Works

ARGUMENTUM III.

De Majore nullus dubitandi locus, quin illud quartum fuerit quod tertium proxime secutum est, eidemque successerit. De Minore itidem patet ex Historia, Quicquid • ousque restabat de ditione Regni Graecorum, id omne Romanis armis & Imperio cessisse. Praedixerat autem Daniel Regnum Graecorum à primi Regis Alexandri morte finibus suis diminutum iri, neque eâ ditionis amplitudine Regnaturos successores ejus atque ipse iis reliquerat. Verba sunt cap. 8. verse. 22. Effracto Hirci cornu magno, (qui eodem interpret est primus Rex Graeciae) quat • or Cornua pro illo, hoc est, inquit, quatuor Regna ex [ea] gente assurrectura sunt; fed non cum robore illius. Item cap. 11. v. 4. Frangetur Regnum ejus, (nempe Regis potentis Alexandri) & dividetur in quatuor partes coeli; sed non posteritati ejus, neque secundùm Dominatum ejus quo dominatus fuerat. Et hoc innuere volebam eo quod dixi, quicquid eousque restabat de dilione Regni Graecorum: nequis forte (quod non neminem fecisse scio) requirat ut ad Indos usque propagetur Imperium Romanum, quartum Regnum alioquin non futurum.

Illa autem Regni Graecorum per Romanos occupatio ineunda est à morte Antiochi Epiphanis, quando, Perseo ultimo Rege Macedonum ab AEmilio Consule devicto, Macedonia primarium Regni Graecanici Caput in Provinciam redacta est, atque ità cum reliqua sere Greece in Imperii Romani Iura concessit: nec inde quieverunt Romani, donec, continuis quasi victoriis usi, reliqua, sive capita sive cornua, penitus subegerant. Ab hac igitur Graeciae occupatione putandum est initium Regni quarti, non ab ultima, quae AEgypti fuit, devictâ Cleopatrâ. Nam ubi Regnum Graecanicum primùm exortum est, ibi fatum quoque suum & excidium accepisse aequum est existimare. Unde videmus Prophetam nusquam Regnum Graecorum, quamvìs de Regibus ejus singillatim egerat, ultra Antiochum Epiphanem produxisse: quia nimirum ab eo tempore Romanus ordinem suum capessebat in Quaternione Prophetico; at{que} id • irco qui secuti sunt Asiae aut AEgypti Reges, eorum rationem in hac Regia Chronologia deinceps non habendam esse. Imo, quod observari volo in ipso Prophetae textu, Tyrannis Antiochi express statuitur in fine Regni Graecorum, c. 8. v. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In fine Regni ipsorum (id est Graecorum) exsurget Rex durus facie, & intelligens aenigmata, &c. Is, scilicet, de quo in vision dicit, quod usque ad Principem exercit • s coelestis magnificaret se, & jugem cultum tolleret, & abjiceret habitaculum Sanctuarii illius, &c. V. 11.

Et hucusque quidem Argumentum hoc mihi optime processit, nec usquam impingere visum est. Non est tamen diffitendum habuisse olim Porphyrium, & habere etiam qui nostro primùm aevo, contra totius Ecclesiae inde ab initio per tot secula consensum, opinionem Porphyrianam ab inferis revocârunt, quod disputationi huic opponant: Graecorum nimirum Regnum non unum, sed duo esse Regna; Alterum ipsius Alexandri, quod tertium est in Quaternione prophetico; Alterum successorum ejus, quod quartum est & ultimum Regnum Danielis. Regnum igitur Romanum, tanquam fabulâ jam transactâ superveniens, ab hoc numero penitus excludendum esse.

Contra hanc interpretationem sic insurgo. Quod unicâ Bestiâ adumbratum est, id unicum est Regnum, & non duo Regna; scilicet alioquin unica Bestia esset duae Bestiae; quod ab omni ration alienum est. I am vero omne Regnum Graecorum, tam Alexandri quàm successorum ejus, unicâ Bestiâ adumbratur. Ergo, &c. Minorem leges apud Danielem cap. 8. verse. 20, 21, 22. Aries (inquit Angelus) bicornis quems vidisti, sunt Reges Mediae & Persiae: Hircus autem ill villosus est Rex Graeciae; Cornu autem magnum interjectum oculis ejus est Rex PRIMVS. (Audin' hic Regem primum? at Rex primus & Reges secundi non de diversis dici possunt Regnis, sed uno eodemque.) Pergit; Atque hoc effracto, quod consurgent quatuor pro illo, quatuor Regna ex gen • e sunt assurrectura, sed non cum robore illius. Hîc clarissimum est Alexandrum cum successoribus suis fuisse unius ejusdemque Hirci cornua; ideóque unius Regni potestates. Ecquis jam dixerit Bestiam & cornua ejus esse duas Bestias? Me judice, ipse merebitur illis annumerari, ne tertia desit Bestia.

At, inquient, potuit Propheta aut Spiritus Sanctus, quod hîc unum facit Regnum, ideóque unâ figurat Bestiâ, alibi tamen pro arbitrio duo facere, & duabus adumbrare Bestiis.

Sed respondeo, Non arbitrii res est, sed veritatis, ut unum sit duo & duo unum • neque Deus potest efficere ut cornu cornu sit & nihilominus Bestia. Unitas Regni in ipsa rei veritate posita est, à signo non pendet. Si igitur hoc verum est, unicum esse Regnum, & non duo, tum falsum erit duo esse Regna, & non unum; ut qui alterutrum affirmaverit, alterum sine mendacio affirmare nequit. Et quorsum quaeso Prophetia, quae duo in principio Regna repraesentâsser, postea in unum confunderet? Nam si omnino id factum fuisset, non sine ration factum fuisse credendum est. Taceo quod in ipsa quatuor Bestiarum vision, quo adversarii, dum effugium parant, respiciunt, Tertia Bestia Pardo similis, quae ipsis fatentibus ad Regnum Graecorum aliquatenus pertinet, & alas quatuor in dorso habet, itemque capita quatuor; quae, quid (quaeso) aliud sunt, saltem capita, quàm quatuor Regni istius Satrapiae, in quas post mortem primi Regis dissipatum erat? Num hîc quoque dicere advent, quatuor Pardi capita esse aliam & diversam à Pardo Bestiam?

His denique omnibus illud tanquam Palmarium adjungam, quod jam in superioribus demonstravi, nimirum quarto Regno adhuc superstite exoriturum esse Regnum Christi, à quotandem in pedibus • uis fictilibus percutiendum sit, & penitus abolendum. At vero quicquid erat Regni Graecorum, diu ante natum, nedum regnantem Christum, penitus est extinctum; ut ibi quoque probatum est.

Quoniam autem sententiae hujus authors Prodigiosum quartae Bestiae cornu exponunt de Antiocho Epiphane, (neque enim de ullo alio exponere potuerint, omnes licet ingenii nervos intenderint) scire pervelim, quomodo sic visioni Propheticae sua constabit Veritas, quae non tantùm ex vision ipsa facile colligitur, sed interpretation Angeli express & disertis verbis affirmatur, Cornu istud bellum gesturum cum Sanctis, iisque praevaliturum, usquedum venerat Antiquus dierum, & judicium daretur Sanctis, & tempus veniret quo Regnum possiderent sancti. Namque Antiochus iste Epiphanes mortuus est annis quatuor minùs ducentis ante passionem Christi, id est, multo pluribus quàm Regnum Graecorum duraverat à morte Alexandri ad eundem Antiochum Epiphanem. Hoccine est bellum cum Sanctis gerere usquedum veniret Antiquus dierum, & regnum Sanctorum constitueret? Sed jam manum de tabula: & quamvìs longe plura adferri possunt, haec tamen sufficient Quaestioni tum explicandae tum demonstrandae.

REVELATIO ANTICHRISTI, Sive De Numeris DANIELIS, MCCXC, MCCCXXXV. Cap. 12. Vers. 11, 12.

VT hoc adstruam; primo submovendum est praejudicium sententiae Broughtoni, Iunii & sequacium, qui hosce Numeros calamitatis Antiochianae angustiis includere, ejusdemque terminos & metas, nec aliud quidquam, designare volunt. Quod ut abs{que} omni contextûs fundamento faciunt, (ne{que} enim illic scopus iste vel uno verbulo innuitur) ità tam manifest contra historiae reique gestae fidem, ut mihi non exiguam admirationem habeat, tot illius sententiae admiratores fautoresque hactenus reperiri potuisse.

Priorem enim Numerum, dierum 1290, à pollutione Templi ad Diploma illud 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Iudaeis 2. Mac. 11. 27. concessum, supputant. Alterum vero, dierum 1335, ab eodem principio ad ipsius Epiphanis mortem.

Sed rem gestam omnimodo pervertunt, & bis falluntur insigniter. Nam primo, Diploma illud datum est non ab Epiphane, sed ab Eupatore filio post mortem Patris, nedum, ut isti statuunt, ante mortem ejus. Vide locum Maccab. Deinde, à Pollutione Templi, neque ad Antiochi mortem, neque ad Diploma 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 intercesserunt plusquam triennium, & quatuor ad summum menses, id est, non ampliùs diebus 1200; quod hâc ration ostenditur.

Repurgatio Templi facta est tribus a Pollutione annis exquisite evolutis anno • ti{que} Regni Graecorum 148, die 25 mensis Casleu, qui, Iosepho teste, (nec dubitationi locus est) respondet Appellaeo Macedonum. Videsis 1. Macc. 4. 52. Joseph. Antiq. lib. 12. cap. 11.

Huic Antiochum Epiphanem non quatuor ampliùs mensibus supervixisse constat; cùm nempe eodem anno (putà ab Autumno incipiendo) mense Xanthico fato jam concessisset, rerúmque potiretur Eupator filius; utpote à quo, illo mense, die 15, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 diploma (in quo de Patris sui morte testator) Iudaeis indultum fuerat, Vide 2. Macc. 11. v. 23, 33. Atqui in anno Macedonico sive Syro-Graecorum Xanthicus mensis ab Appellaeo sive Casleu consecutione quartus est. Ecce enim mensium Macedonicorum seriem ab Autumno.

• 1. Hyperberetaeus.
• 2. Dius
• 3. APPELLAEUS. Heb. Casleu.
• 4. Audynaeus.
• 5. Peritius.
• 6. Dystrus.
• 7. XANTHICUS. Heb. Nisan.
• 8. Artemisius.
• 9. Daesius.
• 10. Panemus.
• 11. Lous.
• 12. Gorpiaeus.

Ergo Antiochus Epiphanes Repurgationi Templi ultra quartum mensem non fuit superstes.

Ut autem fons erroris obstruatur, quo factum est ut Antiocho Epiphani vita adhuc ulteriùs prorogaretur, illud mente probe tenendum est. Annos Graecorum sive Selencidarum, quibus Author primi Libri Maccabaeorum utitur, Iudaeorum more, inchoari à Verno mense Xanthico sive Nisan; Annos autem Alexandraeos, quibus utitur Author secundi Libri Maccabaeorum, ( Alexandrinus ipse) inire ab Autumno sequenti, id est, ab Hyperberetaeo. Hinc factum est, ut cùm anni prioris Libri sex mensium intervallo posterioris antevertant initium, necesse fuerit, quoties res gesta in aestivallem anni semestrem inciderit, ut Liber posterior priori annos uno minùs numeret; quod illis qui rem non satìs attendissent fraudi fuit. Nam alioquin diligenter conferenti, illud de diverso anni initio indubium erit. Vide Petavium Rationarii Temporum Parte secundâ Lib. 3. c. 13. pag. 219. qui accurate confert. Consule quoque Sethum Calvisium Isagog. Chronolog. c. 43.

Quare cùm 2. Maccab. (c. 11. 23, 33.) Antiochus mortuus habeatur Anno Graecorum 148, in primo autem (cap. 6. 16.) anno 149, illud necessario colligitur, eum mense Xanthico ineunte mortem obiisse. Neque enim citiùs potuit, cùm nondum Annus 149 Graecorum à vere incepisset; neque seriùs, cùm quindecimo Xanthici Filius, eo jam mortuo, Rescriptum Iudaeis dedisset. Imo & illud quoque sponte sequitur, non dies 45, prout sententiae Iunianae adstipulatores sibi persuadent, sed 13 tantùm, aut 14 ad summum, inter Antiochi mortem & Rescriptum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 intercedere potuisse; ità ut eo jam gemini hujus numeri interstitium accommodari non possit.

Ut haec omnia clare & citra difficultatem cognoscantur; Quinquennalis intervalli seriem, dispositis continue cujusque Anni, tum à Vere tum ab Autumno inchoati, mensibus, (adscriptis quoque suis locis quae huc conducant eventibus) ob oculos tibi (Lector) ponendam duxi, ut ipse rem totam visu dijudices.

Ex istis jam satis liquere arbitror geminum hunc numerum (quaecunque tandem ejus men's sit dicenda) cladi Religions Iudaicae per Antiochum Epiphanem nullo modo adaptari posse. Quid igitur hîc restat quàm ut Diebus istis (prout alibi solet) Annos totidem significari putemus? Neque ad triennalis quadrienualísve paulo minùs intervalli, quinimo ad longinqui temporis eventum aliquem (quicquid tandem id fuerit) exitu suo designandum pertinere.

Illud Iudaei animadvertentes, tot annos (de initio tamen numerationis incerti) ad Messiae sui adventum (quod unice in votis habent) fluxuros arbitrati sunt; non hodie solum, sed jam à multis retro seculis: unde factum, ut re temere in calculum datâ, aliquoties vanâ spe delusi sint, imo bis Pseudo-Christorum laqueis irretiti.

Anno enim quinto Imperii Leonis (ait Theophanes Author Lib. 21. Histor. miscel. cap. 16.) id est, Anno AErae Christianae 720. apparuit quidam Syrus Pseudo-christus, & seduxit Hebraeos, dicens se esse Christum. Credibile est huic imposturae captatam occasionem ex calculo horumce Danielis Dierum, ab excidio Hierosolymitano sub Rege Zedechia à quo ad Annum Christi 705 fluxerunt Anni 1290. Aberratum est in Computo annis quindecim, quod leviusculum est.

Iterum tempore Maimonidis circa annum Christi 1130. exortus est alius Pseudomessias seu Messiae Prodromus, David, El-David dictus, quem Rex Persarum decollari fecit. Supputârunt dies Danielis à prophanatione Antiochi; unde ad Christi annum 1123. sunt itidem anni 1290. neque hîc multùm in calculo, licet in re ipsâ nimiùm, aberratum suit.

Simili fundamento i • nixus videtur R. Abraham, qui Messiae adventum praedixisse fertur In Annum Christi 1466. ducto videlicet posteriori numero Prophetico ab Anno Christi 131, quo Adrianus in loco ubi Templum Domini steterat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , putà Delubrum Iovi Capitolino, exstruxit. Inde enim ad annum Christi 1466 numerantur ad amussim anni 1335. Sed nullus tunc, quod sciam, apparuit qui se pro Messia venditaret.

Ex Christianis autem quotquot de Annis censent, non diebus, iis fere in eo cum Iudaeis convenit, quod ut illi Numeros hosce ad Primum Christi adventum, ità isti saniore fide ad Secundum referunt; vel (quod non multùm interest) ad Iudaeorum collectionem, quam ipsi quoque Iudaei sperant, sed in Epocha statuenda omnino laborant; imo quaedam hîc supponunt neque Textui neque Rationi satìs congrua. Sed qui sententias eorum particulariùs scire volet, ex ipsis petat. Mihi ease ultrà referendi non est animus, ut nec refellendi.

Quin meam quoque symbolam in numerum i • terpretationum confer liceat, quam virorum doctorum judiciis lubens submittam.

Sic igitur statuo: Eventum quem geminus iste Numerus exitu suo designat, nec esse Adventum Christi, nec Restaurationem Israelis; quinimo Vaticinii de temporibus quarti Regni novissimis, seu Antichristi, (quo Angelus Dan. 12. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 finem mirabilium retulerat) Resignationem; eousque putà, quid illis occultaretur, quóve pertinerent, etiam cum impleri coeperint, ignorandis. Hunc esse Numerorum istorum scopum, fidem tibi faciet Angeli & Danielis hoc capite Dialogus; quem sic ex Textu repraesento, intellectu sane perfacilem, modo illud ex capite septimo memineris, Quartae Bestiae, seu Regni, tempora extrema seu novissima esse intervallum illud TEMPORIS, TEMPOVM, ET DIMIDII TEMPORIS Cornu occulato attributum: de quo item Regno Cornú{que} Angelus iterum post Epiphanis historiam (quâcum Scriptura Regnum tertium semper terminare solet) supeperiore capi • e finiente disseruerat; ut ità nimirum temporis rerúm{que} gestarum seriem à Persica Monarchia, unde inceperat, ad Resurrectionem usque & Secundum Christi adventum perduceret. Sed ausculta Dialogum.

ANG. Tu vero, Daniel, claude verba, & obsigna librum usque ad tempus FINIS; tum autem discurrent multi, & crescet scientia.

DAN. At quousque erit FINIS iste rerum mirabilium quem indigitas?

ANG. Quoad Tempus, Tempora, & Dimidium Temporis, (id est, quoad erunt Regni Quarti tempora illa extrema, jam antea tibi à me indicata, quae sunt Tempus illud FINIS quod tibi inculco: utique cùm consummata fuerit dispersio manûs populi sancti: (quod nempe ad finem illorum temporum futurum est) consummabuntur universa ista.

DAN. Ah! Domine mi, nihilo magis intelligo. Audio quidem nomenclaturam Novissimorum temporum: Sed quid sibi velit nomenclatura isthaec, adhuc juxtà cum ignarissimis scio. Dic igitur mihi, quaeso, explicate, quid sit Res ista Novissimorum temporum; Temporis, Temporum & dimidium temporis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

ANG. Abi, Daniel, quoniam res ista clausa est & obsignata usque ad Tempus ipsum FINIS. Tunc purificabunt se, dealbabuntúrque, & conflabuntur multi; Et impie quidem agent impie, neque intelliget Impiorum quisquam; sed Sapientes [rem hanc] intelligent.

A tempore vero quo oblatum erit juge sacrificium, positáque Abominatio desolationis, (illa scilicet quam tibi paulo ante exposui) erunt [ad tempus reserandi mysteria] Dies 1290. Beat us qui exspectat & pertingit ad Dies 1335.

Tu vero abi usque ad FINEM; nam quiesces & stabis in sort tua in Fine dierum, id est, in Fine temporum istorum novissimorum, quando scilicet multos e dormientibus in pulvere terrae experrectos iri modo audivisti.

CONSECTARIA.

DAta, quam hucusque astruere conati sumus, de mente hujus Vaticinii hypothesi, Tria magni momenti 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 consequuntur.

• 1. Patrum authoritatem in negotio Antichristi & novissimorum temporum (utut in aliis multum iis tribuendum sit) omnino nullam esse: utpote quorum aetate Mysterium istud juxta Angeli prophetiam adhuc clausum & obsignatum foret: non igitur esse cur hîc Patrum opinationibus tantopere moveamur, ut multi solent.
• 2. Si Antichristus Seculo isto XII revelandus erat; Ergo jam venerit, ipsissimúsque est qui tunc revelatus fuerat, non alius.
• 3. Waldenses, Albigenses, similesque caeteros tunc temporis à Romana Ecclesia Segreges, tot adversariorum suorum praejudiciis gravatos, quibusdam etiam e nostris, nimiùm hâc parte credulis, de Schismate, si non Haeresi, suspectos, hujusmodi calumniarum de Spiritûs Sancti sententia absolvendos esse, próque legitimis Dei Patris per Iesum Christum cultoribus, quibus utique sapere & intelligere solis, in tam caliginoso (heu!) Ecclesiae statu, datum fuit, hujus Scripturae viagnoscendos.

[ In the following Book are several Epistles explaining other difficult passages in Daniel: particularly in the Author's Second Letter to Mr. Haines is inserted a Treatise entitled, The purport of the Four Kingdoms in Daniel, or The A. B. C. of Prophecy; and another in his first Letter to Dr. Meddus, viz. The Description of the Great Day of Judgment, Dan. 7.]

EPISTLE I.

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

EPISTLE II.

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

EPISTLE III.

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

Huic igitur malo sive infortunii, sive culpae fuerit, aliquatenus ut medicer, consultum fore putabam si Auctariolum aliquod Libellulis hisce meis adjungerem, Dissertatiunculam de gemina illa apud Daniclem periodo Dierum, c. 12. v. 11, 12. praeterea Specimen interpretationis Millennii Apocalyptici, à reliquo similium Speciminum corpore resectum. Nam rogatu, seu magìs instantiâ amicorum, quibus institutum meum in Libellulo meo praeter omnem opinionem placuit, factum est, ut Specimina quaedam exinde concinnaverim Interpretationum Apocalypticarum ad amussim Clavis Apocalypticae. In quibus quae de septima Tuba ejúsque mille annis disseruerim, limatissimo judicio • uo, R. P. e • quâ par est humilitate subjicio. De quo etiam quid paulo post mihi acciderit, apud Paternitatem tuam tacere non possum; nimirum vixdum me haec conscripsisse, atque cum amicis de iisdem contulisse, cùm ecce in Catalogo Francofurtensi, propter tumul tus bellicos & marinorum itinerum pericula post quadrimestre demum ad nos allato, Libellum deprehendo hoo titulo, Verosimilia Historico-Prophetica De rebus in novissimo die eventuris, e sacris utriusque 'Iestamenti Oraculis collecta, pio & accurato studio cujusdam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Protinus animum meum suspicio incessit (quam postea veram comperi) de Millennio Apocalyptico agi. Proinde Bibliopolis nostris id negotii dedi, ut omni studio Librum istum perquirerent. Duo tan • ùm aut tria exemplaria Londinum advecta sunt. Unum ego nactus sum. Author Lutheranus est, sed Anonymous; vir quidem, ut videtur, doctus &, quod in istius sectae homine rarum, permodestus. Haud temere suspicatus sum de argumento; nam eandem plane tuetur de Die suo Novissimo sententiam quam ego de Die Iudicii conceperam. Ut Libro prelecto non mediocriter in sententia mea confirmatus sim, tum propter hoc ipsum, tum quod multa Scripturae loca in eo reperi adeo ad meam mentem interpretata; ut consensionem in talibus à communi sententia abeuntibus oppido mirarer. Vides, Reverende Praesul, quo me rapit Contemplatiunculae meae nimium forta • se studium, ut etiam tibi hisce narrandis importunus sim. Sed ultrà Paternitatem tuam à gravioribus tuis meditationibus non distinebo. Deus te, Reverendissime ac Illustrissime Domine, quàm diutissime incolumem & superstitem velit Ecclesiae & Patriae tuae bono.

EPISTLE IV.

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

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

I chanced to light upon Mr. Selden's Marmora Arundelliana, and found therein, together with an honorable and deserved mention of your Grace's name, the Chronology of your Samaritan Pentateuch, published to the view of the whole world. I had thereby opportunity to take more curious notice thereof than I had done when your Lordship was in England; and observed, that it much more exceeded the Jewish in the Genealogy of the Patriarchs after the flood, then it came short in those before it. It came therefore into my mind to try how near the 6000 years of the world would be by that computation: I found it would be Anno AErae Christianae 1736, which is just the very year when the 1260 years of the Beast's reign will expire, if it be reckoned from the Deposition of Augustulus the last Roman Emperor.

Depositio Angustuli Anno AErae Christ.

476

Anni Regni Bestiae

1260

Sum.

1736

A Condito Mundo ad AEram Christ. juxta Scaligerum

3949

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

4

Excessus Chronologiae Samaritanae supra Iudaicam

311

Ità à condito Mundo ad AEram Christ. erunt Ann.

4264

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

1736

Sum.

6000

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

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

EPISTLE V.

EPISTLE VI.

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

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

• 1. The Roman Empire to be the Fourth Kingdom of Daniel, was believed by the Church of Israel both before and in our Savior's time; received by the Disciples of the Apostles, and the whole Christian Church for the first 400 years, without any known contradiction. And I confess, having so good ground in Scripture, it is with me tantùm non Articulus fidei, little less than an Article of faith.
• 2. I acknowledge also the subject of the Apocalyptical Visions to be Fata Imperii Romani post primum Christi adventum usque ad secundum supersuturi, The Fates of the Roman Empire, which after the first coming of Christ was still to continue in being even till the second. And this I affirm, the Roman Kingdom was revealed unto Daniel, but not according to that distinct succession of things and specification of the Fates thereof (which was first made known unto S. John, ) but only in general and in imagine confusa, not to be explicated but by Christ himself. I say, the Roman Kingdom was revealed to Daniel in general, but the order of the times thereof, and the series rerum gerundarum or course of things to be acted therein, not until the Revelation unto S. John.
• 3. Nor is it strange or unwonted, that a thing may be revealed in general, and yet most of the particulars concerning the same to be unknown and sealed. The calling of the Gentiles, or the Kingdom of Christ among the Gentiles, by way of surrogation to the Jews, was revealed unto S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles; but the particular Fates and States of that Kingdom were never known till Christ revealed them to S. John in the Apocalyptical Visions. The like I say of the Fourth or Roman Kingdom; the general revelation whereof could not but be before the opening of the sealed Book in the Apocalypse, since it had then been so long a time in the world, as it was grown past the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and had fulfilled what it was to fulfil upon Daniel 's people.
• 4. As for the Persecutions of the Church, I deny the argument either of the Seals or Trumpets to be the Roman persecutions of Christ's Kingdom, or that any of them have reference to persecutions save the Fifth Seal only; or that anything contained in them was made known to Daniel, save the Catastrophe only represented in the last Trumpet, which the Angelus tonitruum proclaims there to be Consummatio Mysterii Dei, prout annunciavit servis suis Prophetis, The finishing of the Mystery of God, as he hath declared to his servants the Prophets; and therefore cannot be denied to have been both foretold and expected for the general, although not for the Manner, Time, and Order in serie rerum gerundarum, till now.
• 5. Howsoever my Tenet here be, yet your Assertion, That the Romans persecution was revealed to none till Christ revealed it to John, cannot stand, unless you deny the coming of the man of sin (who is a limb of that Kingdom) to be any part of the Church's afflictions: For this was revealed unto S. Paul, both for the quality and the fall thereof, viz. That Christ should destroy it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which I make no doubt but S. Paul learned out of the seventh of Daniel, where that ruffling Horn also is not destroyed until the Son of man comes in the clouds of heaven, to receive that Universal Kingdom which shall never suffer persecution.
• 6. But whereas you say, that the ruffling Horn of the Fourth Beast is Antiochus Epiphanes; I demonstrate the contrary by this one Argument.

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

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

To your Second Position.

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

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

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

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

EPISTLE VII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I deny not but that a matter may be revealed in general, and yet the particulars sealed. So all the Persecutions of the Church are told in this, I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed: the particulars then sealed are opened in the whole Bible. But you see above, that the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel is particularly described, and therefore that description cannot be a general revealing of the Roman Empire: Especially seeing we are told that the Lamb slain was the revealer of them, and none before. We have also general Prophecies of the Romans persecuting Christ and his Church: as that Psal. 2. Why do the heathen rage? and that Dan. 9. Messiah shall be slain, and Jerusalem ruinated: But the Roman Kingdom is there in no shape or form pictured. Some other Prophecies in general Terms there may be of the Roman Empire, the particulars whereof (as you well say) are shown to John; so that Daniel 's Fourth Kingdom particularly described cannot belong to them. Daniel 's Book begins with Babel 's wasting the City Jerusalem, and ends with the utter overthrow of the City and Temple by the Romans. After Jerusalem 's overthrow in Domitian 's time, Christ reveals to John what should befall to the Church to the end of the world: and here the Romans are fully and plainly painted out to us • —Here you object,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is not said of the Universal Kingdom in Daniel, that it should never suffer persecution; but that it never should be destroyed: because 'tis built on the Rock Christ, no power shall prevail against it. That it should never be destroyed, implies that it should be impugned: But how in these later Times, John in the Apocalypse shows from Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPISTLE VIII.

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

When I return, and have more leisure, I shall answer to what I find Principal in your Replies; but not to what is Circumstantial: for so the business would grow too tedious for my pen. In the mean time I would desire you to believe that I have read the most that hath or can be said for that Opinion, either by the chief Patrons thereof, Broughton and Junius, or their followers, Polanus, Piscator, D. Willet; and that whilst I was yet free, and first began with these kind of studies; and yet found nothing that could in the least measure persuade me to be of their mind: And I see now that the modern Writers, and even some of their Scholars, return to the ancient opinion, and forsake their Masters in this point. This I speak, not to boast of my reading in this controversy, but to shorten your Discourses which you may send hereafter; you shall need but touch, and spare the labor of so much enlargement. But a word or two to your Reply.

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

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

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

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

But as for the opinion you would persuade to, it was first broached by Porphyry, an enemy of Christ, to the end he might prove the Prophecy of Daniel counterfeit, and written about the time of the Maccabes, soon after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, and so prophesied nothing but ab eventu, as meaning by the Fourth Kingdom the Seleucidae, &c. not the Roman. See S. Jerome upon those Chapters of Daniel 7. & 11. and you will admire the Expositions and Evasions of Porphyry should be the same almost, yea in circumstances, with those of Junius, &c. But S. Jerome in his time knew no Christian that had been of that opinion. Let any man show as much for what you affirm of the Jews, as insinuators of this opinion in praejudicium fidei Christianae.

EPISTLE IX.

EPISTLE X.

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

Mr. Hayn, though I can reasonably well persuade myself of many things I believe; yet had I never so much confidence in me, as to be able to persuade another of a contrary judgment, if he were once studied and settled therein; which made me so unwilling at the first to enter the Lists with you in this kind, where I could expect no other fruit but the loss of much time and pains to no purpose. The wit of man is able, where it is persuaded, to find shifts and answers until the day of Doom; as appears in so differing opinions held amongst Christians, with so much and so endless pertinacity on both sides. It is sufficient therefore for a man to propound his Opinion with the strongest evidence and arguments he can, and so leave it. Truth will be justified of her children. But of these reciprocations of discourse in writing, wherein you place so much benefit for discovery of Truth, I have often heard and seen Truth lost thereby, but seldom or never • ound.

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

• 1. The opinion of the 70 weeks expiration is not mine, but Scaliger 's and divers other learned men's, and amongst the rest Junius's, who otherwise for the Monarchies is yours. For myself, howsoever in the 70 weeks I have yet followed Scaliger, yet I had a private way to make the 62 weeks to point out our Savior's Baptism. Howsoever, for the Jews expectation of Messiah, it was enough to know in what age he was to come, though not precisely the year.
• 2. I shall never believe but all those places of the Son of man's coming and appearing in the clouds of heaven, mentioned in the Gospels and in the Apocalypse, ch. 1. 7. are the same with that coming of the Son of man in the clouds prophesied by Daniel at the extinction of the Fourth Beast, Ch. 7. and that the Holy Ghost in the New Testament hath reference thither, both for words and meaning. If this be so, you know what follows.
• 3. I say not, the Greeks ruled not after Antiochus Epiphanes, but that the Holy Ghost accounts that Kingdom no longer in the Monarchichal reckoning, and so follows the story of their Kings no further than Epiphanes; from thenceforth the Roman, having now conquered Greece, was to take place.
• 4. I deny not, but firmly believe, that Christ's Kingdom took place at his First coming. But I utterly deny that to be the Kingdom our Savior prophesies of Luk. 21. 31. and answerably in the other Gospels; or that whereof S. Paul speaks 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and dead, at his appearing and his kingdom; or that foretold in the Apocalypse to be when the seventh Trumpet shall sound, and the like places.
• 5. Unless it can be shewn me, That the six Seals, seven Trumpets, seven Vials, the treading down of the Temple, two Witnesses, their slaughter and Resurrection, the red Dragon's persecution, &c. were in specie revealed to Daniel; I will still hold those Fates of the Roman Kingdom were sealed, and not revealed to Daniel, though the Roman Monarchy were revealed to him.
• 6. The ancient Jews did, but the latter Jews hold not the Roman to be the Fourth Kingdom, but the Mohammedan and the Roman to be a continuation of the third.
• 7. What I alleged of Porphyry for yours, was to show the injustice of your disparaging mine, as being held by Jews, who yet when they first held it, were the only people of God, and Custodes oraculorum Dei: If Porphyry might see a Truth, why not much more they?
• 8. I never meant to say, That the Kingdom of Christ should appear whilst all the Monarchies were yet standing, but before the times of that succession of Monarchies should expire: Which is true, if it appeared only in the last Monarchy. The confounding of the Gold, Silver, Brass and Iron, in the destruction of the Image, is either the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 typi (for the parts of the Image could not succeed in time, as the Kingdoms signified by them could, and so all must be broken together:) or because the second kingdom possessed the first, the third the second, the fourth the third; the last is represented as containing all the rest, &c.
• 9. The Duration of the Four Kingdoms holds no proportion with the parts of the Image typifying them, and therefore the continuance of the Fourth Kingdom makes the legs of the Image neither longer nor shorter.
• 10. I wonder you should say, there is no Second Kingdom of Christ (which I had rather call the Second State of his Kingdom) mentioned in Scripture. Consider the places I point to in the fourth Paragraph, and add to them Luke 17. 20, &c. where our Savior being asked of the Pharisees concerning the Kingdom of God, tells them, that he must first be rejected of that Nation, and that the coming thereof should be as in the days of Noah, &c.
• 11. The Mystery you say you conceive not (in the piece written with another hand) is that Mystery which the Apostle says was not known till the preaching of the Gospel; namely, That the Jews should be rejected, and the Gentiles surrogated in their stead. Nor did I say (as you mistake) that the Jews had no part in the First state of Christ's kingdom, but that their Nation had not; by which I meant nothing else, but that their Nation was rejected. Doth not our Savior expressly say, that he should be rejected of that Nation, Luk. 17. 25? It mattereth not though many of their Nation received him, seeing the Body of their Nation acknowledged him not. This is plain enough: I shall not need put you in mind of S. Paul 's discourse of the casting off of the Jews, though then there were so many particular Jews believing in him, as I believe never were since.
• 12. I believe not that ever the Gospel of Christ was preached all over the world; no more than I believe that Augustus Caesar taxed the whole world, because it is said he taxed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For in the style of those times the Roman Empire was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as appears in the Greek Historians; and the Latin call it Imperium orbis terrarum.
• 13. Daniel himself interpreteth the Stone to be a Kingdom which the God of heaven should set up in the days of those Kingdoms: and therefore it cannot be the Kingdom of Christ as God coeternal with his Father; but the Kingdom of Christ as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which began not before he was incarnate. In the days of these Kingdoms (saith he) (that is, whilst some of them were yet in being) the God of heaven shall set up a Kingdom which should never be destroyed, nor left (as the former should) to another people; but should break in pieces, and consume all those Kingdoms, and itself should s • and forever: Forasmuch (saith he) as thou sawest a Stone was cut out of a mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold. Here make the full point; for these words belong not to that which follows, (as our mis-distinction in the verses seems to refer them) but to that which went before of their interpretation. See the same reference of [Forasmuch] in the 40 and 41 verses.
• 14. I will not now dispute of the Preposition •• though I had enough to say against you; but I say, that the words [In the days of those Kings] are much more likely to be construed by Ellipsis particulae partitivae, usual in the Hebrew and Chaldee, qu • si, In the days of someone of those Kings. viz. the last of them. So Iephtah is said to have been buried in the cities of Gilead; that is, in someone of them, &c.

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

EPISTLE IX.

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

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

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

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

EPISTLE XII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For if he persecuted till then, he with his Time, Times, and half a Time, must continue till Christ's Ascension at the nearest; but he was dead two hundred years before. It will not serve your turn here, to fly to the Kingdom of Christ as he is God; for the Kingdom here spoken of is the Kingdom of the