinking again into Paganism (or giving religious Worship to any but who was really Creator of the Heavens and of the Earth, Jer. 10.11.) though that was the malicious project of the Dragon in spewing out that flood of Heterodoxy and Contention, viz to extinguish Christianity, and make men turn Pagans. Thus therefore was the Woman helped by that first Ecumenical and other Councils.  
But how Julian's Death can be so properly said to be an help to her in this case, I must confess I see not. For most certainly the flood out of the Dragon's mouth signifies Heresy or Heterodoxy and Contention. The natural Remedy to which evil are well regulated Councils, that the minds of the Vulgar, who are neither studied Theologers, nor Philosophers may be settled and quieted, by the grave authoritative decision of their Superiors, in things hugely expedient and necessary in Religion and Divine Worship, and such was the knowledge of the Divinity of Christ and Triunity of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Which Faith was assured to the Christian people by these Ecclesiastic Councils, and Paganism kept out at arms length, and the Christian Religion secured. But as for the death of Julian in the Persian War, how little service it did, may appear in that within a year or two after, Valens coming to the Imperial Crown, proved an hot Persecutor of the Orthodox.  
Object. 3. Upon pag. 143. ᵃ The Text of the dead dying in the Lord seems to refer to such times when Martyrdom was most frequent. ᵇ And p. 146. though Christ's Harvest may signify the Conversion of Nations and People, yet the Angel's Vintage seems rather to signify execution of Judgements, because that is the usual Employ of Angels; but those things I cannot so well judge of, till I have better studied the whole Apocalypse. One thing, Sir, I will a little discourse of, which concerns the latter part thereof. It is an Antichristian Polity that is to be destroyed, pretendedly or after a sort Religious. Now it concerns us to consider after what manner such religious Polities are destroyed according to the usual Method of Providence. The Judaical Polity was very like the Roman. ᶜ Now their religious Polity was destroyed by the destruction of their Temple, City, Priesthood, and the like. Wherefore Interpreters have applied that Prophecy, Gen. 49.10. of the sceptre's departing from Judah, to the destruction of the Jewish State by the destruction of their City and Temple. ᵈ Cardinal Perron considers the City-Church of Rome as Central to the whole diffusive Church of Rome. ᵉ It seems by the language of the Apocalypse, that Providence designs the destruction of that Material City of Rome, and its inhabiting Sacerdotal Polity both together, and not one alone. ᶠ Which if it were destroyed, there could be no such thing in rerum natura as a Church of Rome or Roman Communion, no more than the Jewish Ecclesiastic State could exist when their City and Sacerdotal inhabiting Polity was destroyed. ᵍ In Rev. 17. v. ult. it is the City of Rome that is spoken of, for that City than reigned over the Kings of the Earth. After the mention of this City immediately follows that Cry, Rev. 18.2. Babylon the great is fallen, and that other monitory Voice, v. 4. Come out of her, my people, etc. After which follows a large and pompous description of her destruction. ʰ These things bear hard, Sir, towards that sense of the Prophecy, that the ruin of that Material City is intended as well as of the Sacerdotal Polity that inhabits it. You see, Sir, I have done what I can to deserve the name of a Literalist, but in a great Mundane Polity that is to be destroyed, and Cardinal Pallavicino pleads that such it ought to be.  
Answ. ᵃ The Text of the dead dying in the Lord does questionless refer to times of Martyrdom and Persecution, and that after the Rising of the Witnesses as well as before; but whether greater or more frequent than those before, that the Text does not define. ᵇ That the Angel's Vintage should rather signify Execution of Judgements, because performed by Angels, I see not any reason for that, since all performances are imputed to Angels here in the Apocalypse; though this Vintage also proves a Judgement to the City of Babylon.  
ᶜ There is not the same reason of the destruction of the Jewish religious Polity and the Roman. Because the Jewish Religion did essentially respect their City and Temple, and it was a Topical Religion. But the Roman Religion is the pretended Catholic Religion, nor confined to one City or Temple. It was as much the Roman or Papal Religion when the Pope was at Avignion, as when he was at Rome. If the Papal Hierarchy be kept up, whatever becomes of Rome, that which is now called the Roman Religion is kept up: as the Peripatetic Philosophy is the same, and still continues, though Aristotle's Peripatus in Athens perished many Ages ago. And so, vice versâ, the Roman Religion now so called, the Papal Hierarchy once dissolved, though Rome stood firm, would be utterly destroyed. ᵈ And this may serve for an Answer to Cardinal Perron's Conceit also which you cited. ᵉ Nor does the language of the Apocalypse imply the destruction of the Material City of Rome, but of the Sacerdotal Polity denominated from thence. The destruction of Babylon in a literal sense is no more understood, than the Fabric of the New Jerusalem. How Hylastick the Style of the Apocalypse is, is exceeding obvious to any one that observes it. ᶠ And a man may as well say, there is no Peripatetic Philosophy remaining, the Peripatus at Athens being destroyed, as that there would be no Roman Church, Rome being destroyed. ᵍ Nor was it a City of stones that reigned over the Kings of the Earth, in the times of Paganism, but the Roman Polity, and therefore it must be the Pontifician Polity under Paganochristianism that must be understood of Babylon, whose lamentable downfall is described Chap. 18. and which God's people are warned to come out of. For if it was meant of coming out of that Material City of Rome, what a small pittance of people would that Cry concern in comparison of the whole extent of the Pontifician Polity. ʰ But I believe the Objector has rather acted the part of a Literalist, to see what I would say to it, than seriously urged these Arguments for a Material Ruin of Rome, of which the Prophecy gives no assurance. And therefore he is the best Interpreter that declines what is at least uncertain, and contents himself with what is certainly contained in the Vision.   

CHAP. XLI. A brief Account of the thirteonth Chapter of the Apocalypse. An Answer to six Arguments from a witty hand, whereby he would prove against Mr. Mede, that that Image of the Beast mentioned Apoc. 13.14. is not the Ten-horned Beast, but rather an Image of that Ten-horned Beast restored.  
BEfore we propound and answer his Arguments, this brief Account of this thirteenth Chapter is to be considered; viz. That from v. 1. to v. 11. the State of the Roman Empire Re-paganizing in Idolatry and Blood is set out. Which Idolatry and Cruelty are the most lively Lineaments of the old Roman Pagan Empire. From v. 11. to the end there is a description of another Beast that has the power of a Magician or Conjurer for doing strange Feats, through whose Agency the former Beast with ten Horns became what he was, so Idolatrous and persecutive a Beast, hugely resembling the Roman Pagan Empire in Idolatry and Cruelty. This is the general sum of the Chapter, which is natural and unforced, and which therefore made that excellent Interpreter Mr. Jos. Mede make the Image of the Beast to be the Ten-horned Beast, which I doubt not at all, but that it is true. Now let us hear what this witty Man says to the contrary. The Image of the Beast, says he, cannot be the Ten-horned Beast for these Reasons.  
Arg. 1. Because the Ten-horned Beast, v. 1. was like a Leopard, and Re-paganized v. 2. and consequently was an Image of the Pagan Draconick Beast before the Image, v. 14. was made.  
Answ. In this therefore we are both agreed, That the Ten-horned Beast described in the forepart of the Chapter, is indeed a lively Image of the Pagan Draconick Beast. But I deny that this Image was before that Image mentioned v. 14. but it is the very same Image, of which afterwards an account is given how it became such, namely, that the Artificer was the two-horned Beast, and this the Effect and Object of his Art, so that the Method is easy and warrantable according to that general Analyse which I did premise. For the Ten-borned Beast being indeed so living an Image of the old Pagan Draconick Empire, and here we finding in the second part of the Chapter an Artificer wonderfully skilful at making of Images, how naturally is it suggested that this is the Artificer that made that lively Image of the old Pagan Empire represented in the sore-part of the Chapter, and this the Magician indeed that raised this dead Beast to life again, conveying a Spirit into him to the wonderment of the World.  
Arg. 2. In these words [The Beast and his Image] Mr. Mede saith by the Beast is meant the two-horned Beast, and by his Image the Ten-horned Beast, who is said to be the two-horned Beast his Image, because he created him an Image of the Draconick Beast. But these words are but the same as to say [The Beast and the Image of the Beast] Now the word [Beast] in those words. [The Image of the Beast, Chap. 13.15.] does certainly signify the Ten-horned Beast. (Compare the 14, and 15 Verses) who being the first and of the most noble Extraction, is the fittest to be called the Beast demonstratively, with an Article prefixed: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Beast.  
Answ. I deny that the Beast and his Image are the same that the Beast and the Image of the Beast, and that [Beast] in those words [the Image of the Beast, Chap. 13.15.] does signify the Ten-horned Beast in this thirteenth Chapter. In those words [The Beast and his Image] Beast there signifies the two-horned Beast, and his Image the ten-horned Beast restored by him: But [Beast] in those words [The Image of the Beast, Chap. 13.15.] signifies the red Dragon that had his deadly wound in his fight with Michael, which wound the two-horned Beast healed. In [the Image made to the Beast, v. 14. and the Image made of the Beast, v. 15. there thrice repeated] Beast signifies the old Draconick Beast, not the Ten-horned Beast restored. And as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 14. (in those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which occurs so often afterwards, it is understood of the old Draconick Beast which is the Archetypon of which the Ten-horned Beast restored is but the Image. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies [to] or [for] or [in the behalf of] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the behalf of that eminent Beast the Dragon. So that the arguteness of this Argument is perfectly blown away.  
Arg. 3. Else the expression would be very uncouth, if sometimes by the Beast should be meant one thing, and sometimes another, like Dr. Hammond, who sometimes makes him Domitian, sometimes Diocletian, etc.  
Answ. I say there is no shifting in the Interpretation of this Chapter by Mr. Mede. For by Beast in the words [the Image of the Beast] is always understood the old Pagan Dragon, so that so harsh a comparison was not here apposite. But where [the Beast and his Image] occur in one contexture of speech, there indeed the Beast signifies the two-horned Beast, and his Image the ten-horned Beast. This has Mr. Mede declared with unexceptionable Judgement and Solidity.  
Arg. 4. Mr. Mede saith, that where the Beast is present together with the false Prophet, the Image of the Beast in the same construction of words is not to be found. 2. But whereas he addeth; As if there the Appellation of the Beast should serve the turn, why should that but serve the turn which is the Principal? 3. I see not how this concludeth, that the Ten-horned Beast is the Image of the Beast, but rather the contrary. 4. For if it had been said, The false Prophet and his Image, there might have been something in that; but they never being mentioned together, it is a sign they are for substance the same, or of very intimate Relation, as the Pope and his Clergy.  
Ans. We have distinguished this Argument into its parts, and we shall answer accordingly. To the first therefore I say, That Mr. Mede's Observation is true, and I will add the reason how it comes thus to pass, viz. Because there are but two Polities in the Pagano-Christian Empire, Sacerdotal and Secular, by Daniel resembled to the Clay and the Iron, and to the seeing Horn, (which is the pretended Seer or Prophet) and to the Horns without eyes. Wherefore those two being all, and the Prophet the seeing Horn, and the Beast, the ten Horns without eyes, there is no room for any third, which is neither of these, and therefore the Beast here is the Image of the Beast or Ten-horned Beast restored, as the false Prophet the two-horned Beast. To the second, Mr. Mede says, it serves the turn, Beast being a briefer expression than the Image of the Beast, but they signify the same thing, nor is one more principal than the other, as is apparent out of what I have answered to the second Argument. To the third I say, That this doth conclude the ten-horned Beast to be the Image of the Beast, because, as I said before, there be but two Polities or Powers, Sacerdotal or Secular, and the false Prophet standing for the one, it is plain the Beast must stand for the other, namely, the restored Ten-horned Beast, restored, I say, into the similitude of the Idolatry and Cruelty of the old Pagan Empire. And therefore that Secular Beast that synchronizes with the false Prophet being the Image, it is superfluous to call him so, the thing inferring itself. To the fourth and last part, That out of what has been said, I say it is evident, that in the mentioning together the false Prophet and the Beast, there is no mention of the Image of the Beast, because the Image of the Beast and the ten-horned Beast restored, are for substance, nay, are altogether the same, but not the Prophet and the Image of the Beast the same, as if the Pope was the Image of that Beast so made by his Clergy.  
Arg. 5. The Image is most properly the Image of that Beast to whom it was made, and whom it did resemble, but the Image did resemble the ten-horned Beast, as I have showed before, and was made to him, Chap. 13.14. saying that they should make an Image to the Beast which had the wound by the Sword and did live. 2. Therefore Mr. Mede is here constrained to make a great Ellipsis before the last Clause, viz. as if it had been said, And they did so, and he lived. 3. Lest the Clause should refer to the cure of the wound, which makes against Mr. Mede, as may appear from my first Argument. 4. But I disprove this: First, because it is made his Character before v. 12. that his deadly wound was healed from v. 3. Secondly, because the living of the Image is spoken of in the words immediately following. Thirdly, if those Copies which read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be admitted, the matter is out of doubt.  
Answ. To the first part I answer, That the Image was not made to the Ten-horned restored Beast, but to the Ten-horned Dragon wounded and slain in his fight with Michael. For so it is plainly said v. 14. that they should make an Image to the Beast which had the wound with the Sword. Which for certain was the Dragon, and consequently the Ten-horned restored Beast must be this Image the Two-horned Beast caused to be made. To the second, That it is no great Ellipsis, or rather a very little one or none at all, the sense being so obvious and plain as it is. That they should make an Image to the Beast which had the wound by the Sword, And he lived. How natural and plain is the sense (to have interposed, [and they did so] had been a superfluous bungle, at least it had been a breach in the Artifice of the Cortex, which is so framed, as to slur the heedless Reader.) And he lived, that is, He revived again in the living Image of himself. To the third, I say the Clause does refer to the cure of the wound, for it implies the reviving of the whole Beast. For so much imports 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And as for the first Argument, I have answered it above. And to the fourth part I answer, That none of those Reasons prove that the Ten-horned Beast was restored before the two-horned Beast restored him in this living Image he made of the wounded Dragon. Where note by the buy, That there is no description of the manner nor means of his Restauration, unless this be it. And it is in the 12. verse, that his Restauration and Conservation in that state is compendiously, and as it were in the Sum represented. See my Paraphrase on the Verse. But as for the living of the Image being spoken of in the words immediately following, if he refers to v. 15. the word there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we render Life, but it may be as well rendered Breath in reference to speaking, which is a further degree and operation of life, and therefore rightly follows so close to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And lastly for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if that Reading were admitted, it would do no prejudice to Mr. Mede; but according to the richness of the expression, sometimes, of the Scripture, it would illustrate one thing by two Metaphors at once, and so the Two-horned Beast would seem to do the office of both a Chirurgeon and Conjurer at once; of a Chirurgeon in healing the deadly wound of the Sword, of a Magician or Conjurer in making the dead Dragon appear alive in a breathing and speaking Image.  
Arg. 6. Lastly, Mr. Mede argues very well, That of the selfsame is the Image of the Beast said to be of whom is the Name and the Number, Chap. 15.2. But I say the Name and the Number is of the Ten-horned Beast, Chap. 13.18. See the Context and the following Note. 2. And his Number is 666. The chief meaning must of necessity be Six in opposition to Twelve, the Apostolical Number, because of the six Idolatrous Heads, of which the sixth bears the Whore; which I prove thus: The Empire was not totally destroyed by the Ostrogoths, but only wounded. Who can doubt but the Monarchical Government of England is the same now that it was before Cromwell? Or thus, 3. The Head that was cured bears the Whore, this none will deny; but the Head that was wounded is the same with that which was cured. For it is unreasonable to give one man a Cut upon the Head, and lay a plaster on another man's head. Therefore the Head that was wounded, that is the sixth Head, or that of Emperors bears the Whore. 4. Note, That 144000 is not a square, but a multiplication of 12, and so is 666 of six. And see Dan. 3.1. where Nebuchadnezzar's Image, which was undoubtedly a Type of this, was sixty Cubits high, and six broad; And it falls out handsomely, that the Apostatical Number should be half of the Apostolical, because the Apostates had about the half of the Apostolical Truth, viz. they spoke half Canaan and half Ashdod, etc.  
Answ. To the first I say, That the Context shows the Number to be the Number of the two-horned Beast. For it is the Image of the Beast that causes all to receive, by his coercive power, the mark of the two-horned Beast. For of the two-horned Beast and the Image he made does all the second part of the Chapter run. And therefore the Beast must be understood of the Two-horned Beast, not of the Ten-horned Beast, and the Number to be his and the Image his, as the Artificer thereof. 2. To the second, that I see no necessity of Six in opposition to Twelve, it had been rather Seven, (viz. 777.) there being just seven Idolatrous Heads of the Beast, Chap. 13.1. or seven Idolatrous Kings, Chap. 17.10. and the Apostolical and Apostatical opposition also appearing under the seventh Head, the Whore riding the Beast under that same Head, not under the sixth. Nor is the deadly Wound on the Head of the Beast by the Ostrogoths, but by Michael in his fight with the red Dragon. He that does not see that, must be stark blind in Apocalyptick Notions. To bring in the Ostrogoths here, is as if one stuffing a Pillow with feathers, should so forget himself, as to stodge in pieces of Brick or Day. 3. To the third I say, It is a mere inelegant Quibble. Inelegant, in that it makes the Whore a Pail of Milk as it were born upon the Head of the Beast. A Quibble, in that he would have it as if one man's Head were cut, and another man's Head had the plaster applied to it: whenas it is not one Beast's Head wounded, and another Beast's Head healed, but the Head of one and the same Beast is both wounded and healed. For it being one and the same individual Beast in succession, so it is one and the same Head (or supreme Power) though under a sevenfold Modification, and they are called seven Heads only in that respect. But one and the same Beast has still one and the same Head, that is, his own Head, not the Head of another Beast, as this Quibble fancies two Heads of two several men, one wounded, but the other plastered. But the Beast, Chap. 13. being represented with his Head healed, which ipso facto is the seventh Modification of the Head, and that under which the Beast bears the Whore (which expression implies it to be for substance the same Head) agrees well with that of Chap. 17. where the Beast is called the Beast that was, is not, and yet is: which imports that he is the same Beast, as the Head the same, but healed from its wound with the Scar of Christianity upon it, though so grossly grown into Pagan-like Idolatries. Whence it is plain, the Number 666 has no reference to the Ten-horned Beast restored, else it should have been 777. Besides, what wisdom would there be in counting this Number? etc. 4. To the fourth; I grant that 144000 is made by 12 into 12000, and 666 by 6 into 111, but in the mean time it is undeniable but that 144 Chiliarchies or Regiments, which have the nature of Vnits in this case, and that 666 propounded alone, is to be numbered by extracting the square Root thereof, neither 6 nor 111 being given to divide it by, nor both to produce it. And that one should say that the Image that Nabuchadnezzar set up was undoubtedly a Type of this, seems a piece of such Levity as hugely misbecomes any serious Interpreter of the Apocalypse. Nor is there any handsomeness in six, the Apostatick Number being half of twelve the Apostolic Number. For the Apostatick Church, if you compare the Apostolic Doctrines of it with themselves, it has all of them; but if with Apostatick or corrupt Doctrines, the Apostolic is not the tenth part of the Apostatick. But besides the weakness of all these Arguments, it is impossible the Pope should be the Image of the Ten-horned Beast restored, the Pope's being single Persons, but the Ten-horned Beast, a Body Politic.   

CHAP. XLII. Nine Arguments out of Socinians and other Sectaries, whereby they would prove the first Imperial Council, Anno Dom. 326. to be the Epocha of the time of the Witnesses till their Rising. With Answers to each Argument.  
IN Arithmetica Apocalyptica upon the third Query I have fixed and settled the Epocha of the Apostasy with all care and circumspection I could, and there, I hope, upon very good grounds concluded, That the true and precise Epocha of the Apostasy of the mournful Witnesses, and indeed of all the Medial Visions is to be pitched in the year of our Lord 393. Wherefore we are concerned to answer these nine Arguments that would infer it to be in the year 326. which are as follows.  
Arg. 1. The first Imperial Council made the Empire a National Church, and so most fit to be called a Beast.  
Answ. The Jewish Church under their Kings was a National Church, and yet no Beast. Idolatry and Cruelty make the Beast, not one public National Confession of Faith. It is against the very Light and Law of Nature that the Supreme Power in any Kingdom should not look after Religion, and make Laws and Orders concerning it, so far as consists with the just Liberties of truly conscientious men, nor are repugnant to the written Law of God, whether in Scripture or in Humane Souls. This is so consistent with Christianity, that I do not doubt but the Holy City in the Millennium will be built by a Council truly Holy, and truly Ecumenical.  
Arg. 2. This Imperial Council confessedly added to the Creed.  
Answ. What the Council of Nice concluded concerning the Divinity of Christ and Triunity of the Godhead, was no addition to the Creed or Canonical Scripture, but only an Explication made for the quieting of the Church, and burying that Flood of Contention wherewith the Dragon would have overwhelmed the Church. And therefore no Pride, Fraud, nor Covetousness being underneath, but a sincere study of preserving the Church in Peace, and of exhibiting such a Form of Faith as was least obnoxious to the Cavils of the Heathen, as if the Christians worshipped more Gods than one, or any thing that was not God, we have no reason to question but Christ assisted and directed that Council in their determinations according to his promise.  
Arg. 3. That this Council has been of greatest Authority, and most dangerous to be opposed.  
Answ. I do not see how this derogates any thing from the worthiness of the Council, so that it should be made the Epocha of the time of the mournful Witnesses till their Rising. Certainly it is as dangerous to oppose the Apostles Creed, and yet I think no man will deem it a fit Epocha for the time of the mournful Witnesses.  
Arg. 4. The Council of Nice set the first Horn on the Ecclesiastic Beast, the other not by full Authority till Anno 380. or rather 451. A Beast may be a Beast without one Horn, or with none; but he cannot have an Horn and be no Beast.  
Answ. The Patriarchate of Rome, and that other of Constantinople, that they be the two Horns of the two-horned Beast, Apoc. 13. I easily admit. But so soon as they were two Summities or Preeminences Ecclesiastical, that they were necessarily ipso facto two Horns in that worse sense, that I deny. For neither embodying into a Polity, or having Superiorities and Preeminences make Beasts and Horns, but only Idolatry and Cruelty. But the degeneracy of the Church into Idolatry was a pretty while after the Nicene Council. It commenced with the Beast that was, is not, and yet is. And he commenced with the breaking of the Empire into several Kingdoms, which was after the Nicene Council, and the first Constantinopolitan also.  
Arg. 5. The Dragon stood before the Woman that was ready to be delivered, to devour the Child as soon as it was born, Chap. 12.4. The Child was born in the Conversion of Constantine. Therefore the Re-paganizing of the Church must be presently after, and so was the flight of the Woman into the Wilderness.  
Answ. The Dragon stood ready to devour the Child so soon as it was born, but no Text says he did devour it so soon as it was born, but quite contrary, that it was caught up to the Throne of God, and possessed the Imperial Crown, and the Woman also escaped by her flight into the Wilderness. An Attempt does not at all infer an effect. I understand no force at all in this Argument.  
Arg. 6. This gives a good account of the universal Woe, Chap. 12.12. which seems to come in strangely after those words of Triumph preceding. For the Devils Pagan Worship must quickly have come to an end by the Conversion of Constantine, if he could not in that short time have turned off Constantine from the Faith or Re-paganized the Christians. And the greatness of his wrath shows he was likely to make quick dispatch.  
Answ. I answer, (1) That that Woe is not universal; Earth and Sea not comprehending all the parts of a Political World. There are Heavens besides that are bid to rejoice at this defeat by the Conversion of Constantine. The vulgar people are Earth and Sea, and amongst them the Devil was resolved to bestir himself. (2) The short time he had to turn himself in, is in reference to the keeping up his old Draconick Religion. He must either do it before the Woman go into the Wilderness, or else never. And therefore that flood of Contention was to turn off the Populacy from Christianity, and make them adhere to the old Pagan Religion. But for Re-paganizing the Empire become Christian, his time was not short for that; he carrying on and perfecting that project for many hundred years. (3) And last, The greatness of his wrath only shows the greatness of his straits, not the quickness of his success in those designs of either upholding the old Paganism, or introducing a new one. In the former whereof he is quite defeated, and in perfecting the latter his progress was but slow when once begun, nor begun till about four hundred years after Christ, when the Empire begun to be broken into many Kingdoms.  
Arg. 7. In this way we need not go to the uncertain Conjectures of proportion betwixt the inner and outer Court from Villalpandus, or arbitrarily fix on such an Epocha as will best suit with our own Opinions. For the state and times of the Church before and after Constantine are signally distinguished of themselves with reference to the Altar, Chap. 11.1. as the Symbol of Martyrdom.  
Answ. I say, (1) That the proportion of the inner and outer Court of the Temple, namely, the Area's of them in Villalpandus, are not uncertain. And it is the Area's of them by a Metonymia Adjuncti that are conceived to be measured. The square Area of the whole Temple in the largest sense is conceived to be cast into nine square Areolae of equal bigness. Two of which are the Area's of the inner Court, the rest of the outer. Whence the inner to the outer is as two to seven. And it is Ezekiel's Temple questionless that the Apocalypse alludes to, and none else: As the description of the Trees and the River, Apoc. 22. is from thence. And the thing is so phrased, according to the Artifice of the Apocalyptick Style, that both the proportion of the Time of the Non-Apostasie and Apostasy, and also the Non-Apostate and Apostate Condition of the Church is insinuated. For his being bid to measure the inner Court, shows the Symmetricalness of that State of the Church, but the rejecting the outer Court from being measured, intimateth its Incommensurableness or Asymmetry to the Measure. But the naming the forty two months it was to be trodden down gives a third Term, whereby we may gather the time the Church was not yet trodden down by the Gentiles. For as the outer Court is to the inner, so is forty two months' time to the Time sought for, which is twelve months. Thus, As 7 to 2, so 42 to 12. The time therefore of the Non-Apostate Church is one entire Time or two Semitimes. (2) And this plainly hinders us from seeking such an Epocha as will best suit with our own Opinions; this fixing the time to near about four hundred years after Christ. And Chemnitius who knew nothing of this, does place the Apostasy of the Church about that time: which is a thing very considerable. And besides, no man that understands himself in Apocalyptick Notions, can fix the Apostatick Epocha where he pleases, the Apocalypse itself having fixed it to the beginning of the healed Beast and of the Beast that was, is not, and yet is. Which gins with the breaking of the Empire into many Kingdoms, which breaking begun about the time abovesaid. And then (3) and last, Though there was indeed at Constantine's Conversion a signal Change of Affairs in the Church, yet that was not the healing of the Beast, but the mortiferously wounding the Dragon, of which the Witnesses did not complain, but of his healing again. And the mentioning the Altar does not imply that the Times of Martyrdom were the only Symmetral Times of the Church, but that the Symmetral Times of the Church did comprehend those Times also. And though it was no long time, yet there was a time for the seventh King the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reign, before the Beast that was, is not, and yet is, was to come upon the Stage. Therefore these are two signal differences of Time noted in the Apocalypse, the Non-Apostasie and Apostasy of the Church, from the entrance of the latter of which the middle Synchronals are to commence, and not from the ceasing of the Persecutions by the Pagan Dragon.  
Arg. 8. The Atrium or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Court without doth elegantly express the place of the Imperial Throne, as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Temple was the place of God's Throne in his Church which is his Temple.  
Answ. I see no Elegancy in making the outer Court the Imperial Throne, forasmuch as the Atrium of the Temple was not the place of the Throne of the Kings of Israel, but a Porch which Solomon built in his own House of the Forest of Lebanon for the Throne of Judgement, 1 Kings 7.7. And besides, the Church was not less 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Throne of God less in it for Constantine's being converted to Christianity, or for his calling a general Council for the Peace of the Church. Nor was he inferior to any of the Bishops for prudence and moderation, that the Church should be in a worse condition for his being the Head thereof.  
Arg. 9 The last Argument is the Completion of the Prophecy so exactly, not only by Semitimes, but likewise by Months, Calvin's improvement of the Reformation falling out in the two last months, or rather last month, and a greater light of improvement in the last Decade, or last of the twelve hundred and sixty days, which end in the Year 1586. when the Poland Reformers were in their prime, in that last Act opposing the first Act of the Ecclesiastic Beast.  
Answ. That the Completion should be to a month or a day, is but a precarious Supposition. Besides that we have demonstrated to the contrary in Chap. 25. That not a Prophetical Day nor a Month, but a Semitime, is the Unite for computing the Time of the Event in the Medial Visions. And being the Rising of the Witnesses began with Luther, Anno 1517. and according to this Epocha is finished Anno 1586. this yet is a demonstration against the Opposer himself, that a month cannot be the Unite of measuring this Event, the difference betwixt 1517. and 1586. being more than two Prophetical Months. And therefore much less can a Decade be the Unite, the difference containing even almost seven Decades. And now for that which pretends to be the Cream of this ninth Argument, as if the Event of the Rising of the Witnesses were crowned and completed exactly in the Poland Reformers, viz. the Socinians, in the last single year of the 1260, viz. Anno 1586. to me it seems a strong Argument against this Epocha of 326, when the Nicene Council sat, it being not likely that Providence would countenance so gross an Heresy with so accurate an Hit in the Event; An Heresy that runs counter not only to the Universal Profession of the Church, but to plain Scripture itself. For as for the Divinity of the Logos, it is manifestly set down in the beginning of S. John's Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Nor can it be evaded by saying, the Word is God by Union with God. For it is as senseless as if one should conclude the Body a Spirit, because it is united with the Soul that is a Spirit. And then for the Trinity, it is plainly declared by our Saviour himself, in his commanding them to preach to all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And the first part of the Doxology, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, was in use in the Church before the Nicene Council, as you may see in Seth Calvisius. But this is not a place to insist on these things. The Socinian is a very straitlaced Gentleman, of a narrow Sphere, and unphilosophical Genius, of a maimed or depraved perception and inept to conceive any substance that is immaterial, and their Ringleader Socinus so unfit for Theosophy or Theology, that contrary to express Scripture, he denied God to be knowable by the Light of Nature: a fit Generation of men to consummate the Reformation touching the deep Mysteries of the Divinity of Christ and Triunity of the Godhead, and to have their Authority opposed to that of the Nicene Council. But (2) besides this, the Council of Nice was not held Anno 326. but Anno 325. in the twentieth year of Constantine, Paulinus and Julianus being Consuls. So that this accuracy to a single year vanishes. (3) Socinus his setting foot in Poland was some years before 1586. and the prevailing of the Socinians so as to be in their Acme or Prime there, a lubricous thing to determine to a year. (4) But Christianus Elector of Saxony reforms his Country just in the year 1586. and in the Orthodox way of Melancthon, etc. which shows further the weakness of this last Argument. (5) If the 326. year after Christ were the Epocha of the Rising of the Witnesses, it making the twelve hundred and sixty days Prophetical reach but to the year 1586. it will fall short of some Specimina of their Rising, as that in Bohemia where Mattathias grants liberty of Religion in the year 1608. And lastly, Whereas, Apoc. 2.28. there is promised to him that overcomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which respects the Sardian Church and Rising of the Witnesses into Rule and Honour; for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prematurity and a surprising or unexpected timeliness of the Event; this Epocha casts the beginning of the Event after almost two thirds of the last Semitime or Hexamenon were expired. So inauspicious an Epocha every way is the 326. year of our Lord for the time of the Witnesses till their Rising.   

CHAP. XLIII. Certain odd Glosses on v. 8, v. 10, and v. 11. of the seventeenth Chapter of the Apocalypse. Upon v. 8. That was, is not, and yet is, with an Answer thereto. How Dr. More, according to his Sentiments, disposes of the Arrian Emperors and of Julian the Apostate. Upon v. 10. And there are seven Kings. An Answer to the Gloss. Upon v. 11. He is the eighth. The Gloss and the Answer thereunto.  
THE Text and Gloss on v. 8. That was, is not, and yet is. The same Empire was before Augustulus, was not under the Ostrogothian Kings, and was recovered again by Justinian. This Exposition does not exclude an Ecclesiastical sense of Rome, as Pagan, Christian and Re-paganized. But it is not so proper to substitute a Body mystical or a Quality instead of a Body Politic, as Rome was under the rest of the Heads. And so for the Ecclesiastical sense or pure Caesar, the time of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be short indeed, viz. confined to some part of Constantine's Reign. Nor do I see how Dr. More, according to his Sentiments, can well dispose of the Arian Emperors, and Julian the Apostate.  
Answ. I say, (1) That the Beast that was, is not, and yet is, is the same that ascends out of the bottomless Pit, and whom the Inhabitants of the Earth shall wonder after, whose names are not writ in the Book of life. Which therefore plainly concerns Religion, not the Civil State. And besides, it is the whole Roman Empire (as appears by the Ten Horns, of which the Ostrogothian Kings are one) in a new disguise. (2) We cannot say under the Ostrogothian Kings the Roman Ten-horned Empire was not, for it was then, as before Augustulus. Nor after the Recovery by Justinian, that the Empire is not (as then) and yet is, viz. as to Civil Constitution, which the Glosser aims at. For the Roman Laws and Magistrates were supported by the Ostrogothian Kings, as you may see in Carolus Sigonius, De Imperio Occidentali, lib. 15, 16. (3) The true Exposition does not only not exclude the Ecclesiastical, but shows that it alone is the right meaning, this other being so exceeding weak and vain. For can it be said of that Civil Recovery by Justinian, that all the Inhabitants of the Earth, whose Names were not writ in the Book of life, would wonder after it, or after that Civil Beast of Justinian's Recovery? (4) The Ecclesiastic sense does not put a Quality instead of a Body Politic, but shows the Qualifications of the Body Politic and the Head. And it is further observable. That the Red Dragon, quatenus wounded in the Head by the Conversion of Constantine, was in the Glosser's sense a Mystical Body, that is, a Religious Body, Paganly Religious, and in that sense wounded in his Fight with Michael, and in his Head mystically also, Constantine turning Christian. Who therefore is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a quite different King from the seven Kings that answer to the seven Heads of the Beast. (5) And this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his time indeed is short according to the Text. But I deny that it is confined to some time of Constantine's Reign, but reaches to the succession of the Head of the Beast that was, is not, and yet is. Which is the Time of the Empire's Division into ten Kingdoms. For they receive their Kingdoms at the same hour with this Beast. This is inevitably plain, from which there is no subterfuge, and is an undeniable Testimony for the Symmetricalness of the Church for about four hundred years after Christ. (6) Dr. More, according to his Sentiments, can dispose very dextrously both of the Arians and of Julian the Apostate. For first for Julian the Apostate, his time was exceeding short, so that after the deadly wound of the Pagan Head by Constantine's Conversion, this little short Reign of Julian a Pagan Emperor was but as it were a short Throb or gasp of the mortally wounded Head, after which it quite died, till it was healed by the Apostasy into a kind of Paganochristianism. (7) And last, for the Arian Emperors, they kept this Head in death sufficiently, in that they were zealous Christians, not Pagan's nor Pagano Christians by worshipping Daemons and Images of those Daemons or Saints. And as for that gross Arianism (which when it was at grossest, worshipped no Object but what they conceived the Maker of Heaven and of Earth) it was huffed off the Stage betimes. And none of these Arians denied the first Chapter of S. John's Gospel, where the Deity of the Logos was expressly signified, only their weakness could not reach the full sense of so deep a Mystery, as it proved to them. And those more refined Arians, how near they were to the Truth, or how near they might be understood to have come to the Truth, and that it might be proved to be rather a frabble of words than a distinct disagreement of senses, it were too operose a matter to declare here. How much some Fathers have cried out against the overmuch curiosity of Definitions by Councils, History will teach us. See what is attempted Chap. 40.  
The Text and Gloss on v. 10. And there are seven Kings. This is in effect to say, The seven Heads are seven Kings, and but seven Kings. That as the first Head is the first King, so is the seventh Head the seventh King.  
Answ. The seven Heads indeed are seven Kings, that is, the seven Heads of the Beast are so, and also but seven Kings. And as the first Head is the first King that answers to that first Head of the Beast, so is the seventh Head of the Beast the seventh King that answers to the seventh Head of the Beast. But there being a time when the Empire was not Idolatrous, and consequently not a Beast, but having then also a King (or Head, but not of the Beast) the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a King, the seventh King of the Roman Empire (though no King or Head of the Beast) and numbered expressly in the Text in the seventh place, and the succeeding King called the eighth, it is manifest there are eight Kings, though but seven Heads of the Beast. What can be more plain?  
The Text and Gloss upon v. 11. He is the eighth. He does not say the eighth King or Sovereign, but by reason of the sixth Head reviving, he is as it were an eighth King or an eighth Head, but not otherwise. For there were but seven Heads and seven Kings: and that this Beast redivive was not the eighth King and seventh Head, as Dr. More saith, I have proved before. And it is further proved by the following words, viz. And is of the seven: which was not proper, if he was not the seventh.  
Answ. You say he does not say the eighth King: (1) What does he say then? He says five Kings are fallen, one King is, and another is to come, which plainly is the seventh. And then he says, The Head of the Beast that was and is not, he is the eighth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Masculine gender. If he be not the eighth King, what eighth is he? Or what can be said more expressly? Nay, the Text has it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By which plainly is intimated, that he is both the eighth King, and also one of the seven Kings represented by the seven Heads of the Beast, which are Idolatrous Heads. So distinct and exquisite is this Prophetical Declaration. (2) This eighth King is the sixth Head revived together with the Beast, that is, is the seventh Head of the Beast Re-paganizing. (3) But he is an eighth King, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the seventh his immediate Predecessor. A man must be wilfully blind that does not see this. nor does it follow, because there were but seven Kings that answer to the seven Heads of the Beast, therefore there are but seven Kings in all, whenas the Angel expressly reckons eight. (4) Nor has he proved before that the Head of the Beast redivive is not the eighth King and seventh Head, as appears from what has been said above. (5) And for his last proof it is wondrous weak; as if, because he is said to be one of the seven Kings answering to the seven Heads of the Beast, and the same with them, he may not be the eighth King in respect of the pure Christian Caesars, which were the seventh King of the Empire when it ceased to be a Beast. It is very Emphatical here to say, [and is one of the seven] it insinuating this sense, That though the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the immediately foregoing King belong not to the number of the seven Kings represented by the seven Heads of the Beast, yet this eighth King does belong thereto, and so makes the seventh of those seven.   

CHAP. XLIV. An Objection against the placing of the Epocha of the Apostasy in the year 393. as from other Topics, so from Rome 's not being till some hundreds of years later than so, guilty of bloodshed. Certain premises set down in order to an Answer to the Objection. An Answer to the first Part thereof. An Answer to the second. An Answer to the third about Idolatry. To the fourth about Bloodshed, showing that Visions touching the Apostasy are not confined to Rome, but respect the whole Sacerdotal Hierarchy of the Empire, and that Apostatick Cruelty consists not only in Bloodshed, but in other Injuries and Violences. Many Examples produced of both, even from the beginning of the Apostasy to the year 797.  
IN the last Chapter but one I answered nine Arguments, whereby some Sectaries would prove that the Epocha of the Time of the Witnesses till their Rising is in the year 326. contrary to what we have determined in Arithmetica Apocalyptica, where from the proportion of the outer Court to the inner, we conclude the Epocha to be in the year 393. which is sixty seven years later than the former Epocha. And yet there are those that think it still set much too high. For the complaint of the Witnesses being touching the Apostasy, and the Apostasy consisting mainly of these two Parts, Idolatry and Cruelty, the Intervals of Time do not agree with the truth of the History. For after the 393 years, if the Apostasy began then, it must be now ᵃ ended, since it was to last but 1260 years; neither was there any considerable ᵇ mutation either after the year 393, or the year 1653. which is the year wherein the 1260 days Prophetical expire. ᶜ Besides, Idolatry came not into the Church for near 360 years after this Epocha, not till the beginning of the eighth Century. So what shall be made of that Interval? ᵈ And it was almost 400 years after that, in the end of the eleventh Century, that the Church of Rome was guilty of shedding of blood. So to make an Apostasy to begin so early, whose two chief Characters appeared not till many Ages after, seems not very probable. This will seem a material Objection at first sight. But we must premise some few things for the better clearing thereof. As,  
First, That though it has pleased the Spirit of Prophecy to intimate to us from the proportion of the outer Court to the inner the very year wherein commences the first Semitime of the seven, yet it does not thence follow, that a year is the exact Unite in the Eventual measures of the Medial Visions. We have demonstrated that a Semitime or Hexamenon is the Unite in the Eventual measures of those Visions, Chap. 25.  
Secondly, That the Medial Visions point not at the final or consummate Ruin of Antichrist, but at a partial Ruin of him, there is but a partial Fall of the City Babylon at the Rising of the Witnesses, Apoc. 11.13. See Synopsis Prophetica, Book 2. c. 7.  
Thirdly, The Reader is to remember, That by the two-horned Beast. Apoc. 13. and by the Whore of Babylon riding the Ten-horned Beast, Chap. 17. I do not understand the Papal Hierarchy precisely, but the whole Sacerdotal Hierarchy at large, as well Eastern as Western, once lapsed into the Apostasy. This is fully expressed by me in my Exposition of the Apocalypse, as any one may see that will consult it. The Visions indeed at last pinch closest upon the Roman Hierarchy, but the greatest part concerns the Apostatised Church and Empire, as well Oriental as Occidental.  
Fourthly, That the seventh Head of the Beast with which the Apostasy gins, is an Hieratico-political or Ecclesiastico-secular Head, and it is hard to find the Secular acting in matters of Religion without some or other of the Ecclesiastic countenancing the same. But whether one or both act at once from Apostatick Principles of Idolatry or Cruelty, it is a fitting Object of the mournful Testimony of the Witnesses.  
Fifthly and lastly, Where Episcopal Government obtains, where Paganism is cast out, where the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are acknowledged, and the Divinity of Christ and real Triunity of the Godhead professed, though not to the utmost accuracy of Orthodoxy, yet so so far, as there is nothing worshipped with Religious or Divine Worship, but what is justly conceived capable thereof, even from the very Testimony of Scripture: these men that thus profess and practise, are really and in truth Christians, and their Church and Polity Christian.  
Having premised thus much, we will consider the Objection in the main Particulars thereof.  
ᵃ The first is, That if the Apostasy began in the year 393. it must have quite been ended in the year 1653. when the 1260 Prophetical days do expire. But we answer to this out of the second Premiss, That the Medial Visions point not at the final or consummate Ruin of Antichrist, but partial. The Time of the Medial Visions is the Time of the entireness of his Kingdom before it was broken or considerably diminished by the Reformation.  
ᵇ To the second, That there was no considerable Mutation either after the year 393. or the year 1653. I say, the seeming force of this Objection is built upon a mistake, as if the Unite in the Eventual measuring of the Medial Visions were a Prophetic day or single year, whenas it is a Semitime or Hexamenon, according to the first Premiss. Wherefore if considerable Changes happened within the first Semitime and in the last, it is sufficient; As when the Eventual measure is by single years, if the thing fall out that denominates the Epocha of the Period of Time in the first year, and the Event in the last, it is sufficient, though not in the first day or month, or in the last day or month of the year. If the Epochal Note should fall out either before the beginning of the first Semitime, or the predicted Event after the last, then indeed it would be a flaw; but if within the first and the last, and that in handsome proportion, than all is right.  
ᶜ To the third, That Idolatry came not into the Church till the beginning of the eighth Century. This seems a very odd Objection, as if there were no Idolatry but mere Image-worship, whenas certainly the Invocation of any invisible created Powers, Saints or Angels, and to make them our Mahuzzim to put confidence in their Succour and Protection, is the Fundamental Idolatry upon which praying with eyes and hands lifted up to their Images, and other Superstitious or Idolatrous Rites done to them, are built. But that this kind of Idolatry began not long after the Epocha of 393. I have abundantly proved Chap. 28.  
ᵈ And to the fourth and last, That it was not till the end of the eleventh Century that the Church of Rome was guilty of shedding of blood; I answer out of my third Premiss, That my Interpretation of the 13. and 17. Chapters of the Apocalypse does not precisely and adequately respect the Church of Rome, but concerns the whole Sacerdotal Hierarchy of the Empire, and the whole Empire Eastern as well as Western, in which Division I take in the whole Empire; And the two wings of an Eagle, which were given the Woman to fly into the Wilderness, spread over all, Apoc. 12.14. Secondly, That that which is an eminent Character of a Body Politic, though it be not all along the Body Politic, yet in these Henopoetick Visions, will and may justly be represented in the Hieroglyphical Type, together with those Characters that continue from the beginning to the end, especially when the said Character continues for a considerable time, and according to the Objector's account it will have begun and continued 4 or 50● years, but I shall prove that this practice of Rome began several of hundreds of years sooner. Thirdly, Bloodshed is not the only Cruelty; outing men of their Preferments, imprisoning, banishing and reducing men to extreme Poverty and Beggary, are things as harsh in a manner as Death itself. Fourthly & lastly, Though we were destitute of History what was done after the Epocha of the Apostasy, 393. yet the carriage of the Arians and Orthodox one against another before, is so furious and severe, that we may guests from thence what would be done after the abovesaid Epocha. To particularise before this Epocha I shall forbear for brevity sake, and because it is the time I am less concerned in, the Apostasy not beginning till Idolatry was conjoined thereto. We will content ourselves to set down only such Instances of Cruelty and Persecution as are after that Epocha.  
In the first month (the seventh day of the month) of the first Hexamenon or Semitime, Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria holds a Synod there, and condemns Origen, and expels Origen's Followers out of Egypt and Palestine. One of the first occasions of this Pique against the Origenists was this: He invited to him four Brothers, Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius and Euthymius, who were Overseers of the Religious Houses in Egypt, men of singular Piety and Parts, and Lovers of Origen, from whom they were thoroughly convinced that God was incorporeal, nor had any parts nor members, as the Anthropomorphite Monks of Egypt thought he had, and did with zeal and fury profess as much. Theophilus made Dioscorus Bishop of Hermopolis, and the other three he importuned, and obtained of them to live with him. But these pious Monks being disgusted at the ill life of Theophilus, would stay no longer with him, but returned to their former Monastic Retirement. He smelling out the reason thereof, conceived a deadly hatred against them, and declared, against his own Conscience, for the Anthropomorphite Monks, and dissuaded them from obeying Dioscorus, and so set the Anthropomorphites and Origenists together by the ears. Socrates calls it Bellum pestiferum. And Theophilus coming with a Band of armed men to Nitria, a Mountain in Egypt, where there were many Monasteries, was there ready to assist the Anthropomorphites against the Origenists, and armed the Anthropomorphite Monks against Dioscorus and his Brethren, that they hardly escaped the danger of being slain. The business is more at large set down in Socrates his Ecclesiastic History, lib. 6. cap. 7. We see how timely the Hieratical Head made use of its power even tantum non to the effusion of blood. These banished Monks Dioscorus and his Brethren, conscious to themselves of their own Innocency, betook themselves to chrysostom at Constantinople for their redress; The fend of Theophilus follows them, and abusing the simplicity of Epiphanius, got him to be earnest with chrysostom to anathematise the Works of Origen, and send packing Dioscorus and his Brethren from Constantinople. And his malice wrought so far against chrysostom, who refused to comply with so unworthy a motion, that  
In the Year 403. or the eleventh day of the first month of the first Hexamenon, in a Synod of Bishop's ad Quercum, near Chalcedon, packed for the purpose, he got chrysostom deposed from his Patriarchate and banished; but there being an Earthquake that very night that the innocent Prelate was hurried away by the Soldiers, he was immediately by the Emperor's Command recalled to his Office and Mansion. The Story is at large set down in Spondanus. And in the twelfth day of this first month there was a Synod called at Constantinople, that again most unjustly deposed chrysostom, and he was with that violence torn from his dear Charge or Flock with Swords and Staves and Clubs, ut & ipsum Baptisterium cruore repletum fuerit, as Spondanus has it out of Palladius. Which is no contemptible Specimen of the Cruelty of the Hieratico-political Head of the Beast thus early after the Epocha of the Apostasy. And this very year what direful Persecutions they suffered that would not communicate with Arsacius that succeeded chrysostom, you may see in the same Author. In this same year 404. Alstedius tells us, Donatistae in Africa crudeliter saeviunt in Catholicos: Yet the Donatist Bishops with their Flocks took themselves to be the true Church, and the rest but persecutive Schismatics. Wherefore it is not strange that  
In the Year 410. or the eighteenth day of the first month of this first Hexamenon, Honorius sent express word to Heraclianus concerning the Donatists, that if they met contrary to his Decree, they should be punished poena proscriptionis & sanguinis. The severity of which Decree of Honorius against the Donatists, no man of equity can wonder at, that reflects upon what was observed before out of Alstedius. Nor wherever I produce Instances of the severity of the Orthodox Power against Heterodox Christians even to sanguinary Penalties, or what may be equivalent thereto, is it to perstringe their proceed any further than that there seems no provision made to secure the purely conscientious and peaceful Heterodox Christians, nor any difference put betwixt them, and such as are for Tumult, Violence and Persecution themselves. For sanguinary severity against such Heterodox Christians that are merely conscientiously such as they are, and are peaceful and loyal Subjects, cannot but feel harsh to a truly Christian Spirit.  
In the twenty first day of this month, or the year 413. Theodosius Imp. in Oriente, Eunomianos saepe damnatos novo Rescripto exagitavit, simulque Anabaptistas ultimo supplicio afficiendos decrevit. And Honorius the year after declares the Donatists, Infames & Intestabiles, and inflicts Banishment on their Bishops and Clergy, and the same punishment on as many as conceal them.  
In the twenty third day of this month this memorable Instance of Hieratical Cruelty happened. Hypatia, a famous She-Philosopher, Daughter of Theon, and a wise, grave and discreet Matron, venerated for her Wisdom even by Princes and great Persons, out of mere suspicion that she hindered Orestes, the Governor of Alexandria, from being reconciled to Cyrillus the Bishop thereof, after his Monks from Mount Nitria had broke the governor's Pate, was by one Peter the Reader and a number of other Zealots for the Bishop which followed Peter their Ringleader, pulled out of her Chariot by main force, carried into the Church called Caesareum, and there stripped of her , had her skin and flesh torn off with sharp shells till she died; And then quartering of her body, they carried the members thereof to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them to ashes. Socrat. Histor. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 15.  
In the Year 428. or the sixth day of the second month of the first Hexamenon, that grandisonant Speech was uttered by Nestorius upon his being chosen Patriarch of Constantinople, unto the Emperor: Give me, O Emperor! the Earth cleared of Heretics, and I will give thee Heaven; do thou assist me in routing the Heretics, and I will secure thee in vanquishing the Persians. But full little then did this valiant Man think how easy a thing it is for one that will be curious in Speculation beyond necessity or usefulness, to fall into Error, and how far more easy to be thought to do so by others, whether it be so or no. But why mistakes in unnecessary decisions should be deemed Heresies, I believe this great Man could hardly give a good Reason. But this persecutive Zeal against whatsoever has the Luck to be called Heresy, himself tasted at last of the bitter fruit of that Tree, who lost his Patriarchate, and was banished for that Heresy he is deemed the Author of, and gave name to, viz. Nestorianism.  
In the Year 436. or the fourteenth day of the second month of the first hexamenon, Nestorius was by the Command of the Emperor Theodosius banished to Petrae or Oasis in Egypt, the worst and most infamous place for Exuls.  
In the fifteenth day of this month Gensericus King of the Vandals, raised a sore Persecution in afric against the Orthodox, he with his Bishops being Arians. Amongst other Sufferers, four Spanish Noblemen, Arcadius, Probus, Paschasius and Eutychius first proscribed, then banished, afterwards tortured, and at last cruelly put to death all four of them. Spond. out of Prosper. And yet it is said of these Vandals, that they so thoroughly reform Carthage from Paganism,  ne vestigium quidem ibi relictum fuerit Gentilitiae impietatis. Nor can this Instance of bloody Cruelty be excepted against as not being done by the Christian Hieratico-political Power. For the Arians cannot be denied to be part of the Christian Church by Premiss the fifth. For Arius himself soon relinquished that gross Error of [Erat quando non erat] The Arians therefore acknowledging the Logos to be ab Aeterno, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Nicene Creed has it, must acknowledge him to exist necessarily ab aeterno, and nothing can do so but what is God. Wherefore they being qualified according to the Conditions set down in the fifth Premiss, it is manifest they must be allowed to be part of the Christian Church, though not so Orthodox as they should be. If they that are called Arians all along in History were in that first gross sense such, the Apostasy of the Church would have begun with Arius, as the Reformation is conceived to begin with Luther. And then as one of the Father's complains, the whole world might well groan indeed to find itself turned Arian. But this Supposition, as it ill accords with History, so far as I can discern, so it is point-blank against the Testimony of the Apocalypse, out of which may be clearly understood from the proportion of the outer Court to the inner, Chap. 11. and from the Rising of the Beast that was, is not, and yet is at the same time in which the Ten Horns were catching at and obtaining Kingdoms, Chap. 17. that the Apostasy came not in till about seventy years after that Arius appeared, and his Opinion was condemned by the Council of Nice. So true a Glass is the Apocalypse to discover the State of the Church all along.  
In the twenty seventh day of this second month, or in the year 449. Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria presiding over the second Ephesine Council, Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople and Eusebius Dorylaeus were violently kicked to compel them to subscribe, but Flavianus so cruelly beaten and abused, that he died upon it.  
In the fifth day of the third month, or in the year 457. Timotheus Aelurus getting into the Bishopric of Alexandria, raised all manner of cruel Persecutions against the Orthodox. And his Myrmidons they were that so salvagely murdered Proterius the former Bishop even in the very Baptistry, dragged his Corpse through the streets of the City, tore it into parts, and like greedy Dogs forbore not to taste of his entrails. After they burned his body to ashes, which they scattered in the wind.  
In the twenty fourth day of the said month, or the year 476. Basiliscus the Tyrant burnt amongst others Plato Groom of his Chamber, for opposing Timotheus Aelurus an Eutychian Bishop.  
In the first day of the fourth month, or Anno 483. Hunericus King of the Vandals renews a most direful Persecution against the Orthodox Bishops and Clergy that would not turn Arians. Banishments, torturings, and cruel treatings even unto death numbers of them suffered. Spondanus out of Victor.  
In the second day of this month it is said, That several of the Orthodox that refused to communicate with the Arians, had their tongues cut out from the very root; and it is added, that by a Miracle they spoke notwithstanding, ibid.  
In the nineteenth day of the fourth month, or Anno 501. Anastasius the Emperor, for the better keeping under the Orthodox that were for the Council of Chalcedon in the Circus at the public Show, caused to be slaughtered to the number of three thousand of them. Seth Calvis.  
In the twenty fifth day of this month, or Anno 507. Clodoveus King of France slew Alaricus the Arian King, raising War against him upon the account of his Religion. Spondan.  
In the last day of the fourth month, or in the year 512. Anastasius causing the Quaternity of the Theopaschites to be sung in the Church at Constantinople, the people tumultuating against it, slew many of them. Whereupon they took their revenge, and destroyed the Monastic Flatterers of Anastasius with Fire and Sword, and coming up with the Gospel, and the Cross of our Lord to Anastasius his Throne sung the Hymn of the Trinity according to the custom of the Orthodox Christians, and killed a Monk and a Nun that were most dear to the Emperor, and dragging their Carcases about, cried out, These be the Friends of him that is a Foe to the Holy Trinity. Spondan. out of Marcellinus Comes, and Cedrenus.  
In the sixth day of the fifth month, or Anno 518. Justinus in the first year of his Reign commanded Severus Bishop of Antioch, who had so often anathematised the Council of Chalcedon to be apprehended, punished, and to have his Tongue cut out of his mouth. See Evagrius his Histor. Ecclesiast. lib. 3. cap. 4.  
In the fifteenth day of this month, or Anno 527. Justinian published an Edict wherein he anathematised all Heresies whatever (and made them subject to the Penal Laws against Heretics) and especially those Heresies that were most controverted in his Time, Nestorian, Eutychian, and Apollinarian. Spondanus.  
In the sixth day of the sixth month, or Anno 548. Laurianus Bishop of Hispalis had his Head struck off by Totilas the Arian for his zeal for the Truth.  
In the twenty first day of this month, or Anno 563. Justinian would compel the Bishops to profess his Opinion of the Incorruptibility of Christ's Body upon pain of Banishment, which he threatened to them. Spondan. out of Evagrius.  
In the twenty second day, viz. Anno 564. Justinian raises a great Persecution against the Corrupticolae (for so they were called that would not receive the Emperor's Opinion, as the Emperor's Party were named Phantasiastae) at what time Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople was banished for adhering to the Truth.  
In the twenty sixth day of this sixth month, or Anno 568. Alboinus' King of the Lombard's enters Italy, they were mostwhat Arians, as Spondanus also observes, whence the Orthodox bore their cruel Persecutions 206 years till the year 774. as Alstedius tells us: which is the twenty second day of the first month of the third Hexamenon or Semitime. See Spondanus, Anno 573.  
In the eleventh day of the first month of the second Hexamenon, or Anno 583. a direful Persecution in Spain is raised against the Orthodox by that Arian King Lewigildus, many banished, their Goods confiscated, many imprisoned, and killed.  
In the sixteenth day of the said month, or Anno 588. Lewigildus raises a fiercer Persecution, wherein the Abbot Vincentius after stripes, was cruelly slain by the Arians before the door of his Monastery.  
In the last day of this month, or Anno 602. Augustinus Pope Gregory's Legate by the King's Authority calls together in the West parts of England the British Bishops and Doctors to get them to submit to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome: they refusing, he threatened them with War and Slaughter, which was effected accordingly. The story of the slaughter of the Monks of Bangor is notorious. See Baleus in the Life of Gregory, and Dr. Heylin.  
In the twenty fifth day of the third month, or Anno 657. Maximus an Abbot of Constantinople with Anastasius his Disciple were most cruelly scourged, after cast into Prison, and the next day brought forth, had their Tongues cut out for their stickling against the Emperor Constans his Edict called Typus, whereby he would have silenced the Monothelite Controversy, whether there were one or two Wills and Operations in Christ. But this passage is diversely interpretable.  
In the twenty fourth day of the fourth month, or Anno 686. Funecius tells us, that Justinian the Second, instigated thereto by the Pope, compelled the people of Ravenna by slaughters, by besieging their City, by despoiling them of their Goods, and by Banishment, and the like, to be subject to the Bishop of Rome, and banished Felix the Bishop of Ravenna to Pontus, having first deprived him of his sight, as being guilty of their Revolt. The matter of Fact other Historians relate, as Nauclerus, Spondanus, and others; but Funecius seems to have committed a Parachronism of twenty two years, or thereabout. It was according to Spondanus in the year 708. or the sixteenth day of the fifth month of the second Hexamenon.  
In the fourth day of the sixth month, or Anno 726. or thereabout, in the Reign of Leo Isaurus, the people in Italy, by the persuasion of the Churchmen, was so zealous in the Cause of Images, that in Ravenna where the Imperial Authority most resided, they flew into such open Tumults and Rebellion, that they murdered Paulus the fourteenth Exarch, in Rome itself they took Petrus the Duke, and put out his Eyes, and in Campania they beheaded the Duke Exhilaratus and his Son Adrian, who there took the Emperor's part against the Pope. See Hen. Foulis his History, lib. 3. cap. 4.  
In the fifteenth day of the second month of the third Hexamenon, or Anno 797. Irene unnaturally ordered her Son Constantine the Emperor his Eyes to be pulled out, which was acted with such violence upon him, that he died presently upon it. All Histories ring of this Cruelty.  
But I will not tyre out my Reader. This is enough to prove that there was Violence and Cruelty used by the Hieratico-political Power of the Empire against the Orthodox many hundred years before the end of the eleventh Century. Nor will the brevity of this present Treatise of mine admit any large Excursions into History. But we may be sure that the Orthodox were held down by the hard rigour of Penal Laws against such as should utter any thing against the Errors, be they what they will, established by Law, all along. Which could not but be a pressure or oppression, and something akin to actual Persecution, which was erupturient all the while, and at last broke out in most savage manner under the Papacy. The horrid effects whereof have hideously blackened the History of that Church. These are things so well known, that it is needless to bestow a single line upon them. I have done already enough, if not more than enough in Answer to the Objector's fourth and last Allegation.   

CHAP. XLV. Some brief strictures upon the Calendar of Prophetic Time touching the Vision of the 2300 Evening-Mornings. The six Collateral Lines adjusted to the Principal Line of the 2300 Evening-Mornings, from whence it would follow, that the Papacy and Turkish Tyranny will be broken so, that the Witnesses universally will put off their Sackcloth about twelve years hence, and about eighty eight years hence the glory of the New Jerusalem will appear descended from Heaven. An Examination of this Hypothesis, That it fails in the placing the Epocha of the 2300 Evening-Mornings. The first Collateral Line of seventy five years examined. The Examination of the second Collateral Line or seventy Weeks of Daniel. Of the third Collateral Line four hundred and four years, and the marvellous Invention thereof. Of the fourth Line the forty two months Reign of the Beast, or 1260 days of the Mourning of the Witnesses. The fifth Line or the thirty days, which added, make Daniel 's 1290 days. Of his sixth Collateral Line forty five days, which added to his former Number, make Daniel 's 1335 days. The chief ground on which his Hypothesis depends examined and confuted, which concerns the Epocha of the 2300 Evening-Mornings, drawn from the Text. The right Epocha of the 2300 Evening-Mornings and of Daniel 's 1290 and 1335 days is to be fixed in Antiochus his Pollution of the Sanctuary. No hopes from the Compute of Daniel 's 2300 Evening-Mornings, of the Papacy and Turkish Tyranny being broken within twelve years, etc.  
THE ingenious Author of the Calendar of Prophetic Time, when he had carried on his Principal Line of Compute to the end of the seventy years' Captivity, from which the Jews were delivered by Cyrus (pag. 10.) which I am not concerned to examine, the next generally acknowledged Line of Time that occurred to his mind was the seventy Weeks of Daniel; but considering with himself that betwixt the seventy years ending, and seventy week's beginning, there must be a middle space of Time that is not to be void, he therefore to continue the Principal Line of his Calendar through that space also, and supposing Daniel to receive the Vision of the 2300 Evening-Mornings at the close of the seventy years' Captivity, interprets these 2300 Evening-Mornings to be so many Prophetical Days, viz. 2300 years, and places their Epocha at the expiration of the seventy years' Captivity, namely, from the year wherein Daniel received the Vision. And this Principal Line of Time he recommends to us upon several accounts, it reaching so handsomely from the destruction of the Literal Babylon to the utter destruction of the Mystical, from the rebuilding again of the Literal Jerusalem to the raising of the New Jerusalem or Jerusalem Mystical, and for that it is commensurate or equal to seventy five years from its Epocha to the seventy Weeks; to the four hundred and ninety years of those Weeks; to four hundred and four years from the Resurrection of Christ to the Reign of the Beast; to his forty two months or twelve hundred and sixty days Reign; to the thirty days that make Daniel's twelve hundred and ninety days; and to forty five days, which added to the former number, make the thirteen hundred and thirty five days of Daniel; the Principal Line two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings is commensurate or equal to all these Collateral Lines put together. So that the thirteen hundred and thirty five days reach as the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings do to the utter destruction of Babylon and the glory of the New Jerusalem. This is to fall out in the Year 1772. viz. eighty eight years hence, upon the pouring out of the Vials begun in the Year 1727. the space of their pouring out being the forty five days added to the twelve hundred and ninety days in Daniel; the beginning therefore of their pouring forth is forty three years hence. In the thirty, which added to the twelve hundred and sixty, make Daniel's twelve hundred and ninety days, are the seven Ministerial Voices of the unsealed seven Thunders uttered, which begin with the Sound of the seventh Trumpet (pag. 68) and reach to the beginning of the Vials. The beginning of these thirty days is thirteen years hence upon the expiration of the twelve hundred and sixty days, when will be the complete Rising of the Witnesses, when the Papacy and Turkish Tyranny will be so broken, that the Witnesses will universally put off their Sackcloth, they being rid of the oppression of their Persecutors. And lastly, the four hundred and four years is the time of the Purity of the Church, from the Resurrection of Christ till the commencing of the forty two months of the Reign of the Beast or twelve hundred and sixty days mournful condition of the Witnesses. The contrivance is witty and inventive, as indeed the whole Book must be the effect of a mind notably much exercised in the study of Scripture and Prophecies, and eagerly set to find some grounds and hopes therefrom, that in a very short time the oppression of God's Church will be hugely abated or taken quite off from their shoulders.  
But let us now, and that very briefly, examine the grounds of these so great hopes, and how firm this frame and contrivance is. And first here he takes for granted, that the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings are so many years, though the Text says expressly, That the Vision of the Evening and Morning is true, that is, plain, not Enigmatical, whence they must signify so many days literally, not years. But because several intelligent persons have a propension to think these days may be also Typical of years, Antiochus being so notable a Type of Antichrist, I will not much gainsay the ingenious Author of the Calendar in this, but rather suppose that it is said, that the Vision of the Evening and Morning is true, that is to say, plain, that the literal sense of the Prophecy may be as well assured as the mystical and symbolical.  
But now in the second place let us see how his Account will agree with approved Chronologers. These two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings end in the Year 1772. which is the 6485. year of the Julian Period. Now count back from this year, the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings and their Epocha will be in the 4186. of the Julian Period; which, according to Helvicus, is the second year of Cambyses, as also according to Seth Calvisius and Petavius, we may add also Thomas Lydiat. But the Vision of the Evening-Mornings was exhibited to Daniel in the third year of Belshazzar, who reigned fourteen years after that, as you may see in Thomas Lydiat.  
Thirdly therefore, The Epocha of the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings not being found in the year when Cyrus took Babylon, nor in the year after, when he gave the Jews leave to return into their own Country to rebuild the Temple, etc. but five or six years after, and about twenty years after Daniel's receiving the Vision, that pretty Congruity of the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings commencing with the destruction of the literal Babylon, and ending in the final desolation of the Mystical Babylon, (and so of the rebuilding the literal Jerusalem and the mystical) is quite spoiled.  
Fourthly, And as for the seventy five years commencing from the Epocha of the Evening-Mornings, and reaching to the seventy Weeks, this first Collateral Line, as he manages the business, is rather the imagination of a Line than a real Line, as himself seems in a manner to confess (pag. 16.) For he derives it from just so many years as are named of the Persian Monarchy in the Scriptures. Which is a pretty fancy, but precarious, to leave out the rest of the years unmentioned, and the whole Reign of Cambyses, and Darius Hystaspis. Besides, the one and twenty days of Daniel's fasting, Chap. 10.2. are drawn in to make up the Number, as if they were Prophetic days, whenas it is expressly said three weeks of days, to distinguish them from Daniel's seventy Weeks of years, which they signify, the mention of days being not added to them; nor is it to be thought that Daniel fasted so for twenty one years together. But (pag. 17.) he attempts a more real Account of the seventy five years, which he will have commence with Cyrus his Monarchy, and end with the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus. But he differs in his Compute from Petavius by two years, from Calvisius by five, from Ptolemy's Canon by six, and from Thomas Lydiat by three years over: besides that he places the beginning of the seventy Weeks in the seventh of Artaxerxes, whenas that Epocha is to be placed in the twentieth of his Reign, as. I hope, I have sufficiently proved in the sixteen first Chapters of this Book. Besides that, we are to remember that the ending of the two thousand three hundred Evening Mornings being, according to him, in the Year of our Lord 1772. that is, Anno Periodi Julianae 6485. reckoning thence backward the Epocha of the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings will be Anno Periodi Julianae 4186. that is, in the second year of Cambyses: which quite spoils this placing of the Epocha of this first Collateral Line seventy five in the beginning of Cyrus his Monarchy. We pass to the second Collateral Line, the seventy Weeks of Daniel.  
Fifthly therefore, There seems to be a palpable flaw in that Line, forasmuch as the ingenious Computer is fain to lop off four days of the last Week of the seventy, and make them end (but with that defect) in the Resurrection of Christ, whenas that whole last Week is dedicated in the Prophecy to the making of a Covenant with many. And besides, they are not seventy complete weeks, unless these four days be taken in, which are left out only to make the Collateral Lines just end with the principal Line of the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings. This therefore I conceive is a flaw in the Compute.  
Sixthly, As for the third Colluteral Line, four hundred and four, which gins in the year of the Resurrection of Christ, and reaches to the commencement of the Reign of the Beast, the forty two months or twelve hundred and sixty days Prophetical. The pitching upon this number is admirably pretty and surprising: I mean the Invention thereof, pag. 43. of the Calendar, upon Apoc. 6.6. which is thus; (1) There is, says he, besides the usual Voice, Come and see, an extraordinary Note of Attention, not by, but to or in the midst of the four living Creatures. A measure of Wheat, etc. to move extraordinary Enquiry after the meaning. (2) By Enquiry into History it fits none as Alexander Severus so just a Prince. (3) By Enquiry into the Time, he died two hundred and two years after our Lord's Resurrection, which doubled reaches to the Empire torn on all sides by the Barbarians and the Ten Kings Rising. (4) By compare on our principal Line, four hundred and four years neither more nor less from the Resurrection are necessary to adjust the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings to the last of Daniel's thirteen hundred thirty five days. What then can we conclude but the Balances divide the Time as it were by exact weight one half against the other, and so exactly define the time of the Beast's Rising, or of the beginning of his forty two months Reign? And again, pag. 83. in his Postscript he says, the purity of the Church was weighed as it were in the Scales in the two hundred and second year after the Resurrection, or last year of Alexander Severus, and was found just at that time doublted, too light, viz. at the four hundred and four years' end, or Anno vulgari 437. And what other account or meaning, says he, can be given of this place (Apoc. 6.6.) I desire any one to give, I have not found its sense yet attempted by any Interpreter.  
In answer to this I grant, that Alexander Severus died Anno Dom. 235. according to Petavius, or Anno P. J. 4948. and consequently that he died the year after the Resurrection 202. But that that Voice in the midst of the four Beasts, A measure of wheat for a penny, etc. was to raise our attention, and quicken our search into any such mystical meaning of the Balances, as the Author would infer, I utterly deny, there being a pertinent sense so plain and material that belongs to that Cry, and to the Balance in common, that is, of a just and provident administration of affairs in the Empire under the third Seal, and the Voice in the midst of the four Beasts, is the Fame of it and Joy at it amongst the People, who then had so just and careful Emperors over them, especially Alexander Severus Mammeae F. This therefore only signifies the special Character of the third Seal, that the Church might compute their progress toward the sixth, under which they were to have their deliverance from the Persecutions of the Red Dragon. And to this sense the ingenious Author of the Calendar might have read in Mr. Mede upon the place. To which we may add, If the said Author had not violently torn off four days of the last week of the seventy, but begun this third Collateral Line at the end of the seventieth week, the two hundred and two years of this third Collateral Line would fall out four years after Severus his Death, so that this acquaint device of dividing this Line into two equal parts, weighed as it were in a pair of Scales, would be quite spoiled. But if beginning this third Line four years later, you will yet make the year of the Death of Severus half the time thereof, viz. an hundred ninety eight, then will this Collateral Line fall four years short of such an Epocha of the Reign of the Beast, as from whence Daniel's thirteen hundred thirty five days may expire with the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings. So that this third Collateral Line, as it is framed, does but unjustly enjoy the fruit of the violence done to the seventieth week, which is a sore blemish derived not only upon it, but the residue of the Collateral Lines. The weighing also of the purity of the Church two hundred and two years before it could be justly pronounced light upon the Balance and rejectaneous, has something of harshness in it. Wherefore we see there is no solid Reason to leave Mr. Mede's way of computing the space of the pure State of the Church from the proportion of the outer Court to the inner, and betake ourselves to this, though otherwise witty, yet lubricous and groundless device of the Balance.  
Seventhly therefore I conceive, That the Epocha of the Apostasy of the Church or Reign of the Beast, which is the beginning of this fourth Collateral Line, is not rightly fixed, the grounds thereof thus failing: There is some forty four years' difference betwixt it and the true Epocha collected by the true Method of the proportion of the outer Court to the inner, according to which this fourth Collateral Line, or twelve hundred and sixty days expired above thirty years ago.  
Eighthly, This fifth Collateral Line thirty, which added to the former twelve hundred and sixty days, makes Daniel's twelve hundred and ninety days, this also is already expired, without any such seven Ministerial Voices of the seven unsealed Thunders that any one could discern. Which seven Voices of the Thunders are connex with the Thunders themselves. And that the Thunders occupy the space of the whole seventh Trumpet, I have irrefutably demonstrated in more places than one. See the Answer to S. E. the Remarker on Apoc. Chap. 10. Wherefore the Voices of the Thunders being stretched from the beginning to the end of the seventh Trumpet, how can they be compressed into the space of 30 years? Besides that, Calend. pag. 68, 69. the seven Ministerial Voices there pitched upon cannot belong to the Collateral Line of thirty after the twelve hundred and sixty. For that Song of the 144000 is the description of the Evangelici all along the six Trumpets. The Angel Preacher of the Everlasting Gospel respects the fifth and sixth Wo-Trumpets, so that his Voice cannot be the second, as being not come to the seventh Trumpet. And the Voice that declares the Fall of Babylon, that it is fallen, is also before the seventh Trumpet, as being coincident with the Rising of the Witnesses. But the Author of the Calendar makes his Collateral Line of thirty years commence with the beginning of the seventh Trumpet, and to end before the pouring out of the Vials. But the four next Voices, as he would have them, do plainly fall into the time of the Vials, as is sufficiently proved in the Answer to the Remarker on the Apology. So that this Conceit of the seven Ministerial Voices antecedent to the seven Vials is, as I conceive, quite out of doors.  
And now ninthly and lastly, His sixth and last Collateral Line, which added to Daniel's 1290 days, makes his 1335 days, which expire with the 2300 Evening-Mornings, this last Collateral Line of forty five days, especially if the Reign of the Beast were reckoned from the right Epocha, seems too short a time for the seven Vials to discharge themselves in. For then all those great things which the Vials portend, would be accomplished within these forty years, or thereabout, which to cooler and calmer Spirits must seem a thing incredible. His Interpretation of the four last Vials, pag. 70, 71. is correspondent enough to Mr. Mede, and for aught I know credibly true. But the three first Vials which he conceives yet to come, their fulfilling has been manifestly already. Nor is the first Vial a Representation of the loathsomeness of the marked Slaves of the Beast, but of their dementative Anger and Rage, of this those angry Boils are a Symbol, so obvious, that scarce any Interpreters miss of it, and it plainly answers to, [And the Nations were angry] Chap. 11.18. Which passage (as is demonstrated in the Answer to the Remarker on the Apology) respects the times of the Vials. And for the second Vial, it is not the Innavigableness of the blood of a dead man (for so much blood as to sail upon is a monstrous Fancy hugely out of the way) but it is the dead fishes there that are intimated, wherein the stress of the Symbol lies. And Artemidorus tells us, that dead fishes in the Sea signify disappointment of hope, which came to pass to the Pontifician Fishermen after the full settlement of the Reformation in the Kingdoms cut quite off from the Pope, and grown as cold as the Cruor of a dead man, to her Idolatries and Superstitions. And lastly for the third Vial, that he interprets Rivers, of Aqueducts of Doctrine rather than of Emissary Agents from the Roman See, no man will see Reason who considers what I have wrote in my Alphabet of Iconisms, in the Iconism [River]. But however the fulfilling of these three first Vials has been already since the Rising of the Witnesses in the Reformation, whenas the Author of the Calendar fancies them yet to come, which is no slight evidence against his Hypothesis.  
But now besides all these Allegations against his six Collateral Lines, the fixing of the Epocha of his principal Line the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings in the year when Daniel received that Vision, viz. in the third year of Belshazzar (as if because no more than three years is mentioned of Belshazzar in Scripture, he was slain in that very year, and then Babylon taken, that so the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings might commence from the taking Literal Babylon to the utter destruction of the Mystical Babylon, and from Cyrus his Grant for the building the Temple of the Literal Jerusalem to the appearing of the Mystical or New Jerusalem, or its descending from Heaven upon the Earth) I say his fixing the Epocha thus, has no ground from the Text of the Prophecy, Dan. 8.13, 14. How long shall be the Vision concerning the daily Sacrifice?— It is answered, Unto two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings then shall the Sanctuary be cleansed. Here the Author of the Calendar glosses thus; The Vision and not so much the things contained in it is dated hereby, the Vision of the Sacrifice taken away shall be two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings (not the taking away the Sacrifice, etc. but) the Vision shall extend to two thousand three hundred Prophetic days, pag. 12. And to the same sense again, pag. 80. he saith, It is not said, How long shall be the time of the taking away the daily Sacrifice, but how long the Vision. This Gloss is the main ground of his Epocha of the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings, which he fixes from hence in the third year of Belshazzar, phansying that the year of the Fall of the Literal Babylon. But by [Vision] most certainly is understood, not the Prophetical Exhibition of the things foretold made to Daniel, but the Object of the Vision, the things foretold; and that not when they would begin, but when once begun, how long they would hold from some certain Epocha, viz. the time of their beginning. But as for the mere Visionary Exhibition, it was so far from reaching to the 2300 days, whether vulgar or prophetical, that it is not likely to have taken up one single hour.  
And besides the Object of the Vision which is the taking away the daily Sacrifice, etc. not commencing before Antiochus his time as the Type, or Antichrist's time as the Antitype, it is impossible the Epocha of the two thousand three hundred Evening-Mornings should be placed so high as the Fall of Babylon by Cyrus. Nor is the time of the Visionary Exhibition inquired into, but the time of the taking away the daily Sacrifice, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving the Sanctuary and the Host to be trodden under foot. Unto this question of the time of these things it is answered, Unto 2300 days then shall the Sanctuary be cleansed. So plain is it that the Epocha of the 2300 Evening-Mornings cannot be fixed higher than from the violation of the Temple by Antiochus: Though there may be a pretence indeed in the Typical sense of placing it lower, viz. in the beginning of the Reign of Antichrist, the mystical Antiochus: which, according to my Epocha of his Reign, is the year 393. And therefore if you add the 2300 days Prophetical to 392 years, it will be the year of our Lord 2692. before the Sanctuary be cleansed, a thousand and odd years hence. But if you take the Author's Epocha, it will be above forty years more. So improbable is it that the beginning of the Reign of Antichrist, of whom Antiochus was a Type, should be the Epocha of the 2300 Evening-Mornings. Wherefore if they be Typical as well as Antiochus; as the Term of the 2300 days literal, from the first violation of the Temple, shows when the Sanctuary should be cleansed from Antiochus his Pollutions; so the end of 2300 Prophetical days from the same Epocha, shows when the Church of Christ will be quite purged from the Pollutions of Antichrist. And according to this middle or moderate placing of the Epocha, it will be about four hundred and fifty years till the universal cleansing of the Church from Antichristian Pollutions; till which, there being so ample a space of time from the Rising of the Witnesses or commencement of the seventh Trumpet, it is a plain indication how much the Author of the Calendar is out, in allotting but forty five years to the Effusion of the seven Vials.  
And as it is thus demonstrable by Reason, that the Epocha of the 2300 Evening-Mornings is to be fixed in the Pollution of the Temple by Antiochus in the Typical sense of them: So is it expressly declared, Dan. 12.11. that there likewise is to be fixed the Epocha of the 1290 days and the 1335 days. So that this acquaint and wittily contrived frame of the six Collateral Lines, so artificially adjusted to the Principal Line of the 2300 Evening-Mornings, is every way utterly broken in pieces; as also any hopes from hence that the Papacy and Turkish Tyranny will be brought so low about twelve years hence, that the Witnesses every where will put off their Sackcloth, and  themselves with the garments of gladness: Or that the New Jerusalem will appear upon Earth about eighty eight years hence; Not the least glimmerings of hope shine forth from these Evening-Mornings of any such thing. This I freely declare as one not interessed in any Party any further than they are in the Truth, and it is not the Church of England, as the Church of England, but as she has the Truth on her side, and is the most eminent and noble Specimen of the Accomplishment of the Vision of the Rising of the Witnesses in the whole Reformation (and that it is the adequate fulfilling of the Prophecy, I have with irrefutable Evidence demonstrated elsewhere, so that it is needless to say any thing thereof in this place) that makes me adhere to so excellently well constituted a Church.   

CHAP. XLVI. Some few strictures more upon several passages of the Calendar of Prophetic Time. As touching the four Beasts and twenty four Elders. The meaning of the Doxology of the twenty four Elders alone, Apoc. 11.18. and of the Inversion of the Doxological Service, and that they both argue the twenty four crowned Elders to be Kings or Monarches. Whether the Interval of Smyrna is to be restrained to the ten years of Diocletian 's Persecution. His mistake in making part of the sixth Seal a whole seventh Seal. Whether the Paganish Barbarians are the flood cast out of the mouth of the Red Dragon. His dating the taking away the Daily Sacrifice from the first moment of the Apostasy. That the roaring of the Lion, Apoc. Chap. 10. ceased not of a sudden. The ground of his making Thyatira, Sardis and Philadelphia run their course together to the New Jerusalem, confuted. The incongruity of the Position itself. The difficulties the Calendarist incumbers himself with in his way of treating on the Vision of the Churches. The true way of solving those difficulties.  
WE shall add some few more strictures upon several passages of the  Calendar. As upon pag. 38. That the ingenious Author mislikes our English Translation's rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the four Beasts, which bears an ill sense in all other places of the Apocalypse, as answering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not to be found fault withal. Mr. Mede in his Answer to a Friend calls them instead of [the four Beasts] (the four Wights) a word which our English Translators, I suppose, did not adventure on, it being worn out of use, otherwise it would exactly answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it signifying so much as a living Creature. But the deserting of Mr. Mede's Interpretation of these four Beasts or living Creatures, and making them a Representation of the Apostles (as some shallow Interpreters make them the four Evangelists) posted at the four Angles of the Throne as an universal Ministry diffusing the Gospel into all parts of the World; and the pure Israelitish Ministry to be Typed by the twenty four Elders, this is a slip of his in no wise commendable. For first, it is against the Genius of the Prophetic Style to understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any other than a Body Politic, not one single or some few persons. This is a general Rule from which there is no Exception, saving that of the Lamb, which signifies the Person of Christ, though it may be with a Connotation of his Church, his Body. And then secondly, it seems wondrous harsh to interpret the four Wights of the Christian Church, and the twenty four Elders of the Jewish; whenas without all question, as Mr. Mede has unexceptionably made it out, that Vision is a Representation (or has a reference thereto) of the Camp of Israel. So that the four Wights are as well Israelitish as the twenty four Elders. And the twenty four Elders wearing Crowns, and the four Wights not so, plainly indicateth that the one are the Rulers of the other, and therefore are but one congenerous Polity. And the Reasons which he produces to the contrary are but slight. For the four Beasts or Wights are no more employed in the services of the New Testament time than the twenty four Elders: For whatever any of them are said to do, respects the New Testament time. And for their being made to say, Come and see, at the opening the four first Seals, we are to consider that the three latter of those Seals respect rather the Empire than the Church. And it is not as an Israelitish Elder that he informs John of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah's prevailing to open the Seals, but as a crowned Prince, it becoming such a Personage to instruct John touching the Almighty's deriving Power to Christ both to foretell, and so to administer the Affairs in the World, as to cause his own Predictions to be true.  
But now for the Doxology of the twenty four Elders alone, Chap. 11.16. without any of the four Beasts, it is not intended to signify the Christian Church not to be universally pure, but confinedly to these Elders; But it marvellously ratifies my sense of things, that these crowned Elders signify Kings or Monarches, and that therefore the Doxology of the Elders is here mentioned, and that of the Beasts left out, to denote the gladsome sense of those Kings and Princes, that had cast off the Tyranny of Antichrist or Papal yoke in the Reformation at the Rising of the Witnesses. The People was to be yet subject to their Kings or Princes, but these Kings themselves to be no longer subject to the Pope, but to be absolute Sovereigns in their own Dominions. And this is the occasion of their peculiar Doxology, which, if the Beasts had not been left out, would not have been discerned. And that one of the four Beasts within the same Confines of Time delivers the Vials, that is rather an Argument that the Beasts are pure as well as the Elders, and that Purity is not confined to them. And 'tis much, if the Beasts were not pure, that they should give the Vials to Angels in pure and white Linen, pag. 69.  
And as for the Inversion of this Doxological service (Apoc. 4.9. and Chap. 5.8. where the Beasts begin first, compared with Apoc. 19.4. where the four and twenty Elders are named first) these things further confirm my Notion of the four and twenty crowned Elders that they are Kings or Monarches. For the usual custom being, that the Doxology, from the Beasts as the Praecentors should begin, the Clergy being part of the People in Counterdistinction to their King or Monarch, though otherwise highly venerable in their Archbishops, Bishops, etc. this Doxology, Chap. 19.4. which succeeds that copious description of the utter destruction of Babylon, that Papal Polity that so Tyrannised over Kings, how naturally does the four and twenty Elders, being placed first in this Doxology, though together with the Beast or People, denote both that those four and twenty Elders are the Monarches of those Times, and that they have a more peculiar gratification in this destruction of Babylon, though the people also are greatly gratified thereby, and therefore both join in a Doxological Thanksgiving for her destruction. But in the first place the four and twenty crowned Elders.  
In pag. 45. he places the beginning of the Interval of the Church of Smyrna in the beginning of the ten years' Persecution by Diocletian: Because it is said to her that she should have the Tribulation of ten days, that is, of ten Prophetical Days or years. Which I will allow to be alluded to also; though that Persecution was not full ten years. But [Day] not signifying only a Prophetical Day or Year, but also any particular Season or Time, those ten Days signify chief all the ten Persecutions, so famous in History, of which this of Diocletian is but one. But there were other swinging one's before, though that the greatest. And Spondanus does justly call that first of Nero's raising, a most direful Persecution, and therefore the fittest Epocha for the Church of Smyrna, that Interval having its Name from the Bitterness of Persecutions. And as elsewhere, so especially in this Prophecy of the Churches, Allusion to Names, as the Author himself somewhere freely confesses, is of no small moment in Prophetical Interpretations.  
In pag. 47. the last Seal he makes the space reserved for the rallying of Heathenism and its Forces, that it may be finally destroyed by Theodosius the Great in the overthrow of Eugenius and Argobastes, and of the Paganish Forces under them. But this which he would have the last or seventh Seal, no doubt, is part of the sixth, which describes a Victory over all the Pagan Forces brought forth in defence of their Idols, that none of them could withstand the wrath of the Lamb, and this was the Fate of Eugenius and Argobastes (as well as of others) who were both subdued by Theodosius the Great, An. Dom. 393. or thereabout, even upon the Epocha of the seven Trumpets. So that, as the whole space of the Church from the beginning to the end of all, is comprehended under the seven Seals; so the space from the beginning of the seventh Seal to the end of all, may be comprehended under the seven Trumpets. This is the natural disposure of the Apocalyptick Time, as Mr. Mede has solidly made it out. And the half-hours silence at the time of Incense, is no delay to the Prophetic Time of the sounding of the seven Trumpets, which brings on the Vengeance on the blood-guilty Empire; but is only a Type of the Efficacy of the Prayers of the Church unto God to do them right that had suffered, and to execute Justice on his own Enemies, which the Thunderings, Lightnings and Earthquake, Chap. 8. there mentioned signify.  
In pag. 49. he makes as if at the very same time that the Woman had got into the Wilderness, the Dragon cast the flood of the Paganish Barbarians as it were out of his mouth to have swallowed up the True Church, but that the Earthly Church drunk up the flood by proselyting those Barbarians to its Pseudochristianity, when the Ten Kings gave their strength and Power and Kingdom to the Beast. But, first, a flood of Contention and Dissension, according to Scripture-phrase, is more suitably conceived to come out of the mouth of the Dragon, than vast Armies of men. Secondly, The flood is spewed out to carry her away in her flight toward the Wilderness, before she could get thither, and by that means to re-establish pure Paganism again in the Empire, as it seems to me from Chap. 12.15. Which design of his was frustrated by Daniel's Earth or Clay, by the Ecumenical Council of ecclesiastics at Nice, etc. as I have above declared Chap. 40. And thirdly and lastly, How the Earthly Church helped the Apostolic Church, the Woman, by proselyting the Barbarians to a Pagano-Christianity I see not. For from hence was the Man of Sin more strongly armed to fight against the Witnesses, and bring upon the Evangelical Church all that Misery and Calamity that either History records, or Prophecy did prefigure.  
In pag. 50. he asserts, that from the first moment of the Time and Times and half a Time, the daily Sacrifice is to be dated as taken away. But if this be true, how can we handsomely come off from making this the Epocha also of the 2300 Evening-Mornings Typically or Mystically understood? And so the Sanctuary, the Christian Church, will not be cleansed from all Antichristian Pollutions till more than a thousand years hence, as was noted before.  
In pag. 57 here he says, That Apoc. 10. the roaring of the Lion ceased of a sudden, and the Thunders were sealed up, I suppose he means of a sudden. I only take notice that this is said without any the least intimation from the Text. But the roaring of the Lion supplying the place of the sounding of the seventh Trumpet, this Roaring must be understood to reach from the sixth Trumpet to the end of all. And the seventh Trumpet comprehending the seven Thunders, as the seventh Seal the seven Trumpets, these seven Thunders must reach to the end of all. So that neither the ceasing of the roaring of the Lion, nor sealing up the Thunders, could be of a sudden.  
In pag. 58, 59 he here affirms, That the three first Churches run out their just Intervals, and then cease from their being any longer Prophetic Types; but the three last, Thyatira, Sardis and Philadelphia, run their course together to the New Jerusalem, and he supposes none of these three to begin before the last Semitime, at the end whereof they pass into the New Jerusalem. And that the seventh of the seven Churches Laodicea comes not into play till after the thousand years' Ligation of Satan or blessed Millennium, pag. 77. This to me seems a marvellous Invention, but his chief pretence to this surprising Innovation is this, pag. 59 The three first, says he, have their Promises so general, that they do not imply a Conjunction betwixt their time and the New Jerusalem. The three last have in their promises such Clauses as do necessarily suppose their Contact, as I may so speak, with that Jerusalem.  
But to this his main or rather only Reason, so far as I can discover, I briefly answer, That the Promises neither to Thyatira nor to Sardis imply any Contact with the New Jerusalem. Not Thyatira, for the promise to the Victor is only this, That he shall have power over the Nations. He does not say over all Nations. And this was performed in the Rising of the Witnesses at the Reformation, when the Popish Power in those Principalities and Kingdoms that were reform was broken apieces like a Potter's vessel: To such a measure is Power given to the Victor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Christ. Where [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is an Adverb of Proportion, and is as much as if he should have said, So far as I have received of my Father. Which he explains by adding, [And I will give him the Morningstar] not the bright Morningstar, as Christ is called in reference to his Empire in the Millennium, or New Jerusalem-state. So that the very Promise implies rather a great distance from the Jerusalem-state, than a Contact with it. And for the promise to the few Names in Sardis, viz. to the Victor there, it is only that he shall be clothed in white raiment, which signifies their prosperous success, and that their Name shall not be blotted out of the Book of life, that is, that their Seed shall continue for ever, Christ will so effectually recommend them to his Father, and to the Ministry of his Holy Angels. But he does not say that the state of these few while such shall be contiguous to the New Jerusalem-state, which is the full and ample Millennial Empire of Christ: but there being but a few such Names in Sardis, it is an Evidence rather that Sardis cannot be contiguous to the state of the New Jerusalem, and therefore there must be a larger increase of these few Names under the next Interval before they can be contiguous to the New Jerusalem.  
And therefore as for the third of these three, Philadelphia, I will allow more to the ingenious Calendarist than he requires, viz. that Philadelphia in the forepart thereof is not only contiguous to the New Jerusalem, but continuous thereto, a due increase of these few Sardian Names emerging into the Appearance of Philadelphia, and such a door of success being opened to Philadelphia, that at last she emerges into the New Jerusalem-state, that state being nothing else but the fullness of the Philadelphian. This is so plain in the Promise to the Philadelphian Victor, that I wonder that any one can wink so hard as not to see it, whether he will or no. Note only here by the buy, That if the Jerusalem-state of the Church be not part of the Philadelphian, it must be a Church by itself, and so there will be eight Churches, not seven only, which is contrary to the Vision. See what the Answerer says to S. E. his Remarks on this place, and it must be full satisfaction. Thus invalid is the Calendarist's ground for making Thyatira, Sardis and Philadelphia all three of them contiguous to the commencement of the New Jerusalem.  
But now let us briefly consider the Incongruity of the Position itself. For indeed it seems to me to clash with one of the first Principles of rightly interpreting the Apocalypse, viz. the right meaning of the Septenary or Number Seven, into which when any thing is divided, it denotes that all those parts are there, and no more nor fewer. Wherefore we are necessarily to understand the succession of the Church in this Prophetic Vision thereof, being cast into seven parts, that these are adequately the parts of this Succession from the beginning of the Church to the end of all, and that all the Succession must be contained in these and no more than these. Whence it is plain, that these seven Churches are to succeed one another in one Line from the beginning of the Church to the end, because it is a Line of Succession. But the Calendarist contrary to this, making Sardis and Philadelphia Synchronal to Thyatira, makes but five Successions in one Line instead of seven, viz. Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira and Laodicea, leaving a gap betwixt Thyatira and Laodicea of no less than a thousand years. Which besides the dry Logical Repugnancy in it, looks as desormedly, as if in a row of teeth in some Animal, two, viz. the fifth and sixth were struck out, and yet to make it still more unsightly, two gobber teeth were set in, one on this side, the other on the inner side of the fourth, answering to Sardis and Philadelphia on this side and that side of Synchronous Thyatira. But if the New Jerusalem Church should be thrust in here to stop that great gap betwixt Thyatira and Laodicea, there would yet be but six Successions, and instead of seven there would be eight Churches, as I noted above. So hugely incongruous is this present Position.  
And though he has showed a pretty inventive Wit in his managing his Interpretation of the Intervals of the Churches, yet he seems to sit somewhat uneasily in the matter, raising such scruples and objections, as none but my Hypothesis, viz. That it is the Apostolic Church that Christ directs his Epistles to, can free us from. Which Apostolic Churches are, Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, all five sui juris, having no Apostatised Church over them. But Pergamus and Thyatira is the Apostolic Church, the former in the greatest part of its Succession having the Apostatised Church over them, the latter in its whole Succession. But I cannot insist on these things.  
I will only lightly touch upon them, pag. 59 I say then that Sardis is more severely reprehended than Pergamus and Thyatira, because they were the better sort of people, who could, notwithstanding their being under the Jurisdiction of the Apostatised Church, keep themselves unpolluted therefrom, and remain Apostolic: whenas in Sardis, though they be all in the external Apostolic, or free from the Apostasy, yet the World being got into the Church, it is no wonder they are so faulty and so sharply rebuked. And for that other difficulty, that Philadelphia, a much inferior Church in appearance, should be so far honoured above Sardis, I say, that Philadelphia is not inferior, no not so much as in appearance, when it does appear at all, which is not till the seventh Vial under the Conduct of that illustrious Heros on the white Horse, who has a Sword coming out of his mouth. This is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Apoc. 3.8.) rendered in our English, a little strength, but signifies a little Army, but of great strength through the Conduct of that Divine Heros, Apoc. 19.14. whom these Troops follow on white Horses clothed in fine Linen white and clean, true Israelites in whom there is no guile, and five of whom shall chase an hundred, and an hundred shall put ten thousand to flight, Levit. 26.8. But this Church of Philadelphia is so far from being inferior to Sardis, that it is absolutely the best and most glorious Church that ever will be on Earth, the only unspotted and also unpersecuted Church, according to the description thereof, of all the seven. And there being no more than seven Successions, and the Church under the New Jerusalem-state being still the Church, it is demonstratively evident that that New Jerusalem Church is part and the better part by far of the Succession of Philadelphia; This is thus plain in reason, but it being said also to Philadelphia, Chap. 3. to this victorious Army of that Divine Heros; On him that overcometh I will write the Name of the City of my God, New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of Heaven from my God; it cannot be blindness so much as wilfulness, if any, when he has considered it, can still deny that the Time of the New Jerusalem is comprised in, or at least incident into the Philadelphian Succession. And pag. 60. That Smyrna should be commended above Sardis, there is the like reason, as in the first Case; and besides, their sore sufferings deserved Christ's Encomiums as well as the Crown of life. And pag. 61. That scruple why Thyatira should be charged with the fault of suffering the false Prophetess Jezebel, when she knew not how to help it, is easily taken away, according to my Interpretation, who make it a Prediction that this is the Interval wherein the Apostolical Church would have the opportunity to cast out Jezebel, and therefore they are blamed that it is not yet done. But this Charge is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, small businesses, it being no great fault that they knew not that the opportunity was so near, and a great virtue in them, in that in the mean time they would rather suffer than defile themselves with Papal Pollutions.  
And as for Christ's Title in his Epistle to the Church of Sardis, pag. 63. He that has the seven Spirits of God and the seven Stars. Here [in his right hand] is omitted by a mere Apocalyptical Ellipsis, and for no diminution to this newly begun Succession of his restored Church. But the seven Spirits and seven Stars do fully imply as serious a purpose of the Restauration of his Church as he had in the first propagation thereof. This Sardis therefore being as it were the Ephesus of the Restauration, it is no wonder that Christ resumes his Title which he uses in his Epistle to Ephesus, and that to the full, if not more in the seven Spirits, his designs of Providence being more great and glorious in his Restauration of his Church, than they proved after about three hundred and sixty years since the first propagation; the Church degenerating apace into the Kingdom of Antichrist till this Sardian Epocha of the Restauration; which State, though less perfect than it should be, yet it is to pass into the Philadelphian state, and to rise into a blessed Millennial Empire of Christ, as the other degenerated into the Kingdom of Antichrist. So little of diminution is there in the matter.  
And being this Sardian Epocha is the solemn beginning of the Restauration of the Church, why should Thyatira, a Succession antecedent thereto, be made to run parallel to that of Sardis; Or Philadelphia, which in the Prophecy plainly succeeds Sardis, be drawn back to run parallel also thereto? But I have outrun my design already, and have touched upon more things than I intended. I will now pass to what I am most of all concerned in, the ingenious Author's Postscript or Additional View.   

CHAP. XLVII. Strictures on the Calendarist 's Postscript, which consists of Objections against his Calendar, with his Answers thereto. The Reply to his Answer to the fourth Objection. His Answer to the fifth Objection, and to the first Argument from Villalpandus his Measures of the Inner and Outer Court of the Temple, with the Reply thereto. His Answer to the second Argument with the Reply. His Answer to the seventh and main Objection, with the Reply thereto. Three Objections raised against his own Answer to the main Objection, with his Answers which are replied unto. The scope of the Author's diligence in exhibiting a true and faithful Interpretation of the Vision of the Rising of the Witnesses, and his Confidence that the ingenious Calendarist will easily be convinced by what has been writ, that his Calendar stands but upon infirm grounds.  
THough I be more concerned to consider what is in the Postscript of the Calendar, than the Calendar itself, that Postscript containing Objections which the witty Inventor of the Calendar has raised against it out of my Writings, and framed Answers thereto; yet, partly because I have dwelled already on this Calendar of Prophetic Time longer than I intended, and partly because I have already noted such things as may satisfy the Reader touching the Matters betwixt the Calendarist and myself. I shall endeavour to be exceeding brief in my strictures on this Postscript.  
Wherefore, as for his first, second and third Objections and Answers, pag. 80, 81. I have so fully set down what may satisfy the Reader therein in the foregoing forty fifth Chapter, that I will omit saying any thing of them here. We come therefore to his fourth Objection, pag. 82. which is this: But if the Line of 2300 Evening-Mornings could be supposed to begin at Cyrus, yet the 1335 days, Dan. 12. cannot be set to any other point of time than Antiochus, for it is expressly dated from the taking away the daily Sacrifice, and that is enough to destroy the Calendar. His Answer to this is ample and ingenious, but the sum and substance is this: That the taking away the daily Sacrifice by Antiochus being a Type of the Beast, or Antichrist his taking away the pure Christian Service, which was at the beginning of his Reign, this is to be the Epocha of the 1335 days, as the taking away the daily Sacrifice is the Epocha of the 2300 Evening-Mornings literally understood. But here I reply, Why then is not the taking away the pure Christian Service the Epocha of the 2300 Days mystically understood, especially I having demonstrated Chap. 45. that the Epocha of 2300 days mystically understood, cannot be Cyrus his taking of Babylon, though it would thus be very pretty, the Typical Line reaching from literal Babylon's falling, to mystical Babylon's falling, and from literal Jerusalem restored to the mystical or New Jerusalem, as he urges pag. 80. But that Epocha I have fully routed in that forty fifth Chapter, and therefore the Epocha of the Typical 2300 days must either be in the taking away the Christian pure Service at the commencement of the Reign of the Beast, where he would fix the Epocha of the 1335 days. (Whence the Church of God will not be cleansed from the impure Worship of Antichrist till above a thousand years hence) Or else the Epocha must be from the taking away the daily Sacrifice, which is most true, but this will again destroy infallibly the ingenious Author's Calendar, which I think I have hinted above also.  
We pass therefore to the fifth Objection. The Beast's time began before 400, and that spoils the Calendar-Account. In Answer to this he recurs to that witty Invention of his, whereby he concludes 404 years after the Resurrection to be the Time of the Purity of the Church, and consequently the 437 of our Lord to be the Epocha of the Time of the Beast. But this is already refuted in the foregoing forty fifth Chapter, so that I need say nothing more here. Furthermore to my Argument drawn from the proportion of the outer Court to the inner, he answers, First, That let Villalpandus his Measures be never so punctual, the Text seems not to point at Time, but to the Church's Purity or agreement with Ezekiel's Measures. Secondly, Villalpandus' Measures are adjusted to the Temple, but the Vision to the Tabernacle and City to make the outer Court. Whence Villalpandus his Measures will be unapplicable to the business. Thirdly, The Church symbolising with the Eremitical Woman, was retired into the Temple worshipping before the golden Altar of Incense, the daily Sacrifice being taken away, viz. at the entrance of the Reign of the Beast, before which time he supposes the outer Court was commensurable. Fourthly, Although it be hence, that the first Vision of the Opened Book does not begin so high as the seven Churches or Seals, yet this is according to the true Apocalyptick Order; which first completes the History of the Trumpets begun to the very end of the Apocalyptick time, and then gins from the very first in the Woman clothed with the Sun as a new set of Visions.  
But to the first I reply, This measuring respects not only the Purity of the Church, but the Time of the visible Church continuing pure, else why is that third proportional so seasonably offered in the Vision. To the second, That Villalpandus his Measures are adjusted to Solomon's Temple in Ezekiel, which is Typical or Prophetical; but the City being added, it is Iconismorum Metallaxis, usual with the Prophets, to typify one thing by more Symbols than one. And by the Holy City is signified the People of Israel congregated in the outer Court to worship, and answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the inner Court. To the third I say, The retiring into the Temple can be no fit Symbol of the Woman in the Wilderness (by Wilderness Paganism being emblematized, as Alcazar has noted, and brought a Cloud of Witness to confirm it, and the reason thereof is added in my Alphabet of Iconisms: So little congruity is there betwixt the Woman's retiring into the Temple, and her being in the Wilderness; which is as wide and vast as the two-winged Empire Eastern and Western Re-paganizing, and so becoming a Wilderness or Desert. And for the outer Court's being commensurable before the entrance of the Reign of the Beast, we were not come to the outer Court then, and the Vision respects the external and visible state of the Church. To the fourth and last I reply, That the making the outer and inner Court synchronous, does most certainly infer the first Vision of the Opened Book not to begin so high as that of the seven Churches and Seals. Which is an intolerable absurdity, and as great a piece of violence as can be done to the sacred Method of the Prophecies. And now for the Calendarist's Apocalyptick Order; so far it is true, as that it points to the running through the History of the Trumpets begun to the very end of Apocalyptick Time; which is the thing that is done in the roaring of the Lion-Angel distributed into seven Thunders, which are equal put together to the space of the seventh or last Trumpet, which therefore reach to the very end of Apocalyptick Time. And therefore the Angel having declared that there was no more time than this seventh Trumpet, which he had in so general a touch run thorough after his giving the Book to John to be eaten, John is immediately bid to prophesy. And therefore the Vision of the measured Temple and Witnesses is as certainly the first Vision of the Opened Book-Prophecy, as any thing in the World can be certain. And if it be so, the Calendarist himself cannot but confess it gins as high as the seven Churches or the Seals. But if he imagine the History of the Trumpets begun to be completed to the end of Apocalyptick Time in the Vision comprised in the eleventh Chapter, because of the second Woe's being said to be passed, and the seventh Trumpet sounding to make the Vision of the Woman clothed with the Sun the first Vision of the Opened Book-Prophecy, as commencing as high as the seven Churches or Seals; there is he out again. For that Vision in the eleventh Chapter does not reach to the end of Apocalyptick Time, but to the seventh Vial only inclusively. So that the Descent of the New Jerusalem, the Millennial Reign of Christ and the Laodicean Interval are still behind. But the Apocalyptick Time upon the seventh Thunder  was quite ended, and so a fit Regress made to a new set of Prophecies. Which the ingenious Calendarist cannot deny but that it ought to begin as high as the seven Churches and the Seals: And then of necessity the Time of the inner Court will not be synchronous, but antecedent to the Time of the outer. Which is a very plain Truth, and equally useful.  
He makes my second Argument for the forty two months beginning before 400; That the Invocation of Saints had entered somewhat before it. In Answer to which he recurs again, pag. 84. to the device of the Balance. But my Reply to his Answer to the fifth Objection will serve here. So that I will add nothing further, but remind the Reader, that not only the Invocation of Saints, but the reposing Confidence in the Mahuzzim was then, and this exceedingly spread, as has been proved Chap. 28.  
The sixth Objection and the Answer being less material to my purpose, I omit. We therefore pass to the seventh and last, which is this: The Witnesses are risen, and out of their Sackcloth, and that some years ago, and therefore the 1260 years are also so long ago expired, which utterly subverts the Calendar, pag. 85. This, says he, being the great Objection, requires the most distinct Answer, I shall therefore briefly explain my full sense, etc. In pursuance of this, I confess, he is witty, operose and copious; but the substantial sum of the matter, so far as I can gather, is this, That as the Time of the Medial Visions is distinguished into parts, A Time and Times and Half a Time, and three Days and an Half; so there are several Degrees of the Completion of the Vision. To this sense is that which occurs pag. 78. By all which it appears, saith he, Time at large has a less full presence of the Event, and admits a contrary, intimate Time hath the full presence of the Event, and admits no contrary. And pag. 88 Some (says he, speaking of the Witnesses) are called up into places of Dignity as into Heaven, but not as they shall be at the end of the 1260 days. For each first and last part of all the Characters of Time must have degrees of the Event, else they could not have a foundation to be so distinguished. Even our Lord's first Night was a beginning to die in his Agony being betrayed, etc. And till the Evening of the first day of the week he appeared not to a Number, as not publicly risen till the end of the third day. And then giving several instances of the scantness of the Reformation and of great Objects still remaining of the Witnesses sorrow; to conclude then, says he, pag. 89. till after the full Expiration of the Time of the Apostasy, being in Power as a Throne or Kingdom in all its coextensive Characters, the Witnesses are not, in full Apocalyptick sense, Risen: as the golden Key of the Time, the three days and an half also assure us. For till the Emphatical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, After three days and an half are fully past they rise not, viz. conspicuously, as our Lord did not. And that that is not yet (beside the credit of our Calendar) is apparent, in that since the Reformation there have been no effects like those that are to signalise the end of the 1260 days, etc.  
This is the main of his Answer, to which I briefly reply, that it reaches not the case. For the utmost fulfilling of the Vision of the Rising of the Witnesses is not that there shall be a Rising of them throughout the Kingdom of the Beast; but that it shall be only in part of his Kingdom. For it is expressly said in the Text, that at the very hour of their Rising, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the tenth part of the City fell, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, betwixt which there is as much difference as betwixt ten and one. For as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [the third part] which is a Symbol of the Roman Empire, does not signify the whole Habitable or then inhabited Earth, but the third part of the Earth only, so the tenth part of the City cannot signify all the ten parts of the City or the whole City, but the tenth part only. Besides that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not here relate to the ten-horned Beast or Secular Empire, but to the Hieratical Polity the City of Babylon, the tenth of that only fell, but the Secular Empire where this fall was, stood rather more strong than ever, was more complete than ever, being rid of the Papal Tyranny at the Reformation so far forth as it was reform. And now for the Emphatical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, After the three days and an half; Forasmuch as it is said after these three days and an half the Witnesses risen, and the tenth part of the City fell, it is as clear as Noonday that no more than a partial Fall of the City and a proportionated Rising of the Witnesses is the full completion of this Vision or Prophecy. But whatever other Accessions there are to be made to the Kingdom of Christ or Ruin of Antichrist, they must be the completion of some other Visions, but not of this. And as for the Credit of his Calendar, I have again and again shown how frail it is. And for any Effects to signalise the end of the 1260 days I have demonstrated elsewhere, that not Days, but Semitimes are the measuring Unite of the Event of this Vision. And that there was no signalizing Effect at the expiration of the 1260 days from the right Epocha, it is a further confirmation that not a Day, but a Semitime is the Eventual Measure, and the last Semitime was signalised with the blessed Reformation.  
But yet, as if his Answer to this seventh Objection had been in itself solid and valid, and that, as he has explained things, the Witnesses were not Risen in a full Apocalyptick sense; he proposes three Objections out of what he has read of mine.  
The first Objection is this, The latitude of months for the fulfilling Events in some parts of them, may so disagree with the narrower lines of day, too narrow for the months (pag. 90.) that the Prophecy may be made to contradict itself, and so speak true and not true as to point of Time and Events together. True in the months, not in the days. But his Answer is this, As the height of Events is by the Prophecy determined to the intimate part of the three days and the three times and an half, so the duration of the Event at large is by the Prophecy co-extended to the very last day of the 1260, and cannot end sooner, and therefore the days must overrule the months, as being more precisely fixed in the point of Time, etc. But to this I reply, That the Answer is indeed ingenious, saving that he was not ware, that the partial Fall of the City and the then Rising of the Witnesses was after the three days and an half, according to his own Emphatical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which plainly implies that the Vision points at no more than a partial Fall of Babylon, and a commensurate Rising then of the Witnesses, and that there is no such duration of the Event at large co-extended by the Prophecy to the very last day of the 1260, but that they signify no more precisely than that Authentic measure of the Time and Times and half a Time in Daniel, as I have demonstrated Chap. 25. And though this pretended preciseness to a day will not necessarily argue any improvements of Omnisciency in S. John's time above what was attained to in Daniel's, yet it looking as if it did, why may not the Divine Wisdom think good to prevent that Cavil in Atheistical men, by keeping to Daniel's Authentic measure in these Medial Visions?  
The second Objection is, The greatness of the Events requires a larger scope than of a Prophetic day or year to be fulfilled in. To which he answers: The preparations to the Events may be so going on before, that the Events themselves may, as the Israelites going out of Egypt, be in the selfsame day. And so the Beast's last month may by its greater compass allow room for those preparations about its latter end, though not fulfilled till the last day. But when God will work, who can let it? Nullum tempus occurrit Regi. But to this I briefly reply, There is not a preparation to Rising only, but a long succession of their actual Rising not confinable to a year, as is apparent in the Reformation begun by Luther, which I have demonstrated to be the Rising of the Witnesses, Chap. 23. of this Treatise.  
The third Objection is this, The Expectation of the Witnesses yet to rise, disquiets men's thoughts into Turbulence, and gives them meaner esteems of the Reformation, and the present Estate of the Church. It would swell this Chapter into too great a bigness to set down all that he says in Answer to this; I will therefore confine myself to the three first Particulars.  
First therefore, he answers, That the Prophecy anathematizes all such disorderly motions, whether the Witnesses are risen or not. For it will be fulfilled by the Princes themselves, Christian Princes and by Instruments in pure Linen, not as in the Trumpets, not by Mahometan, much less by Popular Tumults.  
Secondly, The very hopes or desires that Babylon should fall, as every one knows as yet it is not fallen, may be charged with the same ill consequences.  
Thirdly, The Reformation is acknowledged within itself to be the Witnesses Risen and the Church out of the Wilderness, but not to the full sense of the Prophecy, the Beast being yet in power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
To the first Particular I reply, That it is ingenious and commendable that it does so expressly declare against popular Turbulence and Tumult. But that the Witnesses are Risen already I have proved Chap. 23. and that they wear not Sackcloth after their Rising, Chap. 24. Wherefore what belongs to Princes themselves and their Instruments in pure Linen, hath nothing to do with the Vision of the Witnesses, but with the Vials which follow the Rising of the Witnesses. Which may be the Political Event of the fourth Vial.  
To the second; I deny that the hopes or desires of Babylon's further falling may be charged with the same ill consequences that a pretended set time of its farther Fall, or Rising of the Witnesses, suppose of twelve or thirteen years hence, is chargeable with. For there being no time set, there is no Watchword given to attempt, nor any Expectation of people raised.  
And to the third I briefly reply, That though the Reformation is acknowledged within itself to be the Witnesses Risen and the Church out of the Wilderness by the better sort of knowing men, yet others are of another opinion, and most of the Sectarians in Protestant Countries are too apt to fancy themselves the mournful Witnesses in Sackcloth, and therefore if any set a time, as if the 1260 days were not expired as yet, but that they will expire so many years hence when there will be a complete Rising of the Witnesses, or at least a putting off their Sackcloth, this must naturally raise the Expectation of the Sectarians, and hazard Commotions even in Protestant Countries.  
For the preventing of which inconvenience, I have been so vigilant and industrious to represent a true and faithful sense of the Vision of the Rising of the Witnesses, and to demonstrate to all the World, as I am certain I have done, that the Completion of that Prophecy is perfectly passed, both the Rising of the Witnesses, and their putting off their Sackcloth at once: And though the ingenious Calendarist has attempted many witty plausibilities in his adjusting his six Collateral Lines to his Principal Line of the 2300 Evening-Mornings mystically understood for the inferring that in the year 1697. that is, about twelve or thirteen years hence the time of the Witnesses prophesying in Sackcloth will expire, and the Turkish Woe pass away; And upon the seventh Trumpets sounding, there will ensue a most loud and public administration of the Gospel beyond any time since the Apostles, described as seven Voices or the seven Thunders unsealed; And that thirty years after the beginning of this, viz. in the year 1727. shall begin the final destruction of the Beast by the Vials accomplished in forty five years more at the year 1772. in the New Jerusalem: yet the discovering so much of a witty, peaceful and loyal good nature in this little Essay of his, I am confident, that he has that perspicacity that he will, from what I have writ, easily discern himself mistaken in his Account, and that his Calendar of Prophetic Time, though there be many useful and laudable things noted in the managing it, has no firm ground to stand upon.   

CHAP. XLVIII. Of the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans in the Pergamenian Interval. How [the third Part] comes to be a Symbol of the Roman Empire. The hair of Women in the Locusts the Character of the Arabians or Saracens. The full sense of the Voice of the Bridegroom and the Bride being heard no more in Babylon. There shall be no more Curse, Rev. 22.3. how to be expounded. Several Scriptures produced to prove, that in the New Jerusalem- state there will be a Change in the World Natural, as well as in the World Moral. An Explication of Isaiah, Chap. 56.20. As also of Rom. 8.21. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 3.21. which our English Translation renders Times of Restitution. Arguments produced to prove [That the Wolf and the Lamb shall feed together] is to be understood literally, with Answers thereto. Six Particulars in order to or compliance with the making the War of the Heros on the white Horse, Apoc. 19 Literal only or Carnal; With an Answer to the said Particulars.  
IN my Exposition of the Epistle to the Church in Pergamus I interpret the Nicolaitans to be a people that sat lose enough as to the Romish Church, but were also unchaste and lose of their bodies. And that there were such within the Pergamenian Interval, which reaches from An. Dom. 324. to An. Dom. 1242. is apparent from History. This the Reverend and Learned Dean of Paul's, Dr. Stillingfleet, has made good to our hands in the Fanaticism of the Roman Church; where he tells us, that this Nicolaitan Doctrine (which afterward proved the very Doctrine of Henry Nicolas the Father of the Family of Love) did obtain amongst them at the beginning of the thirteenth Century, viz. That every Person of the Holy Trinity had his successive Time of Ruling the World; That the Law of the Father continued till Christ's Coming, the Law of the Son till their Time, and then the Time of the Holy Ghost was to begin; In which the use of Sacraments was to cease, and all external Administrations, etc. And they so highly extolled Love, that what would have been a sin without it, they thought to be none with it, as Fornication, Adultery, etc. This is the Primitive Nicolaitism, which was again renewed by H. N. alias Henry Nicolas, from whence our modern Familists spring; as also at first the Quakers, who still cast away the Sacraments, and make nothing of external Administrations. This business is related in Nauclerus, and that before An. Dom. 1190. so fully is it within the Pergamenian Interval. It may not be amiss to set down his words concerning the latter part of their description: Charitatis etiam virtutem sic ampliabant, ut id, quod aliàs peccatum esset, si fieret in Charitate, jam illud non esset peccatum, unde stupra & adulteria & caeteras corporis voluptates nomine Charitatis perpetrabant, mulieribusque cum quibus peccabant, & simplicibus quos decipiebant impunitatem promittebant, Deum tantummodo bonum & justum praedicantes. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ says he hates and abhors, Apoc. 2.15. And it is a surprising hit that Henry Nicolas should be so eminent a Reviver of this Nicolaitan Doctrine. But I have said enough already to confirm our Exposition of that passage of the Apocalypse.  
I will pass hence to Chap. 8. v. 7, 8, etc. where [the third Part] mentioned at least half a score times, I interpret to be a Symbol of the Roman Empire, and there is very good reason for it from what occurs Chap. 12.4. where the great red Dragon with seven Heads and ten Horns, which most certainly denotes the Roman Empire, according to all Interpreters, is said to have drawn down with his Tail the third part of the Stars of Heaven, and to have cast them to the Earth, that is, to have brought the third part of the Kingdoms of the World under his subjection. Which passage is an intended Key to that in the eighth Chapter, as the seventeenth Chapter is chief to the eleventh and thirteenth.  
In the ninth Chapter, v. 8. where the Locusts are said to have hair as the hair of Women, I, as Mr. Mede before me, interpret of the Saracens which are Arabians, of whom Pliny writes, Nat. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 28. N. 30. Arabes mitrati degunt aut intonso crine. And the Vision describes the Locusts as having faces of humane shape but that they wear their hair as Women, (as do the Arabians) as being Mitrati, that is, having women's Head-tire on. For so Mitra signifies: Pilea virorum sunt, Mitrae foeminarum. It was the Head-cover also of the Lydians and Phrygians, but accounted less manly. Whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a reproachful Title given to the soft and effeminate; though the Arabians were not reputed such. See Martinius. Mr. Mede citys rather the sense than the words of Pliny. But whether we read [&] or [aut] it is plain these Arabians ordered their hair as women: which therefore is a fit Character of the Saracens in these Locusts.  
In the eighteenth Chapter, v. 23. I content myself in noting that the voice of Bridegroom and Bride being no more heard in Babylon, signifies that there shall be no more propagating of their Pseudo-Catholick Religion, the end of Marriage being Propagation. And this is a true sense and unexceptionable; But it might have been fuller, if we had noted also, that there may be an allusion to that usurped Title of the Pope, who calls himself Sponsus Ecclesiae. For then the proselyting of Nations and Countries to the Papal Religion and Jurisdiction, would look ever like a new Marriage. But the Joy of such Marriages will cease after the final Fall of Babylon, which is described in this eighteenth Chapter of the Apocalypse. See Gabriel Powel in his De Antichristo, l. 1. c. 14.  
In Chapter 22. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And there shall be no more curse. This I expound of the furious Papal anathemas or Excommunications to depose Kings and Princes, and to involve the Christian World in blood, which I do not doubt but is the proper Prophetical meaning of the place, and not the Curse of God for Sin, which was Diseases, Death, Briars, Thorns, the labour and sweat of Tillage, and the like. That Curse we shall never be delivered from till we come to Heaven. And those that fancy such things here on Earth in the New Jerusalem state; as in this passage, so in all other passages that sound so high, they are to remember, that the proper fulfilling of them is to be in Heaven, though in a figurative sense they will be fulfilled here, and that the description of the New Jerusalem on Earth is so framed, as to be also Typical of the State of the Church in Heaven, as I have more fully declared in Chapter 20. of these Paralipomena.  
But forasmuch as, besides this mistake in S. E. I find a sober and judicious Writer W. A. in his Treatise of the State of the Church in the latter Ages of the World to incline to the Opinion, that there will be even a Change of Nature in the Time of the New Jerusalem-state of the Church: I will a while here divert into what he says Chap. 10. and produce the most material Reasons he hath for the proving, that in those days there will be a Change of the World Natural as well as the World Moral, as he phraseth it. Those places of Scripture that seem to promise plenty of things, and increase of People, I conceive, imply no such Radical Change in the World Natural. For merely from the Moral Temperance of men in those Times there will be length of Days and the Propagation of a sound Offspring, this with Peacefulness will cause Populousness; And for Plenty, which depends upon the Clouds and timely and seasonable Showers, they have ever been and will be at the Command of the invisible Powers in the Air. So that that will be no insititious Change in the Natural World, but the effects of free Actions in those invisible Agents.  
But that indeed of Isaiah, Chap. 65.20. if not fitly interpreted, may seem to argue a Change of things more than what depends upon what is Free and Moral. For after God had promised he would create a new Heaven and a new Earth, v. 17. he adds a little afterwards, That there shall be no more thence an Infant of days, nor an Old man that has not filled his days. For the Child shall die an hundred years old, but the Sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. Here the Child dying an hundred years old, to the heedless may import, that they shall be more longaevous then, than the Patriarches before the Flood, an Hundred being to a Thousand, as Seven the Age of a Child to Seventy, which would imply a strange Change in the Natural World indeed. But to give W. A. his due, he has pitched upon the most likely sense of this Verse, viz. That there shall no Child ordinarily die by any untimely death, nor an Old man that has not lived so long as in the course of Nature he might well reach; That the space from Childhood to old Age shall ordinarily be an hundred years, etc. But I deny that this argues any more than what depends upon a Divine Morality or real Regeneration in their Parents, who will transmit a sound and wholesome constitution to their Posterity. Which if any one of them do not improve to the like Virtue and Piety, and yet by the Benefit of their Constitution live an hundred years, content mainly with the things of the Animal life, such a Sinner as this, notwithstanding his Longaevity, is accursed, both because he for the present deprives himself of the enjoyments of the Divine life, and must expect also but a bad Reception (when he dies) into the other State.  
The next Text of moment which he urges is Rom. 8.21. The Creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the Children of God: Which he would have to argue, that there will be a Change of the World Natural in the blessed Millennium as well as in the World Moral, he supposing that [Creature] there signifies the whole sublunary Creation at least. And the Apostle, v. 22. says, For we know that the whole Creation groaneth, and travaileth in pain together until now. Where [the whole Creation] is the same with [the Creature itself] not Christians quatenus Christians, but the very Creature or Creature itself groaneth and is in pain. But than it is to be understood, as Dr. Hammond also will have it, of the whole Humane Creature, which he makes out rationally and judiciously. And what Creatures but humane or Men can expect to be delivered into the glorious Liberty of the Sons of God? This therefore does not respect the Jerusalem-state of the Church here on Earth, but the State of the Resurrection. For then only will this deliverance from the bondage of Corruption be, and the attainment of the freedom of the Sons of God, which is the Title of the Angels. For then in our incorruptible glorified bodies we shall become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, equal to the Angels. And this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is mentioned v. 23. which we groan after and wait for, viz. the redemption of our bodies, that they may be glorified and made Angelical, such as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have, the Angels or Sons of God, as is declared in the Answer to S. E.  
Something like this Text is that alleged out of the Acts, Chap. 3.21. where S. Peter speaking of our blessed Saviour, saith, Whom the Heaven must receive until the Times of Restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy Prophets since the world began. W. A. to give him his due, manages this Text ingeniously enough to his present purpose, upon supposition that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be rendered as our English Translation renders it [Restitution] implying thereby Restauration or Renovation. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a completed Circuit or Period, properly relating to Astronomical Revolutions; It signifies also the effecting of a thing. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore signifies either the Periodical Times, that is to say, the Times brought to a Period, or the Times of effecting of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy Prophets. Which easy sense implies no such Change in the World Natural in the Millennium, as our Author would deduce therefrom. And this is not my sense only on the Text, but Grotius his also, or something in him near akin to it. As for that Isai. 66.22. For as the Heavens and Earth which I will make shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. This Heaven and Earth, as that Chap. 65.17. is a Political Heaven and Earth, that Divine Polity which will constitute the New Jerusalem-state of the Church, in which the Jews or Israelites will have a portion as long as that Polity stands, which is to the end of all.  
But I have made so much haste, that I have omitted a prime Text alleged by this ingenious Author, Isai. Chap. 65. The Wolf and the Lamb shall feed together, and the Lion shall eat straw like the Bullock, and dust shall be the Serpent's meat, they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord. And a fuller description to the same purpose there is Chap. 11. which he produces to prove, that there will be a Change in the World Natural in the Millennium as well as in the Moral World, he urging the literal sense of these places for these three Reasons following.  
First, Because the Wolf and Lamb, the Lion and Bullock are supposed to retain their Original proper Natures still. For if not, than the Wolf would become a Lamb, and the Lion a Bullock, and then in the mystical sense, (which he opposes) it would only be, that the Lamb and the Lamb would feed together, and the Bullock eat straw like other Bullocks.  
The second Reason is, That we cannot well imagine for what other purpose that saying, [The Lion shall eat straw like an Ox] should be added, but only to give some account how those Creatures shall live, and how they shall be fed when they shall cease to pray upon other living Creatures. Which implies that the sense is literal.  
The third is, Because it is further added, That dust shall be the Serpent's meat, which further confirms the foregoing Reason, as if the Prophet did persist in instructing us how these Creatures, when their noxious properties are taken away, shall feed and sustain themselves. Nor did ever any, says he, so far as I know, essay to accommodate this of the Serpent to a mystical sense, when they have done so to the other parts of the Prophecy in conjunction with it. These are his three Arguments which are not without some wit and judgement; But I shall answer to each.  
To the first therefore I say, That there is a Prophetic Asteismus in the Phrase of the Prophet, when he says, The Wolf and the Lamb shall feed together, which in the Cortex or Literal sense strikes the imagination strongly, as is the Nature of the Prophetic Style. But that there may be still an opposition in the Mystical sense as there is betwixt the Wolf and the Lamb, it is to be understood not in sensu composito, but in sensu diviso, That he that had a Wolfish nature before shall change his nature to that of a Lamb, and accordingly converse with him of that nature. This is the obvious sense, if we study not to be over-subtil and witty. But besides this we may conceive, though by the power of the Gospel, especially in those Times, these several Bestian Natures will be wonderfully corrected and subdued, and made obedient to the Heavenly Man Christ in us, yet they may retain their Natural Character, and this man may become a thoroughly tamed Wolf, that a thoroughly tamed Lion. And Physiognomists, we know, refer the natural Temper of men to some resemblance of such Animals, which Inclinations yet may be perfectly subdued by real Grace and Virtue, though the Characters of their natural Inclinations remain. Which made Zopyrus the Physiognomist declare Socrates Venereous, and when Socrates his Scholars laughed at him for his mistake, he rebuked them, and told them, Zopyrus spoke true, for such he was by Nature, but Virtue had corrected it. There was the natural Character of the Goat on him still, though the life was subdued or extinct.  
To the second I answer, That the reason is obvious, why it is said, that the Lion shall eat straw like the Ox, viz. that it may correspond with the Wolf's feeding with the Lamb, which is eating grass with the Lamb, and that they both correspond with the intended mystical sense of the Parable, which the Conclusion of the Verse is a Key to. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy Mountain. Injury, Violence and Cruelty shall cease. No man to feed his own humour of Ambition or Covetousness shall pain and oppress his Neighbour. But those Bloodsuckers before, which were like Wolves or Lions, shall be changed from that Temper, that they shall pain and injure no living Soul in seeking to sustain themselves in that rank they are, no more than a Wolf or Lion would do by eating grass or Hay.  
And to the third and last, I say, My Answer to the second is further confirmed by that passage touching the Serpent, That dust shall be the Serpent's meat as it was before, because his eating dust hurts no other living Creature. Therefore his food needs not be changed: As thereby is also intimated, that his Nature is not. And therefore the Serpent is here a Symbol of the Unregenerate in those days, who though they keep their own ill serpentine Nature still, (for they are of their Father the Devil) yet they will be tightly kept in by the righteous Laws of the New Jerusalem Polity, that they shall be able to do no hurt, however willing, but live so in subjection to those Laws, that they shall acquire their livelihood without violence or injury to their Neighbour. And according to the richness of the Prophetic Style it insinuates also what Underlings these sort of men will be in those days. As it is said Psal. 72. Thine Enemies shall lick the dust: and Mic. 7. They shall lick the dust like a Serpent, they shall move out of their holes like Worms of the Earth. These are those that undergo in those Times perpetual shame and contempt, Dan. 12. This I conceive to be the mystical meaning of [Dust shall be the Serpent's meat] I have been the more careful in clearing this place, that mistaken Glosses may not obscure the Prophecies of those Times, and so blind men from seeing they are fulfilled, when indeed they are. See what is said to S. E. the Remarker on Apoc. 22. v. 3. and I hope it will fully satisfy.  
For I will haste now to another Mistake of this otherwise ingenious Writer, which is touching the Battle of the Heros on the white Horse under the seventh Vial. For he makes it only a literal or carnal Warfare, and the destruction or killing so to be understood only. Whence (1) whereas the Garments of that Heros only, on the white Horse, are said to be distained with blood, his Soldier's garments continuing white and clean without any spot of blood upon them, he will have to signify, that this bloody Execution is to be attributed to Christ alone, rather than to his Followers on white Horses, who being so few, could do nothing in a manner without Christ's miraculous aid, if they did any thing at all with it. And to this sense is alleged Isai. 59.19. When he Enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a Standard against him. (2) And he adds pag. 137. That besides this, the Armies of the Dragon, Beast and false Prophet are said to be slain by the Sword proceeding out of the mouth of him that sat upon the Horse, but not one word of his being slain by his Soldiers. (3) And this being the effect of the seventh Vial, and the Vials being Plagues, that the slaughter by the Sword coming out of his mouth cannot signify Conversion, forasmuch as Conversion is no Plague, but a Blessing. (4) Nor can I, saith he, find any where in Scripture that the word, slaying by the Sword of God's mouth, or breath of His lips, is used in so favourable a sense as to signify the Conversion of men from sin, but either the denouncing or executing evil against them. (5) And in pursuance of this sense of a carnal War only, he interprets the great City (Rev. 16.19.) divided into three parts of the great City spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. (6) And is inclinable to interpret the great Earthquake and the great Hail, v. 18, 21. literally also. But to each of these I shall briefly make answer.  
To the first, That Christ's Garments only distained with blood, and that before the Battle, does not signify that a bloody Execution literally taken, is to be attributed to Christ alone, but it signifies the meritorious Passion of Christ which belongs alone to him, and yet in virtue of which alone is this great Victory under this seventh Vial: which is an Argument that the Warfare is spiritual. To which that of Esay very well agrees, When the Enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a Standard against them The Standard indeed intimates War, but the Spirit that it is spiritual. The Victory therefore is to be attributed to the bloody Passion of Christ only and to his promised Spirit in his Followers on white Horses, powerfully urging the Passion of Christ in this Conflict, to a wonderful ample Conversion of the Nations. See my Notes on the place.  
To the second I say, That the Armies of the Beast and false Prophet are not said to be slain by the Sword proceeding out of the mouth of him that sat on the white Horse, there's not a word of that touching them, but they are said to be taken alive, and cast alive into the Lake of fire burning with brimstone. So that they were not slain by that Sword. But it is said, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the rest of those Armies, those that under the Dragon fought against the Heros on the white Horse, that is, the Infidel Party, they were slain by the Sword of him that sat on the Horse, which proceeded out of his mouth. And that there is not one word of their being slain by his Soldiers, is because his Passion alone and his Spirit whereby he speaks and powerfully pleads the Merit of his own Passion, does all in all. This is that which will so successfully subdue the Nations to him, as he said of himself when he was in the flesh; When I am lifted up, I shall draw all men unto me, intimating thereby what death he should die.  
To the third, That though this Conversion is no Plague to the converted, yet it is so to the Beast and false Prophet. For such a world of people being converted to the Purity of the Gospel, that Polity unconverted will necessarily be overrun, melted and dissolved, and the seven Plagues are properly designed for the destruction of Antichrist or the Beast.  
To the fourth, That if by the Phrase [slaying] by the Sword of God's mouth or breath of his lips, is never understood any thing but the denouncing or executing evil against men, than the Beast and false Prophet were slain by the Sword coming out of the mouth of him that sat on the white Horse, (for certainly nothing is here done without his Command) which is a perfect contradiction to the Text. For the Beast and false Prophet were cast alive into the Lake of fire not slain by that Sword: which is a plain demonstration of the Battle here typified its being mainly spiritual. And it is a wonder to me, that any one that takes notice that the very Title of this Heros is the Word of God, and that the Word of God is said to be sharper than any two-edged Sword, and that there is no Weapon appears here either on himself or his Followers to oppose his Enemies with, but this sharp Sword going out of his mouth, should doubt but that this War is mainly spiritual, as I have interpreted it. And that [slaying] by the Sword of God's mouth or the breath of his lips signifies Conversion, there are several Examples in Scripture thereof, Isai. Chap. 11.4. And he shall smite the Earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. Which Forerius and A Lapide interpret and Calvin also, of the Victory of the Word of God over wicked men, slaying them as such, and converting them to a quite contrary state. And thus is Christ said by the Spirit of his mouth, 2 Thess. 2. to consume the man of sin, that is, by the power of the Word, as Calvin expressly interprets it, and compares it with that of Esay. See also 2 Esdr. Chap. 13. v. 4, 10, 38. And undoubtedly that Prediction, Apoc. 2.16. I will fight against them with the Sword of my mouth, respects the Conversion and separation of whole Kingdoms and Nations at the end of the Thyatirian Interval from the Church of Rome, which came to pass in the Reformation. But we are to remember that this Conversion, which is a Blessing to the Converted, is a Wound and Cutting to the Body of Antichrist, and therefore not inconsistent with the state of that War.  
To the fifth, I say the great City divided into three parts, cannot be that City spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, sorasmuch as that City is the same with Babylon the great. Which as great as it is, is but part of the great City there said to be divided into three parts, of which the Cities of the Nations are one, as the Text plainly intimates, which were Thunderstruck by the Evangelical Boanerges's, and fell, that is, were converted, as the slain by the Sword in the other Vision. And as the unconverted Beast and false Prophet are cast into a Lake of fire there, so Babylon here impenitent blasphemes, their Power and Polity being broken apieces with a storm of Hailstones of a Talon weight apiece: So easy and natural a congruity is there of things, interpreting these Visions of a spiritual Warfare. And for the three parts which the City is divided into, understanding it of one great Ecumenical City as it were, there is plainly the Evangelical Party, and the Antichristian Party, and the Infidel Party, the same with the three great Parties of the Armies in Armageddon. But of any three parts that Babylon is divided into, there is not the least intimation in the Vision.  
To the sixth and last, I say it is very absurd in this Book of the Apocalypse so thoroughly Symbolical, to interpret Hailstones and Earthquakes, and the like, Literally. And to give the Author his due, he is not over-confident in the case. But saving some few such things as these, his Book is excellently well writ, and of very good use and service to such as have Genius to these Studies.   

CHAP. XLIX. An Answer to several Arguments from an ingenious Hand, that the Intervals of the Vision of the seven Churches do not reach to the end of the World, but to the beginning of the Vision in Chap. 4. which according to him respects the Times of Queen Elizabeth. Two difficulties from the same hand touching the placing the twenty four Elders and four Beasts about the Throne, briefly answered.  
THough the thing the Author of the following Arguments drives at, is to make the Vision of the 4. and 5. Chapters of the Apocalypse to concern the Affairs of England from the Time of Queen Elizabeth to this present Age, yet they seeming to have some colour to prove in general that the Laodicean Interval does not reach to the end of the World; and it being a thing of moment to wipe away all pretences to this mistake, I thought fit to produce them and answer them, and to insert the Answer into the number of my Paralipomena Prophetica. His Arguments therefore out of his Papers I had, are these.  
1. As often as those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Chap. 4.1.) do occur, they never suffer the Vision they belong to, to be expounded of any Event antecedent to the Event of the Vision next before. For this I appeal, saith he, to your own Exposition of the Apocalypse in all other places, and why this only should be excepted I see not. Whence it follows, that the Event of the Vision of Chap. 4. must follow that of the Church of Laodicea. Wherefore the Church of Laodicea does not conclude the World.  
2. Besides, unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves to show the order of the Events of Visions, it serves to no use at all. For as for the order of S. John's receiving of them, it is well enough known by his order of relating them.  
3. To which I may add, That for sureness sake it is not only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the Voice tells him withal, that the things which he should see were such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whereby it seems to me, that we are enjoined of necessity to expound that Vision of Chap. 4. of something that was to succeed the Vision of Laodicea. For I hope you will not deny but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has respect to the things next before spoken, as well here as in all other places.  
4. There are also other Considerations to prove the connexion and order of the Visions of the 3. and 4. Chapters. Such as these, Christ promises Philadelphia an open door which no man shall be able to shut, i. e. he tells her, he has set this door before her, meaning, as I conceive, that the Church was not yet arrived to this open door, but in some time she should. In the next Epistle we have Christ knocking at this door (for what other can it be) to get it open. In the very entrance of Chap. 4. the door is opened. Are these three doors the same or no? Surely the Text seems to intimate they are the same.  
5. Another Consideration may be this; When Christ promises the Victor that he should sit with him in his Throne, even as he was set down with his Father in his; and then immediately after exhibits a most glorious Representation of this Throne (viz. the Throne of God and of Christ) does not this seem to look as if the Throne exhibited to view, were that which were just before promised?  
6. That the Laodicean Interval does not reach to the end of the World, may be evidenced from the placing of the Promise to the Victor before the Parabolical Epiphonema, which argues it to be a Political promise, when no such can take place, that time when an end shall of course be put to all worldly Polity. And therefore if it was not such a promise, but simply a promise of Heaven, it ought to have been placed after the Parabolical Epiphonema. So that there is no evasion from the strength of this Argument, allowing the Rule of placing the Parabolical Epiphonema to be true, on Chap. 2.11.  
7. And lastly, Supposing the Throne to be Heavenly in a literal sense, will it not hence follow, that the Victor shall sit in as high a place in Heaven as the Father and the Son do? For it is promised to the Victor to sit with Christ in his Throne, even in like manner as Christ sits with his Father in his, and that must be one and the same Throne, because Christ and the Father are one. Wherefore it can be no Heavenly Throne, and therefore it is an Earthly that is promised, and consequently this Earthly Scene continues after the Interval of Laodicea. These are his Arguments set off to the utmost advantage, so far as my skill could reach. But in Answer,  
1. To the first, I demand how those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are but an Adverb of Order in Time, the same that Postea in Latin, as Beza here translates it, should have that propriety of sense as never to suffer the Vision they belong to, to be expounded of any Event antecedent to the Event of the Vision next before, whenas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than [Afterwards] or [After this] as our English Translation has it, which is most easily and naturally understood of the Vision precedent, as if he should say, After this Vision I looked, and behold, etc. But if you will have it, After the Event of this Vision I looked; I demand how could John in Domitian's time be said to look up, etc. after an Event in Queen Elizabeth's time, which seems a plain Repugnancy, whenas John's looking up is about fifteen hundred years on this side of that Event. Wherefore it is not from any force or virtue of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the Vision they belong to, is not expounded of any Event antecedent to the Event of the Vision next before, but from other clear circumstances, or that the Visions are in the same order as the Events they prefigure, and no weight of Reason appears to the contrary. And for his Appeal to my Exposition of the Apocalyse, his ground fails there also. For Chap. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. some things there are expounded of what is antecedent to the Prediction (Chap. 17. v. 14.) of the Victory of the Lamb.  
But suppose all places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found, had been so expounded by me, as the Objector fancies, it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be so expounded here, because there are such notable indications to the contrary. 1. For first there being seven Intervals from the beginning of the Church Apostolic, it does both according to the Apocalyptick and Cabbalistick sense of [Seven] imply all the Intervals of the said Church from that first Term. As the seven Seals beginning from the same Term, reach to the end of the World; And so the seven Trumpets from the Term they do commence, reach to the end of the World; And the same I doubt not of the seven Thunders, that they last to the very last the Conflagration itself. And the seven Heads of the Beast take in all the Heads of him that are. Wherefore it is rational, that the seven Intervals of the Church take in all the Intervals of the Church that are. And therefore I think I saw reason, that this place, however 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be expounded in others, should be excepted. 2. But again, How harsh and absonous is it to make the Epistolar Prophecy to reach but to the Reformation, and the Affairs of the Church, and the Prophecies thereof to be continued in Visions and Prophecies of quite another mode and fashion? Does not this look like a strange heterogeneous patch or botch? And is it not infinitely more smooth and elegant to conceive the Epistolar Prophecy a complete Prophecy of its own kind and manner of contexture, reaching from the beginning of the Church to the end of the World; And that after this gins a new Prophecy of the same extent, but of another Texture and Nature without any connexion to this? Ne Gryphs jungantur equis— 3. Thirdly, If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify, after the Event of the Vision of the Church of Laodicea, which according to him is the Reformation, than all the whole Prophecy that follows, at least that of the seven Seals, which take in also the seven Trumpets, must be after the Reformation, when no less than a dozen Visions, the first six Seals, and the first six Trumpets are before. Which plainly shows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify so, as the Objector would have it; but that it denotes only the Order of Time in seeing these Visions, not the Order of Events. 4. Fourthly, Whenas that Vision of the seven Churches, which commences from the beginning of the Church, is ushered in with a great voice as of a Trumpet, and a like voice here as of a Trumpet speaks to S. John again, would not this alarm or awaken any heedful Reader's animadversion, and invite him to conceive, that surely here gins or is beginning a new Prophecy ab ovo or from the same Epocha, as before, especially considering what is noted in the second place, that there is here in this following Prophecy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the passing out of an Epistolar Prophecy to another of an huge different contexture. 5. But fifthly and lastly, Considering that general Preface to this whole Book of Prophecies set down stilo tenui, in a simple plain stile, Chap. 1.1. That it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him, of things to come to pass, and imparted by an Angel to John; And that the things to come to pass are most magnificently set out in Prophetic Figures and Symbols, as also Jesus Christ the Revealer of them in this first Vision of the seven Churches; Which glorious Representation of him in his Sacerdotal Habit amidst the seven golden Candlesticks, is a Vision introductory to the Epistolar Prophecy, and Christ made to dictate those Epistles to John, thereby to insinuate what is said in more meager terms, that this Epistolar Prophecy is the Revelation of Jesus Christ to his Servant John; I say, he that considers this, and after the finishing the Prophecy lights upon another glorious Vision, Chap. 4. and 5. which is most easily and naturally expounded to the same sense that the Introductory Vision of the Epistolar Prophecy is, and something more full, viz. That the slain Lamb Jesus Christ receives from the Sitter on the Throne God the Father, the sealed Book of Prophecies with power of opening the Seals, and exhibiting orderly the Prophetic Visions to his Servant John (for it is the Lamb that opens the Seals all along) what is this but a more magnificent expression of what is Chap. 1.1. said in more exile phrase, The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him of things to come to pass imparted by these Angelical impressions to his Servant John, and what can be concluded therefrom, but that this Vision Chap. 4. and 5. is as well as that before the Epistolar Prophecy an Introductory Vision, viz. to the Prophecy of the sealed Book, and therefore can be no continuation to the Epistolar Prophecy, notwithstanding those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This any unprejudiced Eye may easily discern to be the Truth. But that the glory of the Spiritual or Angelical Kingdom of the God of Israel there represented, is also prefigurative of the blessed Millennial state (which it was when it was first seen on the Mount) this does not at all clash with its Introductory usefulness, and the signification it has, even now specified. So that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify so, as the Objector would have it in all other places of the Apocalypse, yet there are most manifest and weighty Reasons why it should not so signify here. And thus I hope the first Argument is fully satisfied. I shall be briefer in those that follow.  
2. To the second I answer, Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not serve to show the order of the Events of the Visions as well as of the Visions themselves, whose order of being seen is sufficiently indicated by their order of place in the Narration, yet it may serve instead of a form of Transition, such as is used by Historians, Orators and Philosophers, and indeed all Writers, though the order of the things they speak of would be discerned without these Transitions by their mere speaking of them one after another as they first propounded them to be spoken of. And why should the stile of the Apocalypse be more pinching and hidebound than any other, that it cannot afford so much as two words that make but up four Syllables, for a brief Transition from one Prophetic Vision of large extent to another of equal extent and of quite different kind? For the full sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. is this, Thus far for the Epistolar Vision; after this I looked up, and behold, etc. Which therefore is a very brief Transition from the Epistolar Prophecy to the Prophecy of the sealed Book, and its Introductory Vision. And therefore, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not here serve to show the order of Events, yet it is not true that it serves to no use at all, it serving so manifestly for a Transition.  
3. To the third I say, In these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is merely an Adverb of Time, and signifies, as Beza and our English Translation has it, Posthac and Hereafter; Things that must be in time to come; (which is the general sense of Expositors) not things that are to succeed the Event of the Vision of Laodicea, or the Time of the beginning of the Reformation, as the Objector would have it. For here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being set in the front, or proposed in general, it implies that all the Visions that follow must be of things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The sense of which words, if it were after the Event of the Vision of Laodicea, that is, after the beginning of the Reformation, according to the Objector's surmise, the Assertion would be grossly and repeatedly false. For there are above twenty Visions that follow this general proposed Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose fulfilling was before the Reformation. So evident is it from hence, that Beza and our English Translation is in the right, and that the general sense of Expositors is sound in this matter. But indeed viewing slightly the outward Cortex of the Visions, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying as well [after these things] as [hereafter] and there being the Vision of Laodicea immediately precedent, which they seem to respect, one may, if he be not heedful, fancy unawares that the affairs of the Vision of Laodicea are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after which the affairs of the succeeding Prophecy are to be. But this show in the Cortex is but an artificial Blind, that which I call Lemmatosynechia, intended, as several other Artifices, for the Concealment of the sense of the Apocalypse, which is as seriously aimed at in the frame thereof as the certainty of Revealment. And the Objector's mind seems to be caught and entangled in this snare.  
4. To the fourth I answer, That Christ tells Philadelphia in his Epistle to her (which is supposed to be directed to her in being, as the nature of an Epistle requires) Behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it. The vulgar Latin has most faithfully and skilfully translated this passage out of the Greek, Ecce dedi coram te ostium apertum, etc. Where coram, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, is point-blank against the sense the Objector would put upon the passage, as if Christ meant, that Philadelphia yet was not arrived to this opened door, but that the Church at large in some time should be, whenas the saying is expressly directed to Philadelphia, to that very Interval of the Church. And it is said, Dedi coram te ostium apertum, That I have given thee Philadelphia, an open door in thy very presence, not at a distance. For Coram signifies proximity always, though Ant may be sometimes used of that which is more distant. So plain is it, that the Objector's Exposition is a false Gloss on the Text. And whereas, he saith, we have in the next Epistle Christ knocking at this door (for what other can it be?) to get it open; I answer, it is impossible it should be this door. For this door is an open door which no man could shut, unless Christ himself, and when he had once set it open to Philadelphia, it is not likely he would shut it again to make himself needless work. Besides, that this door in the Epistle to Laodicea is a door that others are to open to him, not the door he opens to others. Which also argues it cannot be the door in the entrance of Chap. 4. For no man opens that door in Heaven. But the door that Christ knocks at in his Epistle to Laodicea, is a door that men are to open to him, that he may come and sup with them, etc. And therefore surely the Text does not intimate these three doors to be the same. But the first door, in the Epistle to Philadelphia, is a Political door, a door of sure success set open to them of Philadelphia in their administration of the affairs of the Kingdom of Christ. The door in the Epistle to Laodicea is an Ethical door, the Hearts or Wills of the Laodiceans, which Christ solicits that they would open to him, and so receive him in the Communion of his Spirit, which is extremely well agreeing with all those Moral Exhortations and Increpations preceding this passage. And lastly, That door opened in the entrance of Chap. 4. is a Prophetical door, through which John passing, is admitted to behold Divine Visions, and be a Witness of Christ's receiving from his Father, and revealing the following Prophecies touching the affairs of his Church to the end of the World. This is the easy and natural sense of these three doors from the very Text of each place to him that will not Nodum in scirpo quaerere.  
5. To the fifth I say, That if the Throne exhibited Chap. 4. be intended for Christ's Throne, which be promises the Victor at the end of the foregoing Chapter, the Scene seems to be very ill contrived. For he that sits upon the Throne is not Christ, but God the Father, nor does Christ or the slain Lamb so much as sit with him on that Throne, but stands Chap. 5. v. 6. betwixt the Throne (with Him that sits on it) and the four Beasts and Elders. And v. 7. being in this standing posture, he is said to go and take the Book out of the right hand of Him that sat upon the Throne. And so not so much as Christ himself is enthronised on this Throne, much less any Laodicean Victor, which should have been expressed in this Scene, if there were any such real Connexion betwixt this Vision and that of the Vision of Laodicea, which the Objector is so solicitous for. There seems so great a dissimilitude in the very Cortex, that it will not so much as afford a Lemmatosynechia, that Artificial Blind, as I may so call it, at which I observed above, how incident the Objector is to stumble.  
6. This sixth Argument seems the most considerable of any, but I hope I shall offer that which is abundantly satisfactory in answer thereto, to any unprejudiced Reader. And because the main ground of the strength thereof is the Rule I have noted on Apoc. 2. v. 11. we will here produce the Rule, which is this, That the promise to the Victor preceding the Parabolical Epiphonema, is of things External and Political; but those promises that follow the said Epiphonema, are of things spiritual and invisible. Upon which I will only advertise, that the main Antithesis I intended lies betwixt Visibility and Invisibility to us men of the performance of the things promised; though the things are ordinarily such as may be also called Political.  
From whence I answer first, That this promise of an Heavenly Throne being to be performed at that visible and conspicuous, nay glorious and illustrious general Assizes at the last Day, when the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel and with the Trump of God, and when the Believers that remain alive shall be caught up in the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air; when he shall sit upon the Throne of his Glory, and all Nations shall be gathered before him, whom he shall distinguish into sheep and goats, and give the sheep the Kingdom prepared for them, but condemn the Goats to everlasting Fire: Is not this a performance, visible in the highest measure, of that promise of Christ to him that overcomes, that he will grant to him to sit with him in his Throne, even as he also overcame, and was set down with his Father in his? According to that in our Church Hymn; When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death, thou didst open the Kingdom of Heaven to all Believers. Into which questionless all true Believers enter at their death, but in a way invisible, and therefore the promise of Paradise to him that overcame in the Epistle to the Ephesine Church, is set after the Epiphomena. But this Heavenly Throne here promised to the Laodicean Victor being to be performed so visibly in that great and general Assizes at the last Day, is placed according to the Rule before the Epiphonema, thereby to advertise us, that this promise is to be performed at that great and solemn Day (which closeth the Laodicean Interval) in the sight of all the World by Christ sitting on his Throne of Glory with all Nations gathered before him.  
But now in the second place, if you be so curious as not to be content that the reward and performance be visible, but that it must needs be Political too, does not Christ say to the sheep, Inherit the Kingdom prepared for you? And is not a Kingdom Political, and therefore the promise thereof Political? Besides what I intimated on this very Text, Chap. 3.21. in these words. Nay you shall sit with me on my Throne, and judge the Apostate Angels at the last Day. Nor them alone, but as Co-assessors with Christ on this Laodicean Throne, they shall judge all the guilty people gathered before the Throne of Christ at the Day of Judgement: And is not this then manifestly a promise of what is not only visible, but also Political, and withal clear that there was all the reason in the World, that this promise should be, as it is, placed before the Epiphonema, and not after it? And this, I think, is a full and satisfactory Answer to this sixth Argument, that from the placing of the promise of a Throne to the Laodicean Victor before the Epiphonema, would infer, that it is an Earthly Throne, because the placing thereof thus implies it visible and Political, whenas this Heavenly Throne is manifestly so likewise.  
And that it is an Heavenly Throne, and not an Earthly (as we have plainly shown this sixth Argument to prove nothing to the contrary, so) there are many Arguments for it, and such as no man  with prejudice but will thereby be readily assured of the truth thereof. As (1) The general consent of Expositors. (2) The state of the Laodiceans, who are described under no such circumstances, as the Smyrnean, Pergamenian, Thyatirian and Philadelphian Churches, who living under other Polities, were subject to Martyrdoms, Persecutions, and great Hardships, and therefore those and the few Names in Sardis, having for this very cause an Earthly Political promise made to them, there being no such ground for them of Laodicea to have so, as being in a contrary condition, in peace, plenty and ease, insomuch that they themselves conceive they have need of nothing, this is a plain indication that no such earthly Political promise is made to them, they enjoying it already. (3) All those Moral or Spiritual Exhortations and Increpations which tend to the fitting them for Heaven, and which show them that only true and necessary way thither, these are another intimation that the promise to the Laodicean Victor is that of an Heavenly Throne, not an earthly, which they enjoyed already, wanting nothing. But the great solicitude of Christ seems here, to be to fit them for that state. Whence he says after all these sharp reproofs, As many as I love I rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock, etc. This is all an urgency for the preparing themselves for that Heavenly Throne, the Day of Doom being so near at hand. (4) And last, The very words of the promise imply it is an Heavenly Throne, as the Method he so earnestly commends to them, tends thereto: To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my Throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his Throne: i. e. As Christ, when he had overcome the sharpness of Death, was advanced to the right hand of God in Heaven by the gift of his Father, so he having thus opened the Kingdom of Heaven to all true Believers, he that overcomes in that Moral sense, shall have an Heavenly Throne of Christ's giving, all judgement, as it is said, being committed to the Son. And it is very harsh that Christ's Throne after his overcoming should be Heavenly, and the Laodicean Victors Earthly, and not of the same kind, though of a less degree. This is certainly the genuine sense of the promise of this Throne, to any one that is not blinded or biased with some strange prejudice. And this would have been the sense, if the promise had been placed after the Epiphonema, and not at all repugnant with our Hypothesis, that the Laodicean Interval is the last Interval reaching to the end of the World, which is sufficiently proved from other Arguments. But the promise being placed before the Epiphonema, it is not only not repugnant to, but confirms our Hypothesis, that Laodicea is that Interval that takes in the last Judgement, when in a visible manner all people are to be judged, as the word implies. The judgement and rewards shall be visible in the sight of all the World. So fittingly do all things fall in with the truth of our Hypothesis. But I may seem to have dwelled too long upon my Answer to this sixth Argument. We proceed to the seventh and last.  
7. To this seventh and last therefore I say, That unless we suffer our Fancy to stick to the mere Cortex of the figurative Letter which puts Throne for a Kingdom here, and the power of Judicature, which is the real and genuine sense, this Argument will appear to have small strength in it. For then supposing what I take to be true, that it is the promise of an Heavenly Kingdom; to sit with Christ in his Throne is to partake of Christ's Kingdom given to him by his Father, when he had overcome the sharpness of Death; which Kingdom is plainly Heavenly, he being thereupon exalted to the right hand of God in Heaven, from whence he is to come visibly at the last Day to judge the quick and the dead. For the Father judgeth no man, but has committed all judgement to the Son, as I noted above. And therefore Matt. 25. he saith to the sheep on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom, etc. Which Kingdom is so large, that Myriad may partake thereof without sitting in Christ's lap, as the Objector's Argument insinuates Christ to sit in his Father's lap: and so all that partake of this Heavenly Kingdom, to be as high in Heaven as God the Father and his Son Christ are, whenas they are not of equal Sovereignty, though the Throne were supposed Earthly. So that this Sophistry would exclude the Victor from having any Throne at all.  
But that one and the same Throne in this gross sense is not meant, appears from the expression of the same thing, or one part or Specimen thereof the power of Judicature, Matt. 19 where Christ tells his Apostles, that at the Resurrection they shall sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel, viz. at that time when all Nations shall be gathered together before Christ's Throne of Glory, Matt. 25. and yet all these thirteen Thrones are but one Throne in the abovesaid signification of Throne, that is, the power of Judicature. Which in a measure as it is there promised to the Apostles, so here to the Laodicean Victor, whose Privilege it will be to judge also the Apostate Angels at the last Day, as the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 6.2. And I little question but that this Privilege is included in a particular manner in this promise of an Heavenly Throne to the Laodicean Victor, the placing the promise before the Epiphonema intimating it to be visible, which cannot be but at the last Day. From whence, as from other Arguments, it is plain, that the Laodicean Interval is the last time of the Church upon Earth, else why should such a promise be made to the Laodicean Victor, rather than to any other Victor in the seven Churches?  
And now I hope by this time it is plain, that though there be a pretty speciousness of Wit and quickness of Invention in the seven Arguments of the ingenious Objector, yet there is no real strength in any of them, to prove that the Intervals of the seven Churches do not reach to the End of the World.  
I will only add from the same ingenious Hand what is objected against our Interpretation of Apoc. 4. v. 6. in the Notes (In the midst of the Throne, and round about the Throne, etc.) and briefly answer thereto, and then conclude. We suppose the Perimeter of the Throne to be square. Let the square Area be divided into four equal Squares by two Lines cutting themselves ad angulos rectos in the Centre of the said large square Area on which the Throne stands, and let each Line at both ends be produced something beyond the Perimeter of this Area. Now according to the order of the Narration of the Text as well as the order of the Camp of Israel, let these twenty four crowned Elders, six on a side, three on one fide of the decussant Line, and three on the other side, on each side of the Perimeter be so equidistantly placed, that every six Elders will take up a whole side, thus plainly environing the whole Perimeter of the Throne, and so properly to be said to be round about it. This answers to what is declared Chap. 4.4. And round about the Throne were four and twenty Seats, etc.  
But now let us conceive the four Beasts, which in the Vision are but single Beasts placed on those produced decussant Lines which divide each side of the Perimeter in the midst, a little more removed from the Perimeter than the Seats of the Elders. Here it cannot be said so roundly (because there is but a single Beast on each side of the Perimeter of the Throne) that they were round about it in the same sense the Elders are said to be. But they standing on these Lines that divide each side of the Perimeter of the Throne in the midst, they are said to be in the midst of the Throne, and round about the Throne. In the Midst for the reason abovesaid, and round about it, because every side of the Perimeter has a Beast just against the midst thereof. This is the clear and liquid reason why Mr. Mede interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it signifying no more than that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they were in the midst of each side of the Perimeter round about, no side excepted.  
But this Explication, says the ingenious Objector, is encumbered with these two difficulties. One is, that by this account the Elders will be in the midst of the Throne too, whose place is only said to have been round about the Throne. The other is, that it will not be easily granted that any thing can be said to be in the midst of the circumference of any figure, which is neither in it, nor within it. But to the first I answer, That none of the equidistant Seats of the Elders can be said to be in the midst of the Perimeter of the Throne in that exact sense that the Beasts may be said so to be. And besides, they so perfectly surrounding the Throne, there was no occasion touching them to use any such expression of being in the midst of any thing. And to the second I briefly answer, That as the Elders are easily conceived to sit round about the exterior Perimeter of the Throne, so the four Beasts to stand at the midst of each side of the said Perimeter. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 need signify no more than so. The Prepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify not only [In] but [Propter] or [Prope] as our learned Objector cannot but know very well. And thus, I hope, this something perplexing passage of the Apocalypse is fully cleared, and the right of Precedency in the crowned Elders before the four Beasts, the Body of the People, justly retrieved and confirmed.   

CHAP. L. A brief Method of demonstrating how there may be three and no more than three real Hypostases or Persons in the One Divine Substance or Essence.  
FOR the more clearly proceeding in this Argument, we are first to define the Terms thereof, viz. what is meant by Hypostasis or Person, what by the Divine Substance or Essence, what by being One.  
As touching the first we are to observe, That Individuum, Suppositum, Hypostasis or Persona taken in the Abstract, are mere Logical Notions applicable, the first to any singular Being, whether Substance or Accident; The second to any complete Substance at least; The third, viz. Hypostasis or Persona to any intelligent Essence or Substance. And therefore where these Logical Notions are applied, there is some singular Thing, Accident, Substance, or intelligent Substance to which they are applied, or else they remain no more than mere Logical Notions, such as they were before the Application.  
Now for the Divine Essence or Substance; Whatever Substance exists eternally, necessarily and independently of the Will of another, and is infinitely wise, good and powerful, and from whom the whole Creation does exist, and by whom it does continue and subsist, this is assuredly an Essence or Substance truly Divine, and such as deserves all Religious Worship and Adoration from the whole Creation that are capable of rendering it.  
And now thirdly and lastly for the Unity of the Divine Essence or Substance; Whatever Substance, whether Divine or not Divine, is Ens unum per se, & non per aliud, is as much one Substance (as to Substance) as any Substance can be. For such a Substance has no composition at all of integrant parts, and can no more be discerped and dissevered one part from another than a mere Physical or Metaphysical Monad, if there be any such, but is one inseparably and indivisibly. And such an Unity or Oneness as this we affirm to be in that Singular Divine Essence or Substance, of whom the whole Creation of things visible and invisible doth depend.  
We proceed from the Definition of Terms to the proposing of some few Axioms, such as no unprejudiced Understanding will easily deny.  
The first, That there is but one God, and that the same is a Substance or Essence infinitely, or most absolutely perfect.  
The second, That this Oneness of the Deity, and absolute Perfection thereof does forbid, The former, that any Multiplicity should be admitted that did not consist with, or were not in order to the discovery of the most absolute Perfection in the Deity; The latter forbids that any Multiplicity be rejected that makes for that absolute and consummate Perfection in the Deity, provided that it does consist with that Unity of the Divine Substance or Essence described in the third Definition.  
The third, That God cannot be infinitely or absolutely perfect without the perception of himself, and that Joy and Love that results therefrom in finding himself that full, free, and absolute unself-interessed Good, such as he is in his eternal and immutable Nature.  
The fourth, That any Perception of himself, or Love and Joy in himself, is not enough to complete his most absolute Perfection, but it must be a Perception and Love of the most perfect kind.  
The fifth, That Essential Perception and Essential Love is a far more excellent Perception and Love, than that which is Modal, such as Creatures are capable of. But it is the Privilege of the Deity to perceive by an Essential Perception, and to love by an Essential Love; Per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not per speciem, as Julius Scaliger speaks. God's eternal Perception of himself is not by a Modal Image of himself, but by a Substantial Representation of himself within himself more substantial than his Conceptus ad extra, which yet the whole Creation of things visible and invisible really is, viz. one substantial Thought issuing from the Divinity. We may experience in ourselves how imperfect our Perception is of our own selves; Forasmuch as we perceive not the very Essence or Substance of our Souls at all, but merely Phantasms and Operations which are not the Soul itself, which is a permanent Being, but these pass away perpetually in succession. We seem to perceive the Body more perfectly, it being a Substance our Soul is nearly united to and steadily present with us, and that so lively and feelingly, that the Vulgar take their Body to be themselves.  
The sixth, The power of creating argues a vast Perfection in the Deity, and to be a Creature as vast an imperfection, in respect of God.  
The seventh, The exterior Creation is uncapable of being ab aeterno, nor is it any defect in the Deity, but in the nature of the Creature, that it cannot exist from all Eternity.  
The eighth, In the Fountain of the Deity, whom we call, the Father, there is not only himself, but the whole exterior Creation, Eminently, Causally, and Ideally.  
The ninth, Though the exterior Creation could not be ab aeterno, yet there not only could be, but necessarily and unavoidably was an Eternal Generation of the Son, who is the Eradiation of the glorious Richness and Fullness of his Father, and the express Image of his Person, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, which plainly imports no empty Logical Notion, but a real second Hypostasis distinct from the first.  
The tenth, The Father containing in himself the whole exterior Creation, and the Son being the express Image of his Person, does ipso facto contain in himself also the Ideal or Archetypal World ab aeterno. So that although there could be no exterior Creation ab aeterno yet this interior Generation of the Son does more than compensate that Defect, and takes away the Imputation of an Eternal solitude and sterility from the Deity. Which therefore argues the greater perfection thereof in this regard also, Axiom 6.  
The eleventh, Moreover, this second Hypostasis being the express Image of his Father's Fullness, God of God, or a Divine Hypostasis from a Divine Hypostasis, here is another Argument of the Perfection of the Divinity, viz. the most perfect kind of Perception of himself; That it is not per speciem, but per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, per ipsam rei praesentiam, according to the fifth Axiom.  
The twelfth, And so for the same reason, that the Love whereby God loves himself or joys in himself, may be of the most perfect kind, it is not to be per operationem or speciem, but per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be essential, or per ipsam rei praesentiam. Which therefore requires a third Hypostasis, whose essential Character is Divine Love or Joy, and issues eternally from the grateful Perception that the Father and Son have of one another. This Hypostasis proceeding, whether from the Father, as the Greek Church would have it, or from the Father and the Son, as the Latin, (which to me seems the more rational and agreeable to Scripture) his joyous Love-flame, as I may so speak, is the more highly kindled by the Perception of that exulting Complacency the first and second Hypostases have in one another, as both also in him. For whatever is felt in one Hypostasis is felt in all three, by reason of their thorough and solid Union, and that with the most perfect kind of Perception, the Hypostases themselves feeling, as I may so say, and intimately perceiving how it is with themselves in feeling how it is with one another. Wherefore we see manifest reason why there should be three Hypostases in the Deity, because they tend to the perfection thereof, that it may have the most perfect Perception of itself, and the most perfect Love of and Joy in itself, viz., that they be not merely per Speciem or Operationem, but Essential, as is plainly deducible out of the third, fourth and fifth Axioms, to say nothing of the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth. Out of which we understand that the Eternal Generation of the Son compriseth also in it the Archetypal World ab aeterno, though the exterior Creation was uncapable of that Privilege, and that the Spirit, the immediate Mover in the exterior Creation, was eternally impregnated from the Son as he actuated from his Father, whence proceeded the Spirit, and nothing but the incapacity of the Creature was a  from its existing from all Eternity. Wherefore the acknowledging a Trinity in the Divine Essence, speaks Perfection therein upon this account also, and takes the imputation, as I hinted before, of an Eternal sterility and solitude in the Deity. And therefore this Trinity of Persons or Hypostases in the Deity is not to be rejected by the second part of Axiom the second.  
But now that there are no more than three Hypostases in the Deity, may appear from the first part of the second Axiom that advertiseth us, that the Oneness and Simplicity of the Deity is so sacred and universally acknowledged by the Principles of humane Reason, that no more multiplicity is to be admitted therein than consisteth with and tendeth to the Divine Perfection; which being completed in every regard by these supposed three Hypostases, there is a necessary stop given in our Reason from admitting any more, no not so much as a fourth, there being no reason to be given for the admittance of a fourth but what will with like validity infer four thousand, nay four millions of Hypostases, or rather an Infinity of them. Which is so gross and wild a Conceit, that there is no wise and sober man but will explode it at first sight. Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora, is a Maxim of universal Truth. And the perfect Symmetry, as I may so speak, Beauty and Congruity of the Divine Nature or Essence is such, that it cannot admit of any such uncouth superfluities. It is the Privilege of the absolute Perfection of the Divine Nature to be thus unexceptionably constituted, as having no other Author or Cause of it self but itself, i. e. the reason of its Existence and Essence, such as it is, is resolvible only into the transcendent Excellency of its own Nature or Idea.  
This plausible Plea humane Reason, if need were, might offer in behalf of three Hypostases, and no more than three in the Divine Essence. But the Triunity of the Godhead being an ancient solemn and Divine Tradition, embraced not only by the Church of God, but by the best and divinest Philosophers of old, whether we have rendered punctually and particularly the very reasons of three Hypostases and no more, or not; yet it is indubitable but that in the general we have not erred, viz. that the Godhead was most absolutely completed in these three, though we cannot give the account so particularly and precisely, and that therefore there was no more. And Ingenuity and Modesty may well acquiesce in this general Hypothesis touching so profound and unsearchable a Mystery. And scarce any, I think, would have hesitated touching this Divine Tradition, if they could have reconciled these three real Hypostases, not Logical Notions (according to the first Definition) with the Unity of the Godhead, that is, if they could have made out, that there is no Repugnancy in affirming, That there are three real Hypostases in one singular or individual and indivisible Divine Essence or Substance; which one singular and indivisible Divine Substance is that one God (according as it is described in the second Definition) of whom the whole Creation depends.  
But now that there is no repugnancy in this, I think I may say is demonstrable; and that in a few words and from Principles acknowledged by all, viz. That the Generation of the Son is not arbitrariously or precariously dependent on the Father, but that it is the very Privilege of his Nature to be necessarily, unavoidably and eternally generated of him by an Emanative Generation, as he is called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Eradiation of his Father's Glory. And so none will question but that the Holy Ghost proceedeth either from the Father, or from the Father and the Son, by an Emanative Procession: Nor can any Wit of man imagine why the production of one should be emanative, and not the other. Now the nature of what is emanative from another is this, (whether it be Mode or Substance) That as it is not that adequately from which it does emane, but something some way distinct therefrom, else nothing did emane, and there would be no Emanation; so that which does emane thus necessarily is as inseparably one and indivisibly with that from whence it doth emane, as the parts, if I may so speak, of any Substance incorporeal, which is Ens unum per se & non per aliud. So that if that which does emane is Substance from Substance, they are both as much one Substance, as to Substance, as any one Substance can be, according to our third Definition. Insomuch that according to this account of the three Hypostases, the second and third issuing from the first by an eternal, necessary and unavoidable Emanation, not arbitrariously or precariously (which is the proper Character of Creation, the Creature having but a precarious Existence) all these three real Hypostases are as much one singular Divine Essence or Substance by definition the second, as any Substance can be. From whence it plainly follows, that though there be three Hypostases, in the Divine Substance so described in the second Definition, yet that Divine Substance being as perfectly one as any Substance can be, that yet there is but one God, which is the thing that was to be demonstrated.  
Which plain account is a Key that will unlock the hardest difficulties in the Athanasian Creed touching the Trinity and Unity of the Godhead. I will give one Instance for all; where it is said, The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, yet there are not three Gods, but one God. If any one should here object that nothing can be God but what is Divine Substance, and that if the Divine Substance of the Father be the sole adequate Substance for the whole Trinity of the Hypostases, the second and the third Hypostases will be empty Logical Notions according to Definition the first: but if they be real Hypostases, there will be three Divine Substances, whatever is said truly to be God, being a Divine Substance: I say according to this account, we may safely and intelligibly pronounce, that the Father is a Divine Substance, the Son a Divine Substance, and the Holy Ghost a Divine Substance, yet there are not three Divine Substances, but one absolute Divine Substance, according to Definition the third, and so plainly but one God, though three Hypostases. Whose Union is such, accordingly as has been described, that they make one singular or individual and indivisible Divine Essence or Substance, nor admit of any singular Divine Nature or Substance, excluding therefrom (or not including) themselves. Forasmuch as that fourth being a singular Divine Nature, would ipso facto be an Hypostasis by Definition the first, unless we can imagine a singular Divine Substance devoid of Intelligence. Whence it is manifest, that the above proposed account is the most unexceptionable and intelligible that is, and the true account indeed how three real Hypostases are consistent with one singular Divine Substance, that is, with one God.  
If any one be curious in these things, he may read the Scholia at the end of the last Chapter of my Enchiridium Metaphysicum, as also the six last Sections of the third of the Divine Dialogues and the Scholia thereon. But this brief account from thence I thought fit to insert into my Paralipomena Prophetica, because the truth of some Passages in my Exposition of the Apocalypse depends upon the truth of the Mystery of the Trinity. As Apoc. Chap. 9 v. 11. and Chap. 11. v. 2. For our Compute of the Symmetral Times of the Church implies the Truth of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, which if it were not true, would argue our Computation false, and that we are out in our Interpretation.   

CHAP. LI. Fourteen Queries raised out of a Letter written in favour of some Passages of S. E. his Remarks, with Answers subjoined to each Query.  
I Thought to have concluded my Paralipomena Prophetica with the immediately foregoing Chapter touching the Triunity of the Godhead. But having a Letter sent unto me written in favour of some passages in S. E. his Remarks before my Paralipomena were printed off, I thought it not amiss to raise some Queries out of the same Letter, and answer to them, and so conclude all with these.  
Query 1. Whether in those words Rev. 10.6. [That there should be time no longer] [Time] there signifies the Political Order and Government of the World, and implies that in the Millennial state all Humane Laws and Polities shall cease, and the Government be carried on merely by the guidance of the Spirit; and whether that Voice, Rev. 16.17. from the Throne [It is done] and the same Voice, Rev. 21.6. do not answer to, Time should be no longer, etc. Rev. 10.6.  
Answ. The true sense out of the Original of that latter Clause of Rev. Chap. 10. v. 6. and of the following Verse, is this, That there shall be no longer time saving in the days of the voice of the seventh Angel when he shall sound, etc. This is made good in my Notes upon my Exposition of that Chapter, and still further confirmed by the Answer to the Remarker on the place: So that no man of any competency of Judgement can possibly deny the truth of that Exposition. Wherefore if [Time] signify the Political Order and Government of the World, we are assured by the Oath of the Angel that such Government will continue all along the sounding of the seventh Trumpet, which reaches to the end of the World. For his swearing there will be no longer time, saving what the seventh Trumpet compriseth, implies that [Time] which S. E. would have signify Political Government, will continue all that Trumpet long. But now for the Voice [It is done] in those places mentioned, how it can answer to this place, let any man of sense consider, unless it be such an impertinent Answer as is perstringed in that Proverb. Which the way to London? A poke full of Plums. The mentioned Voice [It is done] though Time here signified Political Order and Government, were nothing to the confirming that Notion. For Rev. 16.17. it signifies nothing but assurance of success to the Ministers of Christ's Kingdom under the seventh Vial. And Rev. 21.6. the assurance of the truth of the Prediction of the glorious appearance of the New Jerusalem on Earth. That the thing is as sure as if it were done already, and therefore he presently adds, I am Alpha and Omega, etc. as intimating his ability certainly to effect it.  
Query 2. Whether the Plagues inflicted by the Witnesses were not inflicted during their 1260 days prophesying, Chap. 11.6. and therefore the same with the six first Plagues, there being no other actually inflicted Plagues prefigured but they. This is taken out of the Answer to the Remarks, pag. 119.  
Answ. This is made a Query, because the  Letter pretends Allegations against the truth of the Affirmative thereof; As that most of the first six Plagues were expired before the Witnesses began to prophesy, and that also those Plagues belong to the Sealed Book-Prophecy, which the prophesying of the Witnesses does not, and are inflicted by barbarous Nations, etc. To which I answer, That the prophesying of the Witnesses and the six first Plagues or Trumpets are Synchronal according to Mr. Mede and the Truth itself, and therefore none of the Plagues could expire before the Witnesses began to prophesy. And although the prophesying Witnesses belong not to the Sealed Book-Prophecy, yet being Synchronal to the first six Trumpets of the Sealed Book-Prophecy, they are so to the first six Plagues, and therefore falling in to the same time, bid fair for proving the Inflicters of the said Plagues, and those six to be the Plagues the Witnesses are said to inflict during the 1260 days of their prophesying, in which they must inflict them or never. For the Scene of the Witnesses goes off at the close of the sixth Trumpet. Nor do these first six Plagues, being executed by the barbarous Nations, hinder but that they may be inflicted by the Witnesses in that way they inflict any Plagues, which, if positively, is only by denouncing them; as Jeremy is said to do the things he denounces, Jer. 1.10. The Objector also seems not to distinguish betwixt the Witnesses prophesying itself, and the Plagues attending their prophesying, nor betwixt their Power of inflicting Plagues and their actually inflicting them. The thing therefore I say is this, That there is no other positively and actually inflicted Plagues prefigured, but those contained under the first six Trumpets, to the close of the sixth whereof the Fall of the City and Rising of the Witnesses is referrible. Upon which it is said the second Woe is past, Chap. 11.14. And the Fall of the City or Conversion of so considerable a part of the Western Empire to the pure Gospel, is referrible to the effect of the fire proceeding out of the Witnesses mouths, Chap. 11.5. according to my Interpretation.  
Query 3. Whether the opening the Temple, Rev. 11.19. is just before the first Vial, but the time of the seeing the Ark there not till the sixth Vial, whenas yet the opening the Temple was for the immediate showing the Ark, and the sight thereof the first thing related upon the opening the Temple.  
Answ. Whoever reads considerately and unprejudicedly the 23. Chapter of these Paralipomena, cannot but be fully assured that what follows the Doxology of the Elders, Rev. 11. and the joyful Annunciation of the Fall of Babylon, Rev. 14. falls into the times of the Vials, and is a more broken and defectuous Representation of them. Wherefore whereas after the Song of Moses and the Lamb, Rev. 15. (which answers to the Doxology of the Elders and joyful Annunciation of the Fall of Babylon) the Opening of the Temple there v. 5. is in order to the going forth of the Vial-Angels, and there being no pouring forth of the Vials but by the Vial-Angels, nor they doing their work before they come out of the opened Temple, it is plain that the Temple was open or stood open before the first Vial, Rev. 11. though the mention of its standing open is not before the sixth Vial, the opening of the Temple being not simply for the showing the Ark, but for the going forth of the Vial-Angels. But the Temple standing all this time open, the Ark is not said to be seen till some time after, it denoting the time of the Calling of the Jews with whom God has made an everlasting Covenant, as this Ark is the Ark of the Covenant. Nor is it said that John saw this Ark, but it is said indefinitely to be seen, the eyes of all at that time being to be cast upon that Holy Covenant which God made to Abraham and his Seed for ever, expecting that God himself will have an eye to it then, and make good his glorious Promises to that long exercised and afflicted people. Nor is the sight of the Ark the first thing related upon the opening the Temple, but, though the Temple stood open before, yet it is not mentioned till now, the more to set off the richness of this discovery of God's Mercy towards the Jews, which the Apocalypse every where sets such an excessive value upon, as if this were such a weighty Arcanum or Mystery (as S. Paul also calls it) that it were worth the opening the Temple, though it were but for the discovery of that Mystery alone.  
Query 4. Whether what happens in the allotted times of the Trumpet-Angels and Vial-Angels, may be attributed to the Angel to whom the Time is allotted, whether the Angel contribute any thing to it or no.  
Answ. If we were sure he did contribute nothing, and that such a thing fell out, in his allotted time, as was plainly indicated in the Prophecy: Then by a Prophetic Metalepsis the thing so happening might be attributed to him, as the taking Peace from the Earth, is attributed to the Rider of the red Horse under the second Seal, because in his time there was such kill and slaying one another. But if the Angel can be conceived to act positively, I confess it is more than needs to recur to that Figure. But to avoid all Cavil in reference to the first Vial-Angel, I allow a real Activity in him for the inflicting that angry Egyptian Boil. So that as an evil Spirit from the Lord haunted Saul when his Melancholy fits came upon him; so this first Vial-Angel may commissionate some Spirits upon the envy and the anger the Bestians had conceived against the Risen Witnesses to actuate them with more than ordinary Rage and Madness against them, and so infatuate their Counsels by this distemper, as is answered to the Remarks on the place. The Objector would fain pinch somewhere, if he could find what to lay hold on. But effundit junctura ungues. The work is too close wrought for him to find any entrance any where.  
Query 5. In those words, Rev. 16.8. The fourth Angel poured out his Vial on the Sun, and Power was given him to scorch men with fire, etc. Whether [him] relate to the Sun, or not rather to the Angel, the Sun being no Person to whom [Him] can relate, and besides it being senseless to refer it to any other than the Angel who inflicts the Plague.  
Answ. That [Him] should be referred to the Sun, not to the Angel, there is all the Reason in the World, nor is there any Reason against it. For the calling the Sun [Him] makes him no person, no more in English than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does in Greek. For Judg. Chap. 5. v. 31. there it is said, Let them that love the Lord be as the Sun when he goeth forth in his strength; and so he or his is in so many other places said of the Sun, as it is needless to recite. But why [Him] is to be referred to the Sun, there are plain and obvious Reasons. First, Because [Him] does immediately follow the mention of the Sun. Secondly, The Reference is so natural, the Sun being such a Fountain of Heat, and the heat thereof so invigorated by the effusion of the fourth Vial on it. And lastly, The Suffrage of all Interpreters I could ever meet with or hear of, concurs in this reference of [Him] to the Sun, and not to the Angel. So that it is most undubitably true, that [him] is to be referred not to the Angel, but to the Sun, and that it is a mere affected swaggering in the behalf of S. E. to say it is senseless to refer [him] to any other than the Angel. Whence it is unavoidably evident, that the Remarker is out in his ill-natured Gloss on the fourth Vial, as if the scorched with that fiery heat, were those that were zealously incensed, and sharply inveighed against the Antichristian Powers, which is a perfect contradiction to the Text, as if these Zelots scorched the Sun, whenas the Text plainly says the Sun scorched them, [him] being certainly referred to the Sun. And then suppose [him] to be referred to the Angel, and that he scorches the Zelots, and incenses them against the Antichristian Powers, this is still a perfect contradiction to the Text. For the Text says, those scorched ones blasphemed the Name of God, which the Remarker will not admit of his godly Zelots.  
Query 6. Whether the Tripartite Forces gathered together in Armageddon under the Dragon, under the Beast and false Prophet, and under the Rider of the white Horse that has the Sword coming out of his mouth, viz. the Infidel, Antichristian and Evangelical Forces or Parties, Rev. 16. v. 13, 16. may be represented also by the great City divided into three parts, v. 19 For how is it possible that three such opposite Parties as the Infidel, Christian and Antichristian should be represented by a City, which is a Body Politic, united by Laws and Rulers to govern the same; whenas those three Parties are uncapable of being so united, etc.  
Answ. That those Tripartite Forces are the Forces of the whole World, or a Conflux of the people of the whole World, may appear from v. 14. And why the Inhabitants of the whole Orb of the Earth may not be looked upon as one great City, I see not. For as different as they are, yet they are all united in one common Law, which is the Law of Nature, and as to that common Law have one common Lawgiver and Judge, which is God. And this is so palpable a Truth, and the fitness of looking upon this inhabited Earth as one great City so obvious, that those itinerant Sophists of old, or those more modern that cared not to be tied to any one particular Political Body, yet have been looked upon by themselves to be, and so vulgarly styled by others, viz. Cosmopolitae, Citizens of the World. And Philo Judaeus expressly says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That this World is that great City, as it here is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 19 And that it is an Aggregate as it were of all the Cities of the World, appears from the same place, where the Cities of the Nations are mentioned together with Babylon the great. And lastly, it is to be noted, That that Tripartite Conflux in Armageddon is not resembled in this Commutation of Iconisms simply to a City, much less to a City that is in unity with itself, but to a City divided into three parts, which therefore most tightly answers to those three opposite Parties congregated in Armageddon. So that this Commutation of Iconisms here, is so far from being impossible, as the Objector would have it, that nothing can be more easy and natural. Unto all which you may add, that though two of these three parts of this great City are Rebels for the present, yet Christ the Son of God is their rightful Prince and Sovereign, and this Battle under the seventh Vial is to reduce them to obedience.  
Query 7. Whether the leaving out the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the end of the sixth verse of Rev. 20. whenas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is prefixed before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediately twice before and after, intimates any such Mystery as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there has a different signification from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other places, and denotes Symbolically an endless steady Eternity; there being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 2. not having any such Mystery in it, so that it may seem a trifling with the Text.  
Answ. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has no such mystical meaning of itself, is readily acknowledged. For it signifies a finite determinate time (v. 2. of this Chapter) in which Satan is bound, and let lose afterwards: which time is there called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and presently after, v. 3. the said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there having the force of a Pronoun demonstrative, as if one should say, Till those thousand years were fulfilled; And so those thousand years are all along referred to, by this demonstrative Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: As in the close of v. 4. They lived and reigned with Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those thousand years when Satan was bound. And v. 5. But the rest lived not again till 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those thousand years were finished. Thus constantly you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relating to the years Satan was bound, till you come to v. 6. that describes the condition of them that partake of the first Resurrection, on whom the second Death hath no power, and there it is said, that they shall reign with Christ, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those thousand years Satan was bound, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a thousand years Symbolically understood, which is a fit Symbol of steady and immutable Eternity. For to what end is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omitted in this place, if it did not intimate some such Mystery, of which it both is very significant, and the Reign of these with Christ being not confined to those thousand years, but stretching out to Eternity, the thing itself requires that signification. But then immediately after, the case being altered, v. 7. and returning to the thousand years numerically taken, not Symbolically, there he has it again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that it is the circumstances that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is placed in v. 6. that assures us that it has such a Symbolical meaning. This therefore is no trifling Observation. But he must be very dull and sleepy or thick-sighted, that does not clearly discern the difference.  
Query 8. Whether, All Nations shall come and worship before thee, Rev. 15.4. be to be understood of Nations to be converted to the Christian Faith, or of foreign Nations unconverted doing Homage to the New Jerusalem, answering to their coming up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles, Zach. 14.  
Answ. This Song of Moses and the Lamb being sung upon the Rising of the Witnesses, or Christ's partial or speciminal taking again possession of his Kingdom out of the hands of Antichrist, it is most natural to conceive that [All Nations shall come and worship before thee] relates too that more full and universal enlargement of Christ's Kingdom, which will be effected by the effusion of the Vials before which this Song is prefixed; And under the seventh when all the Kings of the Earth are gathered together under the Dragon, Beast and false Prophet, to fight against the Lord and against his Anointed, and are all routed and vanquished, what can this import less than what is here predicted in this Song, All Nations shall come and worship before thee, that is, be obedient Subjects of the Kingdom of Christ? And as for the celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles, who can be thought to do that but the Jews or Gentiles proselyted to their Religion, and therefore who can they be but the converted Nations that shall do Homage to Christ in his New Jerusalem Kingdom?  
Query 9 Whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Comedendo comedes, Gen. 2.16. be an Injunction or full Commission to Adam to eat, or such an Invitation to eat of every Tree of the Garden, that if he will eat he may, and if he will not he may choose, forasmuch as it is said, Thou mayst freely eat, which implies a liberty.  
Answ. The Text no question but has a mystical as well as a literal sense. In the literal sense, Comedendo comedes intimates a full Commission to eat of every Tree of the Garden, saving the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And whereas our English Translation has it, Thou mayst eat freely, nothing else is meant thereby but this full Commission to eat freely and plentifully of all the Trees of the Garden, saving: that one excepted. But now in the Moral sense, Comedendo comedes seems to be a Command, as the Text has it. And God commanded the Man, saying, Eating thou shalt eat, viz. of every Tree, saving that one, that is, that he should nourish his Soul with all sorts of Virtues, none excepted (for Virtutes sunt connexae) which make up the fullness of the Paradise of God.  
Query 10. Whether Tyre, Isa. 23.15. typify Rome, the former state of Tyre not answering to the former state of Rome, nor the middle to the middle, but the former state of Tyre is made to answer to all the three states of Rome.  
Answ. This is a gross mistake in the Objector: For in that Prophecy of Isaiah there are three distinct Times supposed, the first of her Harlotry, the second of her being forgotten for the space of one King, and so the ceasing of her Harlotry with the Kings of the Earth, and then of her Harlotry again, and of committing. Fornication with all the Kingdoms of the World upon the face of the Earth. And now in perfect Analogy to this, (as is answered to the Remarker) Rome was Idolatrous before it was Christian, and turned Idolatrous again when it became Pagano-Christian, and Whoredom is the true Symbol of Idolatry known to all. Wherefore the Harlot, though she was silent a while in the time of the pure Christian Caesars, which were the seventh King (as Tyre's silence is for seventy years) yet when that time expired, she might sing again like an Harlot. Nor does this at all hinder, but that this Vision is Typical of Rome Antichristian, this stroke touching the return of Pagan Harlotry, setting out more tightly the Pagano-Christianity of their Idolatry, that they Paganize again, and again play the Harlot by a new mode of Idolatry, which yet is the living Image of the Idolatry of old Paganism. What Analogy can be more exquisite and complete?  
Query 11. Whether there can be any assurance that the Vision of Tyre, Ezek. 28. is Typical of Rome; forasmuch as if the expressions be such, that they are incompetent to Tyre, and the Prince thereof (from whence yet it is inferred, they must respect Rome) the Vision cannot belong to Tyre, and consequently Tyre can be no Type of Rome; but if the expressions be compatible to Tyre, there is no ground to stretch them any further than so.  
Answ. The Horns of this Dilemma are very weak both of them. For the first supposeth what is apparently false, that a Prophecy of double completion may not have such strokes in it, that may more properly relate to the second completion than the first; As in th●● of a Virgin bearing a Son. And though some expressions may be elevated above the condition of the Prince of Tyre, and less properly be spoke of him, yet the generality of the Vision is applicable to him properly, and the Text says expressly, the Vision does belong to Tyre, and consequently Tyre may be a Type of Rome. But then as to the latter Horn of the Dilemma, though all the expressions were compatible to Tyre (which they are not, and therefore do more certainly assure us that the Vision has a further completion in the concerns of Rome) yet there is a very good ground for stretching the sense of the Vision to a further completion than in Tyre itself; from that intimation in the beginning of Ezekiel's Book of Prophecies, of which the Roll written within and without is a Symbol or Figure. This hint is sufficient, you may collect a more full Answer out of Chap. 22. of these Paralipomena toward the end of the Chapter.  
Query 12. Whether the joyful Annunciation of the Fall of Babylon, Rev. 14.8. be not before the beginning of the sounding of the seventh Trumpet, because the Fall itself was at the close of the sixth Trumpet, and a Prophetical Annunciation can respect no time but at which the Fall happens.  
Answ. A prophetical Annunciation of an Event respects the Time of the Annunciation of the Event. For what can it respect else? But the Event that it annunciates is the Fall of Babylon or of the City at the Rising of the Witnesses at the Close of the sixth Trumpet. So that it is plain there is nothing hinders, but that though the Fall of Babylon be at the Close of the sixth Trumpet, the joyful Annunciation thereof may be just at the entrance of the seventh. Because the mention of the Annunciation of the Event is a Prediction or Prophecy of the Annunciation, not simply of the Event itself, but implies only that the Event has lately happened.  
Query 13. Whether the second Vial, Rev. 16.3. may not be a Vision or Prediction of the Reformation itself as well as of the Settlement of it in the respective places where it was, the Reformation being not too great a change to be typified thereby, because the Settlement seems a perfecting thereof, and so as great or greater a thing than the Reformation itself.  
Answ. It is impossible the second Vial should predict the Reformation, because all the Vials follow the Rising of the Witnesses, and therefore if the second Vial were a Type of the fresh appearance of the Reformation, there would be no Event answering to the preceding Rising of the Witnesses, which would be infinitely absurd. And though it be true that the Settlement of the Reformation is a further Perfection added thereto, yet that is but a modificative Addition to it, but that which is the main, the form and substance of the Reformation was before; And was like the taking of a City of huge consequence, upon which would follow loud shouts and signs of Joy, but the repairing and further fortifying this great City taken by storm, that would be carried on in a more silent or less Triumphant way.  
Query 14. Whether the two Witnesses their 1260 days prophesying does not plainly imply that they could not at all be slain till the 1260 days were expired, especially it being supposed that their being slain puts an absolute end to the tormenting the World by their prophesying, and there is solemn rejoicing and sending gifts one to another at their being slain, as if the business than were quite dispatched at once.  
Answ. It is gross Rudeness and Ignorance for any one to imagine thus; And he that so does, he sets his teeth only in the Cortex, but reaches not the Pith of this Parabolical Vision of the two Witnesses. This Conceit is a perfect Contradiction to the Truth of History, which amply relates to us the slaying of the Witnesses in more senses than one, long before the Expiration of the 1260 days. Wherefore this Cortical sense is utterly impossible. But that assured Prophetic figure which we call Henopoeia, (which as it represents a succession of men under the Type of one single Man, single Woman, or single Beast, so it does likewise the successional Actions, Sufferings, or Occurrences appertaining to the said single Typical Man, Woman, or Beast under one single Action, Suffering, or Occurrence) this is the only true and genuine Key to unlock this Mystery by, which I having done to the Reader's hand already in my Answer to a learned and ingenious Friend touching the difficulties of the Vision of the Witnesses in Chap. 39 of this present Treatise, I will send him thither to receive the same satisfaction with that learned and pious Person, and so conclude my Paralipomena Prophetica.   〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
FINIS.