Works

Post-script.

It is time to return that of yours ad Ludov. de Dieu, which herewith I do. Mr. B. knows him well, and he desires to be heartily remembered unto you, with many thanks for your kind and free entertainment of him.

EPISTLE LXI.

EPISTLE LXII.

THis day a little before dinner came your Letter unto me. I have been of late extremely melancholic; your Letters inspire cheerfulness into me—How am I beholden unto you for communicating unto me your Treasures, which I esteem beyond the Treasures of the Queen of Sheba! You have heretofore blessed me with the Mysteries of Dan. 11. now with the Mysteries of Dan. 12. verse. 11, 12. The bare discovery of others Errors I should esteem a Jewel, and a preservative from engaging ourselves in erroneous ways, which is worst of all. Better a great deal to content a man's self with Ignorance, so to keep himself entire for the embracing of Truth, when the time of its nativity is come. But you go farther, and from the Text itself discover whereto those Numbers tend, namely, for the discovery of Antichrist; which gives me wondrous content: and all this you crown with admirable accommodation to the Event—What a gracious God do we serve, that hath so well provided for us in these times and for our consolation so many hundred years ago; and as he hath reserved us for these times of light, so raiseth up some to open these Oracles unto us? What should man be the better for that sweet Dew, Honey I mean, if the Lord had not provided such a Creature as the Be by natural instinct to seek after it, and gather it for the use of others as well as for themselves?—I protest unto you, if I should lie in prison all days of my life, next unto the consolations of God's spirit your Writings would most refresh me: They do always dispel melancholy. I desire no better Preferment than you can perform, and that is to be preferred to acquaintance with your Rarities. I make bold to keep your Discourse till the next week, for I cannot let it pass from me without copying it out. I commend me to your Love, as one of them I hold most dear, and shall ever from my heart desire that God will prosper your courses and studies, and recompense you with himself, to be your Buckler and exceeding great Reward—I rest

EPISTLE LXIII.

TOuching the Opinion of the Millenaries, it was not yet my hap to light of a Book to inform me: You shall find me to be a teachable Scholar: only this Mora Resurrectionis seems to be confuted in divers places of the Scripture, where it is said, The dead shall be raised at the sound of the last Trump; All they that are Christ's, at his coming, (1 Cor. 15. 23.) in a moment, verse. 52. and the coming of the Son of man. See Matt. 24. 39. and, excepting one place, I think the Resurrection is said to be of good and bad together. How these and the like Scriptures are to be expounded agreeably to the doctrine of the Millenaries I would willingly know.

EPISTLE LXIV.

YOU would bring me to express myself de modo, before you were persuaded de re. But soft you there, I like not that Method.

S. Jerome is a man of no faith with me, when he describes the opinion of his Adversary: which whatsoever it were, he would set it forth as odiously as possible could be. He was a man that cared not what he said, so it might disparage his Adversary: This appears sufficiently in the cases of Vigilantius and Iovinian. Yea but he lived at the same time. Answ. So do we with those we differ from, and yet we see the experience daily, that scarce any one will relate the opinion of his Adversary candidly.

Yea but I cannot deny that Lactantius was for ciborum abundantia, gulaeque ac ventris ingluvies, & ea quae sub ventre sunt. But what if I can? The words of Lactantius are only these, Lib. 7. cap. 24. Tunc, inquit, qui crunt in corporibus vivi (he speaks of those who shall be living at Christ's Second coming) non morientur, sed per eosdem mille annos infinitam multitudinem generabunt, & erit soboles eorum sancta & Deo chara. Qui autem ad inferis suscitabuntur, (that is, those who shall rise from the dead Resurrectione primâ) ii praeerunt viventibus tanquam Iudices. You see he puts a difference between those who shall be then living and those who shall rise from the dead. The last shall live vitam coelestem & Angelicam, even on earth, without marrying or giving in marriage; but not the first. He says indeed the one shall generare; but of the other only, that praeerunt viventibus tanquam Iudices; and presently in the words following describes that Regnum to be the Mille anni coelestis Imperii in quo Iustitia in orbe regnabit. But of gormundizing, ingluvies & gula, I find no word, unless you think it must needs follow upon the taking away the curse of the creature, and the restitution thereof to the perfection it lost through man's sin. For Lactantius means no more, but that such as then lived should live the life that Adam should have done in Paradise, had he not sinned: but those that should then rise from the dead should live in a far more Heavenly and Angelical condition, even the life of the Blessed Spirits in Heaven. But S. Jerome is wont to relate the opinion, as if those who rose again should generare, and give themselves to feasting and gormundising.

Besides, you say S. Austin intimates that some held some such carnal Beatitude. I answer; So he intimates that some did not, and that himself was once of that opinion, and that to hold so was tolerable; Quae opinio esset utcunque tolerabilis, si aliquae deliciae spiritales in illo Sabbato affuturae Sanctis per Domini ( i. Christi) praesentiam crederentur. Nam nos etiam hoc opinati fuimus aliquando. De Civit. Dei, Lib. 20. c. 7.

But where can I show Cyprian to be a Chiliast? You see it is tedious to answer a Question in writing, which may be asked in a few words. Yet I will say something: I say therefore, he shows himself plainly a Chiliast (to such as know the mystery of that Opinion) Lib. de Exhortatione Martyrii. In the Preface whereof he speaks thus; Desiderâsti, Fortunate charissime, ut quoniam persecutionum & pressurarum pondus incumbit, & in fine atque consummatione mundi Antichristi tempus infestum appropinquare nunc coepit, ad praeparandas & coroborandas Fratrum mentes de divinis Scriptures hortamenta componerem, quibus milites Christi ad coeleste & spiritale certamen animarem— paulo post— Sex millia annorum jam pene complentur—Si imperatum invenerit Diabolus militem Christi, &c.

But he that, as you see, expected the coming of Antichrist should be at the end of the sixth thousand year, which he supposed then near at hand, yet thought the world should last 7000. viz. a thousand years after the destruction of Antichrist, ut patet ex iis quae disserit cap. 11. in these words, Quid vero in Maccabaeis septem fratres & natalium pariter & virtutum sort consimiles, Septenarium numerum perfectae consummationis implentes? Sic Septem fratres in Martyrio cohaerentes, ut primi in dispositione divina Septem dies, annorum Septem millia continentes—ut consummatio legitima compleatur, &c. This to him that knows Chiliasm is plain Chiliasm. Look and compare your Austin, cap. 7. lib. 20. de Civit. Dei, from those words, Qui propter haec hujus Libri verba primam Resurrectionem, &c. Compare also what C • prian hath in the end of that Book out of the Gospel, Mark 10. 29, 30. and Apocalypse 20. and you will acknowledge him to be (as he was wont to profess himself) Tertulliani Discipulum.

But I must not follow you too far in this kind of answering: 'tis tedious. I send you some more Papers, and so with my love, I rest

EPISTLE LXV.

I Have been a stranger from you too long; I come now to renew my acquaintance. I presume you are acquainted with Dr. Heylin 's Book of the History of the Sabbath. Do you know the Author whom he opposeth about the Precepts of Noah, for making the Commandment of the Sabbath one of them, though he name him not? Yet the question is not whether it be one of them, but whether not comprehended under one of them. But he allegeth Rambam to the contrary out of Ainsworth. I have read enough in Cocceius to discredit Rambam, and I pray let me know whether Ibn Ezra upon Exod. 20. on those words [ the stranger within thy gates ] doth not maintain that it was one of them, coupling it with that of Nakedness and Shedding of Blood. And though you doubted whether Solomon Rashi on Gen. 26. 5. did deliver that which he doth of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 two of them as out of his own opinion: yet Dr. Heylin confesseth that Abulensis and Mercerus testify that the Rabbins upon that place are opinion that Abram kept the Sabbath.

I pray, what think you both of his and Dr. White 's opinion concerning Synagogues, that the Jews had none before the Captivity, and their Inference thereupon, That the Sabbath was nowhere observed (save in the Temple) by any public congregation but only in private? Dr. Andrew's was of another opinion, as hath been shown me in some Notes of his; and his ground in my judgment is fair, Levite. 23. 3. The Seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, an holy Convocation—it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. The holy Convocation here mentioned seems to be in reference to all their dwellings: whereas the other Feasts and holy Convocations belonging thereto were to be celebrated at Jerusalem. But I have not yet consulted any Rabbin's about this.

Then, I pray, What think you of Dr. Heylin saying, That Evening-prayer on the Lord's-day is but a late invention? Yet I find it in the Jewish Synagogue and Nocturnae after Vespertinae; like as I find the like in one of Austin 's Epistles de Tempore: and in Cassian it appears that the Sabbath-Solemnity was not ended until the time of their Evening-repast corporal—

Doth your plough stand still in the Revelation and such like passages of a mysterious nature? I hope it doth not.

Is not that Matth. 25. spoken of the last period of the Day of Judgment? It seems it is; for the Resurrection is general both of Sheep and Goats; yet to the Sheep it is said, Receive the Kingdom, Shall they receive a Kingdom when Christ resigns his unto his Father? and in Heaven it seems there are none for them to reign over. Or is it a Figure of speech, representing the glory of that State when God becomes all in all, by the greatest glory that we are acquainted with, which is the glory of a Kingdom?

I pray, what think you of that in Esa. 66. 23. From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all flesh come to worship before me? Shall not the Observation of our Christian Sabbath continue, after Christ's coming with his Saints, amongst the Nations that are saved from that Deluge of fire (though it be Irenaeus his phrase, yet I learnt it from you) wherewith the Earth and all the works thereof shall be burnt up? And if it be urged that by the same reason the Festivities of the New-moons shall have their place in Christ • s Kingdom as well as Sabbaths, and by consequence the Ceremonies of the Jews be restored: I answer, it followeth not; the words may be rendered, From month to month, as the Geneva doth. If we read it, From New-moon, &c. with our last English, yet it is not necessary to understand it of any peculiar Festivity denoted thereby, least of all Jewish. And we Christians in Cathedrals, Colleges and great Towns have our Monthly Communions all the year over.

And seeing I am upon it, what think you of Matth. 24. 20. Pray that your flight be not in the Winter nor on the Sabbath-day? We know Dr. Andrew's B. of Winchester as well as Mr. Dod apply it to our Christian Sabbath: And to my judgment it is a strange fiction to apply it to unconverted Jews, that our Savior should stir them up to pray, who scorned the Gospel whereby alone we come acquainted with such an Admonition, and certainly scorned Christ's Instructions: and how can we think that God would hear the prayers of such? and was it fit that our Savior should lay such a ground for the countenancing of their prayers, yea and their Jewish Sabbath too?

And now truly, Sir, there is no Book that I desire to study more than yourself. I have found great freeness and acceptance with you hitherto, I hope I shall do so still. I heartily desire God's blessing upon your person and studies, as upon myself and mine. I shall ever rest

EPISTLE LXVI.

I Turned over the leaves both of the Bishop's and D. Heylin 's Book, when they came newly out, that I might see their Principles and the way they went: further I am not acquainted with them; because I took no pleasure neither in their Conclusions nor their Grounds, which, if they be urged, would overthrow a great deal more than they are aware of.

• 1. If there be any such Author the Dr. opposeth for affirming the Sabbath to have been comprehended under one of the 7 Commandments of the Sons of Noah, I suppose it is Godwyn in his Moses and • aron, Lib. 1. cap. 3.
• 2. That of Ibn Ezra upon Exod. 20. 10. seems to me to be very evident for that Opinion. For though it be as much as I can do to understand a piece of Rabbinism, yet methinks this passage, if it be translated, will sound thus; Ecce non dubium est quin dictio [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tu] comprehend 〈◊〉 unumquemque qui est silius praecepti. Ideirco 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Filius tuus & Filia tua sunt parvidi quorum requies est super te, tibique incumbit officium custodiendi eos, ne quicquamfaciant quod tibi vetitum sit. Similiter de 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Servo tuo & Ancillâ tuâ; quoniam in pot • state tua est, tui est officii custodire eum, neque sinere eum ut serviat alteri. Sin minùs, tu transgredieris praeceptum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Non facies; quod eo spectat ut quiescat Servus tuus & Ancilla tua perinde ut tu ipse; sunt exposult Moses Dominus noster viâ quam commemoravi. Et secundùm hunc Doctorem vovebii 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Peregrinus qui est intra portas tuas, quod non facturus sit opus in Die Sabbati neque in Die Expiationum. Propterea scriptum est secundo Peregrinus. Similiter atque de praecepto Nuditatis, cùm secundùm hunc Doctorem vovebit quod custoditurus sit praeceptum Nuditatis; eodemque modo de Comestione sanguinis. This Dominus Moses he here cites, I take to be Rabbi Moses Haddarschan, who lived an hundred years before him, and was Master to R. Solomon Rashi. Maimonides, whom Ainsworth cites for the contrary opinion, and Ibn Ezra, were both of an age and contemporaries.

• 3. For Synagogues, I am inclined to believe they were before the Captivity, and not first taken up there, as the more common opinion is. But how to evict it against him that shall obstinately maintain the contrary, I confess I know not. That in Act. 15. 21. [ Moses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath in every City them that preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath-day ] will not reach so far; yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is more than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If I should allege that of Psal 74. 8. They have burnt up all the Synagogues of God in the land; they would say as Junius doth, that this Psalm was composed under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes: and indeed that which follows [ We see not our signs, there is no more any Prophet, neither any among us that knoweth how long ] may seem to argue it cannot be meant of that vastation by Nebuchadnezzar; for then there were both Prophets, and those that knew how long. But if this be granted, there will arise another difficulty, viz. That either this Psalm is no Canonical Scripture, or That some part of the Canonical Scripture was written long after Malachi, when there was no Prophet and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had ceased. And if this, why not the first Book of Maccabees? There remains but yours Lev. 23. 3. which to me hath appearance of probability; but he that were refractory would pick some hole or other, either in the word translated [ Convocation ] or in [ dwellings, ] especially in the first. See Vulgat. and LXX.

  But did not the Levites (shall we think) teach the people out of Jerusalem in the places abroad where they dwelt? And did not the people use to resort to such as could teach them, on Sabbath-days and New-moons? What doth that of the Shunamite argue else, 2 Kings 4. 23? where her husband saith unto her, Wherefore wilt thou go to him (the man of God) today? It is neither New-moon, nor Sabbath. If this; had they not some place where to resort and assemble?

  Besides; were there not then Colleges of Prophets and Prophets Sons in Israel? In the same chapter we shall find they had, and an hundred men in a place, verse. 43. and in chap. 6. initio, that they had Houses where they lived together. Did not the Israelites erect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Houses of false worship too may? Could they think of building Places to transgress God's commandment in, and never of Places wherein to be instructed in his Law? But the Scripture is silent. I answer, If the silence of Scripture be an argument sufficient to conclude against matter of Fact in the times preceding, for the use whereof we have testimony enough in the times following, without any express intimation of Novelty; then must we not think that the Jews paid Tithes from Joshua 's time to Hezekiah's, (for there is no tittle intimating they did) nor that ever they kept the year of Jubiliee; for where is it mentioned they did? and so of other the like.

• 4. For Even-song public in the Church, there is very little to be produced out of the Monuments remaining of those First Ages. That the Monks used it in their Monasteries, it is granted, because affirmed that it was from their example derived into the Church. That in their private Devotions devout Christians observed the ninth hour as well as the first, third and sixth, in those elder times, may be proved out of Tertullian de Iejunio cap. 10. and S. Cyprian de Oratione Dominica. But for Vespers in ortu Ecclesiae, neither of them mentions them. Yet Tertullian in his Apology, together with Pliny ad Trajanum, hath antelucani coetus; and in his Lib. 2. ad Vxorem, cap. 4. Nocturnae convocationes: But as those seem not to have been properly those we call Mattins, so neither these our Vespertinae. And in this inquisition notice is to be taken, that both Mattins and Even-song were distinct from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or solemn address of the Church to God in the holy Eucharist, which they termed Sacrificium Christianum. Well, the most ancient Testimony to be found of Vespertinae in coetu Ecclesiae is with the Author of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which, though it be an Apocryphal writing and of a false inscription, yet is the most ancient Record of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, by way of purposed Collection, that is at this day extant, and not younger than 200 years after Christ at the most. The Author, whosoever he were, seeming to have gathered this Rhapsodie out of the Customs and Ceremonies he found then in use in the Churches founded by the Apostles; and supposing them to have been derived from their institution, accordingly fathered them upon them; and where there was any singularity or difference, brings in that Apostle, whose Church he found it in, as speaking in Council, &c, It is put by Eusebius, in his Catalogue of Sacred Books, amongst the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and is often quoted by Epiphanius by the name we give it.

  In this Rhapsody, Lib. 8. cap. 35. is not only mention, but the Form of Evening Prayer, with the solemn dismissing (at the beginning thereof) of the Catechumen, &c. as at the Eucharist, ascribed to James the Brother of our Lord in particular. Whence it may seem, according to my former supposition, not to have been common at first to all Churches, but peculiar to that of Jerusalem, whereof this James was the first Bishop; whence also the Liturgy of that Church (though the greatest part thereof (as now it is) were afterward at several times added) bears the name of S. James his Liturgy.

  The next Testimony for antiquity is that of the Council of Laodicea, (which, if Baronius his arguments be good, was before the first Council of Nice, ) the 17. and 18. Canons whereof are, Quod non oportet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psalmos contexere, sed interjecto inter unumquemque Psalmum spatio Lectionem fieri: The next, Idem ministerium Precum semper & in nonis & vesperis fieri debere; Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Though I cite both Canons, yet I suppose not the latter to have reference to the former, (for what had the Evening to do with the Synaxis? ) but the meaning to be, that one and the same Form of Prayer should be used both at the ninth hour and at the Vespers.

• 5. Concerning that in Matth. 24. Pray that your flight be not in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath-day, I conceive thus; That the believing and Christian Jews, even the Apostles themselves, were to observe the Rites and Ordinances of Moses (and consequently that of the Sabbath together with the Lord's-day ) until their Temple and Politie founded and constituted by God him • elf should be actually and fully dissolved. And do we not find they did so? yea even S. Paul himself, who was so great a Vindex of the liberty of the believing Gentiles, that they should be tied no farther than the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Proselytes of the Gate were. Therefore Acts 21. it is accounted a slander or calumny which was reported of S. Paul, that he should teach the Jews which were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that they ought not to circumcise their children nor walk after the customs. For neither he nor any other of the Apostles taught that the Jews should do so, either abroad among the Gentiles, or at home in Judea. For the Gentiles indeed they did, and S. Paul (whose charge they were) more zealously than the rest, that they should have no such imposed upon them, according to the decree of the S • nod, Acts 15. Consider it with that Story Acts 21. à verse. 20. & deinceps. This therefore being to be the condition of the believing Jews when their City should be compassed with an Army by Cestius Gallus, (at which time they were admonished to flee (to save themselves) with all speed into the mountains of Petraea, as soon as Cestius by withdrawing a little his Army should give them that liberty) our Savior saith here, Pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath-day. For he speaks not of any flight to be when the City should be taken, or when it should be once besieged by Titus; for both would be too late; but of a warning beleaguering to precede it.

• 6. Concerning that in Matth. 25. when our Blessed Savior shall sit upon his Throne of Royalty to judge the world; I conceive a Figure to be in that expression of placing the Sheep on his right hand and the Goats on the left, borrowed from the custom of the Jews in their Tribunals, to place such as were to be absolved on the right hand, where stood the Scribe who took the Votes for Absolution; and those who were to receive the sentence of Condemnation, on the left hand, where stood the Scribe which took the Votes for Condemnation. Such a custom of theirs Drusius in his Notes upon that place observes out of Moses de Kotsi. That therefore nothing else is meant thereby, but that our Savior should distinguish the world of men into two Orders; one of such as should receive the Sentence of bliss and Absolution, the other of such as should receive the Sentence of Condemnation. That he should first pronounce the Sentence of Absolution upon such as are to be absolved; and that once finished, then to pronounce the Sentence of Condemnation upon such as are to be condemned.

  Now I suppose the Sentence of Absolution shall continue all the time of the First Resurrection, that is, all the Thousand years long; that, that once ended and finished, (and not before) he shall then proceed to pronounce the Sentence of Condemnation upon such as are to be condemned. For so the Text saith, that he shall in the first place pronounce the Sentence of bliss and Absolution upon those who are to be absolved; and that done, then come to the Sentence of Condemnation upon those who shall be in statu & ordine damnandorum: that is, successively and not at one and the same time; though the Scripture here mentions not the Intervallum which shall be between the beginning of the one and the other. Thus you see, although my plough stand still, unless sometimes it joggs me, yet then I am not unwilling to listen unto it.

• 7. To that in the end of Isaiah 66. of Festivities in the Kingdom of Christ, I answer, I see no reason why the Lord's-day should not be a celebrious Day when the Lord reigneth. Yet I think the expression there is accommodated to the condition and Diurnial of the Church under the Old Testament ad capium Auditorum; and no more thereby to be understood, but that in that New world not the Jews alone, as then did, but all the Nations should come before the Lord to worship him in the frequent Festivities then to be, whatsoever they should be.

Thus I have, as well as I could, answered your Sabbatical number of Quaeres; if not so largely and fully as you desired, it is because there were too many of them for the narrowness of my mind to intend at one time—Thus therefore with my Prayers to the Almighty for the continuance of his blessing and favor to you and yours, I rest

EPISTLE LXVII.

—THE Cothick Missal is that which the Goths in Spain used till they received the Roman; which though, as all other Liturgies, it be to be supposed to have received many alterations and additions in time, yet no doubt may retain some ancient passages, whereof these Prayers pro defunctis may be some, either received from the Spanish or African Christians, or from the beginning of their Christianity, which was before Chiliasm was condemned by Damasus, or they plundered the Roman Empire. For Theophilus Gothorum Episcopus was at the Council of Nice. Anno 360. Vlphilus their Bishop at a Council at Constantinople assented to the Formula Ariminensis, from whence the Goths became first infected with Arianism. S. Augustine de Civitate Dei useth this argument of the Goths Christianity, against the Gentiles calumny. That the Ruin of the Empire was for their rejecting their ancient God's and receiving the Christian Religion. For they were Christians that took and sacked Rome, saith he, and not Gentiles. Vide—

Thus with my wonted affection and prayers I rest

EPISTLE LXVIII.

—THE body of the Gothish Nation, or of one part thereof, had received the Christian Faith before they plundered the Roman Empire; as appeared by Alaricus himself, who with his Army solemnly observed the Christian Rites. Yet seems this to have been between the days of Constantine and Julian, and not elder. Howsoever, there is no question but there were many Churches among them before, as was in other Nations long before the Faith was publicly received by them. If so, then without doubt when the Nation publicly received the Faith, they received likewise that Form of Liturgy which had formerly been used in their Country by those of the Christian Rite amongst them: And thence might remain those passages of Praying for the Dead to have part in Resurrectione Prima. Irenaeus Lib. 1. cap. 3. edit. Fevardent. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Tertullian Lib. adv. Iudaeos, where he tells us that Brittannorum inaccessa Romanis loca were Christo subdita, says moreover, that In Sarmatarum & Dacorum & Germanorum & Scytharum & abditarum multarum Gentium & Insularum nobis ignotraum locis, Christi Nomen, qui jam venit, regnat, &c. Why may not the Goths be comprehended under some of these? As for the Vandals and the rest of those Northern Nations, I find not that they brought any Signs of Christianity with them when they first invaded and seated in the Empire, but were altogether Pagans.

As for that Form of Prayer for the Dead, Vt partem haberent in Resurrectione Prima, I believe it was usual in those Formulae for the Dead till Chiliasm was cried down, and then expunged: namely, that it followed those words (which appear yet in most of those Forms) Vt collocet e • orum animas Deus in sinu • brahae, unde abest doler & suspirium, as it does in this Gothish Missal. Whence it is that now in those Forms there appears no Prayer at all for their Resurrection or Consummation then; notwithstanding that in the Protasis they compellate God with Qui hominem mundi civem mortalem in constitutione sua fecisti, & promisisti ei Resurrectionem. Who can believe that in such Prayers they should not at all pray for the Resurrection? But that passage being it seems anciently specificated to Resurrectio Prima, they thought it sufficient in after-times to omit it, without substitution of any other for it: And hence comes that silence of the Resurrection.

But that you may yet see my thoughts still now and then reflect upon that Speculation, (which you thought I had forgotten) I will give you a passage of Methodius Olympi Lyciae, deinde Tyri Episcopus, and a Martyr sub Decio, (alii sub Valeriano;) which passage, with a good part of his Dialogue de Resurrectione contra Originem, is preserved by Epiphanius Haeres. 74. There Proclus ( cui tribuit lonquendi partes ) speaks in this manner.

Et vero conturbatam iri Creaturam, velut in conflagratione ista morituram, ut restauretur; non tamen extinctum iri exspectandum: Vt in instaurato Mundo ipsimet instaurati ac doloris expertes habitemus; juxta illud Psal. 103. Emittes spiritum tuum & creabuntur, & renovabis faciem terrae. Quod nimirum ambientem Aerem temperatissimum deinceps facturus sit Deus. Cum enim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Terra adhuc perseveratura sit; habitatores in ea futuros omnino necesse est, qui nec morituri sunt ampliùs, ne{que} copulandi nuptiis, aut procreandae soboli operam deturi; sed Angelorum more 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in immortalitatis statu optima facturi. Proindeque stultum est, Quanam vitae ration usura sunt corpora (in Resurrectione) quaerere, si nec Aer, neque Terra, neque quicquam caeterorum sit ampliùs futurum.

Whether do you not think this man to have been a Chiliast? But no man desires to be acquainted with Notions that way; wherefore then should I go about to cram them? I think scarce any of you of my acquaintance knows the tenth part of my adventures that way. I can be content to satisfy myself without troubling others, unless I see them seriously desirous to be informed. But no man I find loves any Speculations but such as he thinks will advance his profitable ends, or advantage his Side or Faction. Mundus amat decipi. But there will be a time one day, when God thinks fit.

EPISTLE LXIX.

1. FOR my Paradox of the American World, I could say that to make it probable, and so much, as would be too tedious to write. For the present I will add this more concerning it, That I believe it was not inhabited in Christ's and his Apostles times, nor some Ages after it; nor are there any vestigia found therein of any elder habitation thereof. I believe it to have been first inhabited since the days of Constantine, when the Devil saw he could no longer reign here without control and the continual affront of the Gospel and Cross of Christ. Then he sought out another World to plant him a Kingdom in, ubi nec Pelopidarum facta neque nomen audiret. Upon this ground may be answered many scruples concerning that World: as, of Noah 's Deluge; of the Creatures there, not found here, where Noah 's Ark rested; of the Apostles preaching the Gospel, why it was contained within out World, and yet said, The sound thereof went into the ends of the Earth, &c.

Some of them, you say, are converted. But the New-Englanders have not yet converted one; the Spaniards have, but unto Antichrist, not to Christ; and the Story of their Conversion is such, as may make a man justly suspect there hath scarce yet been ever a true Christian of that race. Yet I speak, in my Conjectura de Gogo & Magogo, of a General Conversion only, not of a Conversion of some few or of some small and scarce considerable part in regard of the Vastness of the whole.

2. To your Case of Conscience I answer thus. Though the teaching of a School be in some sort reducible to a Sacred Function, as it may be managed and intended; yet for Titius to leave a Pastoral charge for it, when he hath been once dedicated to that Sacred Office, I hold an inexcusable Sacrilege, unless perhaps in a case of Necessity. I would rather therefore advise the continuance of both, than to forsake the one for the other.

3. For that of the Ark of the Covenant, what do you mean? There is nothing more indubitate in Scripture, than that the Ark was under the wings of the Cherubims in the Sanctum Sanctorum or most Holy place; as Exod. 26. 33, 34, 1 Kings 8. 6, &c. and Heb. 9. Or do you mean (for I have not the Bishop's Book) that it was not there when Hilkiah found the Book of the Law? That place of the Chronicles indeed (if it be rightly translated) should argue it had been taken thence during Manasseh 's profanation of the Temple, and that, it may be, by the true worshippers, (for what fellowship had the Ark of God with Idols?) and so not restored again to his place till Josiah purged the Temple. Or what if Manasseh himself had caused it to be taken thence when he dedicated the Temple to his Idols, lest it might serve them as it once did Dagon? But Tremellius or Junius turns the place otherwise; and yet methinks somewhat forcedly. Videsis.

4. How often is the Resurrection of the Unjust mentioned in the Epistles, either together with that of the Just, or by itself? And where both are mentioned elsewhere, it is not said, they should be together, though they be mentioned together; for there is difference between mentioning and being. As for the Last Trump, it proves nothing until you define what is the First Trump, yea what Trump is. It is nowhere said, The Resurrection of the dead shall be in a moment; but that those who are alive shall be changed in a moment. And what though the Resurrection in respect of each Individuum be in a moment? Yet would it not follow that all that rise shall rise in one and the same moment. To that of the 25 of Matthew you shall have a sufficient answer when you have made progress enough to understand it. (For out of chap. 24. (which you cite) I see not anything toward your purpose. For those in ver. 39. are not the dead, but the living; nor is the Resurrection at all mentioned in that Chap. but at the most implied only.) In the mean time I send you the Copy of an Epistle written once to Mr. Chapel, to satisfy a friend of his who had desired him to know my Answer to certain Quaere's and Objections somewhat like those of yours: His Letter being directed to Mr. Chapel, and not to me, I made my Answer accordingly as you see. Keep it clean, and send me it again when you have done with it; and as I see occasion, I may perhaps send you some more of the like Argument.

5. For reading the Service at the Altar, &c. was it not enough to give you the Premises, but I must put the Conclusion into your mouth? I add now, That the Priest or Deacon came down from the Altar to read the Gospel, unto the Ambo or other eminent place where he might be seen and heard of the people. And in such place were all Lessons of Scripture read whosoever read them and not at the Altar. The Altar was the place to speak to God at; the Ambo or Pulpit (or such like place) to speak to the People. Besides those Prayers at the Altar, whereto the People were to say Amen, were read in a high distinct and singing tone, which might be heard and understood at great distance of all the people. That submiss reading in Churches sine cantu, which we use now, was not then in use. If it had, it could never have been heard of half the Congregation in so large Churches, and where some stood so far off, as the Catechumen, Auditores, Penitentes, who were to be partakers of the Readings and Sermons, and nothing else, and yet stood at the remotest distance from the place both of it and Prayer. I love not to answer to things in Hypothesi, but in Thesi. The world is right on no side. Let them look to the hypothesis whom it concerns. Quo jure ego qui Thesin tantùm defendo, ad hypothesin praestandam adigerer?

6. Concerning the Book written mediately or immediately by the B. of Lincoln; It is written very ably and with much variety of Learning; and where that Coal lay open to the lash, (as it did in some things very foully) he pays him soundly and very magisterially. Yet I may tell you that in the Discourse concerning the Antiquity of the Name Altar, there is parùm aut nihil sinceri aut sani: And though his Adversary quoted what he never seems to have read and examined, and is accordingly (and deservedly) met withal; yet are there such strange mistakes, confusions, concealments and wrested interpretations of the Answerer, that he lies open to the lash for that part extremely; insomuch that I believe that part to have been elaborated by another hand, and one that gave more trust to the opinions of some of our Writers than to his own search and judgment—

But whereas the Coal maintained that Altars had generally and anciently stood up against the East-wall, and not in medio 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (which was a monstrous and foul error, as I had often told some of ours here) you shall find him most fully and largely confuted; but the place of Socrates as strangely expounded, as the Coal 's illation therefrom was most illogically and weakly deduced.—

EPISTLE LXX.

HAD I stayed longer in Cambridge, you had enjoyed my company longer, or (to speak more properly) I should have desired to enjoy your company longer; and it would be very long ere I should be weary of your discourse. I long to hear your judgment of Mr. Potter 's Discourse touching the Number of the Beast 666. I presume also you know Bishop Usher 's opinion of Christ's Kingdom here on earth; I would gladly know it, and whether he doth retract his former opinion touching the Binding of Satan, which in his Book De succession Ecclesiae he conceives to have been in the days of Constantine.

I have returned your Paper, and sent you a Copy of your own concerning The Four Monarchies, which you call The A B C of Prophecies. I have sent you also Tilenus his Synod of Dort and Arles reduced to practice, with an answer thereunto. In Oxford it's counted unanswerable, translated out of French by D. or A. from whom it was spread (as I hear) in O. and at first fathered upon one of them. But it appears by the Dutch copy and Voetius his answer in Dutch, that Tilenus was the Author. At my coming from Cambridge I found 8 Copies of them sent unto me, and 6 of them I have sent amongst you; for truly I never found better content in any friends than there with you, and with yourself amongst the rest. O Mr. Mede! I could willingly spend my days in hanging upon your ears, while you discourse of Antichrist and the accommodation of his Legend to the Pope of Rome, and the Whore of Babylon to Rome itself; though my studies have lain far more in their Writings than in our own Divines, and I was never found to dislike any Opinion of a Papist for the Papist • s sake who maintains it, as having profited in Divinity more by their Writings than by our own, always excepting Interpretation of Scripture: How much more to hear you discourse of the glorious Kingdom of Christ here on Earth to begin with the ruin of Antichrist? It may be you do not find many Disciples more docile this way than myself.

But I would entreat you to spare me in the point of Ceremonies; in some particulars whereof you told me once in a Letter you were no Practitioner; but now I fear by that which I find you are a Promoter of them. In Easter -term last I heard—your good Friend, while he lived, complain not a little of a Sermon of yours which you had then lately preached, and he delivered it with much grief. After Mr. B. wrote unto you of the battle of Armageddon, inquiring whether the time thereof were not already extant, the next Letter I received from him had this passage;

You bade me stand up at Gloria Patri, and it was in such a note too, that you had the mastery of me I know not how. I profess I little looked for such Entertainment at your hands. My Wife • s father, Dr. M. was Bishop Bilson 's Chaplain, and most respected by him of any Chaplain that ever he had, and he a Cathedral-man too; but they could never get him to stand up at Gloria Patri. I living in a Country-Auditory am a mere stranger to such Ceremonies; neither do I know any order of our Church urging thereunto; neither do I know when it began and upon what grounds: it may be it was upon their prevailing against the Arians; and as the Creed is pronounced standing, so and in the same respect this also; all which is duly to be considered before we come to the practice of it. It is true, we were private, and I was loath to offend you.—In like sort, concerning Bowing towards the Altar, for which it was (as I heard) that you preached, I profess unto you I have hitherto received no satisfaction, and I long to hear of my Lord of Armagh 's judgment of the passages between us. And therein I perceive the main thing you reached after was a certain Mystery concerning a Sacrifice, which the Papists have miserably transformed, but in your sense is now-a-days become a Mystery to all the Christian world. And hereupon you touched upon the Iudgments of God at this time in Christendom, as if it were for the neglect of that Sacrifice; which while I attended, in the issue came only to the Sacrilege of these Times. But whether your meaning were not, That for God to be robbed of such a Sacrifice was a great Sacrilege, I know not. And by Mr. B. I heard, as from yourself, the practice of Bishop Andrew 's Chapel was that which first cast you upon such a way, so as from thence to observe the course and practice of Antiquity. But in my poor judgment it is very strange that a matter of such importance as you seem to make it should have so little evidence in God's Word and Antiquity, and depend merely upon certain Conjectures. That which you style your Conjectura de Gogo & Magogo, in my poor judgment, is more rational by far; and yet the matter thereof you know to be very strange, but it prevails very much with me—That Declaration of the Palsgrave 's Churches, since I came home, I have seen: I remembered your Censure of it as a lax thing: Others pass other judgments upon it on my knowledge, and those Divines were accounted in those days as grave and learned Divines as most in Christendom. Indeed the matter of Bowing at hearing the name of Jesus is nothing pleasing to some in these times: But how doth B. A ^s. reading in Antiquity serve his turn for that? Cornelius à Lapide is a Papist and a Jesuit: he saith ad nomem Jesus in S. Paul is no more than ad Iesum. I know it is the Father's pleasure, that as we honor the Father, so we should honor the Son, and all the world shall never bring me to show more reverence at the hearing of the name of Jesus then at the hearing of the name Jehovah; and when we are, as we should be, intent upon our religious comportment before God according to the inward adoration in spirit, that we should watch when a word comes, to perform outward obaisance, in my judgment is very strange. And I remember how faintly Mr. H. carries himself in this; and others, in pleading for it, most of all urge this, that nobody is troubled about it: but now more than enough must yield or suffer—I never had experience of the practice till now, and that makes me the bolder to write as I do: Yet whatsoever we shall be put unto, I am glad that I have such liberty to confer with you thereabouts. I am lately grown acquainted with my Lord of Armagh, being encouraged to write unto his Grace about the matter of the Sabbath; which I willingly apprehended, and acquainted him with all my Grounds whereupon I proceeded: and he justifies them all. I entreated also help in Antiquity about the Notion of a Sabbath given to the Lord's-Day; and he professed unto me, that he never inclined his mind to observe that in all his reading, and added this reason, For he never thought to see such times as these to call into question Whether the Moral Law contains Ten or but Nine Commandments. And Dr. Reynolds being asked what he thought of Beza 's judgment concerning the Sabbath, made no other answer but this, You know the Commandment. Thus have I made bold to write freely as to my dear friend. I doubt not but whensoever I am put unto it, I shall find you the readier to afford me your best satisfaction; for certainly I will neglect no means to keep me out of the paw of the Lion as well as I can. I commend you to the grace of God, and with many thanks for your love and free communication of precious things I take my leave, ever resting

EPISTLE LXXI.

EPISTLE LXXII.

YOU have communicated unto me many precious things, which makes me to acknowledge myself more indebted to you than to all the men in the world. And the more glad I am when I light upon anything that is worth your knowledge. This last week I received a Letter from Mr. Potter, enclosing two other Letters, one of his own to Dr. Turner in answer to another of his; both which I have sent you. Therein you shall see how Mr. Potter 's discovery works already like wax before it sees the light of the Press. I had formerly wrote unto him what your judgment was upon the Abstract I sent you, as yourself wrote unto me, and as I heard also from Mr. Hall. But lately Mr. Hartlib sent me a Copy of your judgment morefull since you received the complete Copy, wishing me to send it over unto Mr. Potter; which I did, and he is glad, as he professeth to me, to hear that you esteem so well of his Interpretation: and over and above adds, that if any man think so well of it as to translate it into Latin, he will not be sorry for it. Nay, he is willing to add something to it concerning the First Beast and the Second Beast and the Image of it. He is exceedingly desirous to know—his judgment of it, in such sort that he hath a mind either to write or to go over unto him. I pray let him have a sight of it, and entreat him to set down his judgment concerning it—Now, Sir, concerning the occasion of these Letters, I will show you what he writes to me.

Mr. Potter had understood from Oxford that Dr. T. (who is one of the Mathematick Professors there) had alleged against his Book, That the Root of 666 was not 25. but this was by those who told him of it accounted so slight and untrue an Objection, that Mr. Potter did not regard it. But after this being with—he told him that Dr. T. told the Vicechancellor that Mr. Potter was out in the Mathematical part of it. Hereupon Mr. Potter wrote unto Dr. T. and receiving no Answer wrote a second time; thereupon Dr. T. answered: which Answer of his I here send you with Mr. Potter 's large Answer unto him; wherein you shall find not only the vanity of Dr. T 's Exception, but a strange Mystery discovered even to admiration. I have sent you Mr. Potter 's own Letter, for fear lest in transcribing I should miss in the calculation of the Numbers. He desires to have the Letters again when we have perused them and transcribed them. I pray return them by Mr. Hartlib —I commend me heartily to the continuance of your love, and rest

EPISTLE LXXIII.

I Thank you heartily for Mr. Potter 's Letter. I confess I have an especial esteem of his Discourse; but little looked that what I wrote carelessly to Mr. Hartlib demaning my opinion thereof should have come to his hands.

Concerning this Letter; I am persuaded the Doctor's Exception is fully and sufficiently answered, namely, That the Root of a Number ought to consist of Unities of the same denomination with the Unities of the principal whose Root it is; and that if the Unities be of another denomination, it is not the Root of that Number, but of another.

I see also a fair possibility of a discovery of new Mysteries even in the Fractions: but perhaps it will not be so safe to discover them (until they be well armed) unto those who are not well affected to the main. For it is sufficient with a great many to discredit a Tenet, if they can but find anything not defensible brought toward the maintenance thereof. Verbum sapienti.

I care not if I acquaint you with what came into mind upon my first cursory reading of the Letter; the one an Observation, the other (as I found afterward) a mistake of Mr. Potter 's meaning.

• 1. First, when I read him applying the Fractions 41/51 to the Latitude of Rome, I called to mind that the old Astronomers and most of our Maps make the Latitude of Rome to be 41 degrees and about 50 (or 51) minutes. The later Mathematicians promote it some minutes farther Northward: but Rome was big enough, when time was, to bear the difference of a few minutes. And if that which Mr. Gellibrand observed be true, it is possible that the Latitudes of some places may be a little changed since Ptolemy 's time, by some motion of the Earth, whatsoever it be. The Mistake was this:

• 2. As I ruminated upon his application of the Denominator of the Fractions 51 to so many Italian miles, (which I well understood not at my first cursory reading) I fell into this conceit, that his meaning had been, that a Degree in a great Circle had contained but 51 Italian miles, (whereas we suppose 60) and that therefore 41/51 was as much as 41 fifty one Italian miles, that is, 41 Degrees, a Degree being 51 Italian miles. That which led me into this conceit was his mention of Snellius, who in his Eratosthenes Batavus, (which I had sometime looked upon, but it is many years since) as I remembered, made a Degree to contain some miles less than 60. Whether my memory fails me, I know not; for the Book I never saw but once in the Stationer's shop. But when I read the Letter the second time with more deliberation, I found his meaning to be, That Rome lay under such a Parallel as whereof every Degree contained 51 Italian miles: but this supposes, I think, that a Degree of a great Circle should be above 60 Italian miles; which how near or far off it be from Snellius his experimental definition, I know not. My skill in Mathematics is but little, only so much as makes me able to understand a Discourse in that kind. In my younger time I studied the Grounds of those Sciences, but ever since neglected them; and therefore if I commit any Soloecisms in talking of such matters, I must be excused.

  I will add also some of my thoughts concerning his Book.

• 1. That there is no such Argument to prove the Divinity of the Apocalypse, and consequently to convince an Atheist of the Divinity of the whole Scripture, (whereto this Book gives testimony) as the strange agreement between Ezekiel 's Lineal and S. John 's Cubical measures of the city Jerusalem for the compass and Area thereof; both the numbers and denomination of Measures being so differing as they are, and those of S. John besides to be derived from 12. How could this be but from Divine inspiration, when S. John, as the rest of the Apostles, was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and far enough from skill in Algebraical subtleties?
• 2. That the Virgin-Company which follow and carry the mark of the Lamb, and the Synagogue of the Beast which follow him and receive his mark, are evidently 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even secundùm literam; besides, their meaning not obscure, namely, That the one represents the true Church, the other the Anti-church or Church of Antichrist. If therefore Mr. Potter had fetched the Number of the true Church from this Virgin-Company, perhaps his discovery of the Mystery of the Anti-numerus of the Beast would have appeared more evident and convincing. For though the Number of the Wall of the New Jerusalem import as much as the Number of Christ's Church, yet it doth it but remotely, (many things being first requisite to be granted by way of Postulata ) and therefore obscurely in comparison of the Number of the Virgin-Company. I wonder therefore what the reason is he never mentions or alludes to this Number throughout the whole Treatise: nay he affirms twice that the Number 144 is only to be found in the 21. chap. of the Apocalypse: Which is true indeed in Unities, but in Thousands not. Was it the Thousands that would have troubled him in his way? That Solertia which with so much happiness broke through greater difficulties would soon have mastered this. Or is it some interpretation he hath of that Vision which was not compatible therewith? Thus I mused and reasoned with myself.
• 3. In his answering of what might be objected concerning the Root of 666, and in particular when he gives reasons why the Holy Ghost intending the Root 25, amongst all the Numbers which might have been taken to that purpose between 625 and 676, should pitch upon 666 rather than any of the rest; I saw a door open to save the life of mine own conceit of that Number; That the Holy Ghost would intimate thereby, that the Antichristian State should be an imitation of the Sixth head of the Roman Seven-headed Beast, rather than the offspring of the Apostles, and therefore made his Number all of Sixes. But the matter is not great whether it be saved or not, if a better come in the room of it.

You would have me send Mr. Potter 's Treatise to—'It is true, he is skilled in Mathematics, (in which respect it may be the—named him) but so vehemently prejudiced and professed against that Tenet of the Pope being Antichrist, that it would be to small purpose, if he could be gotten to read it; which I believe he would hardly be. I have no confidence in the strongest demonstration against a man that is prejudiced and engaged in the contrary. Nay 'tis strange how unwilling all men are to read any Discourse this way. I carried Mr. Potter 's Book to some—opposite otherwise to—and no enemies to that Tenet; I commended it, desired them to peruse it, told them it was that would please them, they delighting in Mathematical Speculations, related to them the sum of the Contents and Grounds thereof, and whatsoever might allure them; I left it with them a competent time: yet when I went to fetch it and know their opinion, they had not read one leaf thereof, nay gave me less hope than that they would then at the first; and instead thereof made Exceptions against something I had told them out of it. What should I hope then of men professedly opposite and passionate or, if you will, impatient besides, and so less tractable? If any man would tell—of it, and that in such a manner as might work in him a desire to see it, I would be most willing to communicate my Copy with him; which I took some care to be so transcribed as might allure a reader, dividing it into certain Sections, and prefixing the Contents of them in the beginning of the Book, with other distinctions; but altered nothing in the context of the Author. I caused the Figures to be drawn according to art; the hand reasonable neat, and promising no trouble to the Reader, well pointed throughout, &c. By this you may see I was willing to have it read.

Thus I have scribled somewhat with an ill pen and an ill hand: If it be such as you can read, and will excuse, it is enough. I send back your Letters with thanks. And so with my best respect and prayers, I rest

EPISTLE LXXIV.

I Think myself happy that I am the medius Terminus to convey Passages between you and Mr. Potter. I received this Letter from him but on Friday last, which here I send you enclosed; wherein you will find him to rest satisfied with that you write concerning —as also how well he is satisfied with that of yours, having nothing to except against ought; but rather you extended that which he delivered somewhat farther than he intended it. You see he is desirous to see the division of his Book into Sections made by your hands, and marginal Annotations; and what else you can hear objected by any against it. I pray satisfy him as far as it lieth in your power. He is a very meek and ingenuous man; and now you see what way lie his studies, I would you would employ him in ought that you shall find needful; for I find him very desirous to gratify any friend: As I wrote to him about some things, which what they were I know not; but he hath promised to answer unto all. He is exceeding studious in his way. But is it not possible to get his Book turned into Latin in your University, especially this Vacation-time, and things standing as they do with you?

I have lately received a Book from you by the hands of Mr. Hartlib, for which I heartily thank you. The Title you give in your Dedication, Sublati discriminis inter sacrum & profanum Assertori eximio, I doubt will do you wrong with many, and make them to conceive that the sacrum & profanum you speak of is in your account only in respect of Place, and not at all in respect of Time. But I know the contrary, which makes me wonder at it the more. I had recourse unto you about the Holiness of Places long ago, merely for information; and I was then as abrasa tabula, apt to receive ought that I saw reason for. But to this hour I am not satisfied, whether the fault be in my Understanding, or in my Affections, God knows, or in the insufficiency of Evidence convincing. And that my Affection should sway me, I have this reason against it; I find myself naturally pliable that way which you take, even to superstition, as now I find, calling myself to examination. And to your interpretation of that in Paul, 1. Cor. 11. 22. I have been very prone; insomuch that the way others take to the contrary seemed to me at first sight wondrous strange, that I understood not so much as their meaning at the first, nor did I come to understand what they would, without some plodding: and when I did understand it, it seemed harsh unto me; until I came to examine what it is to despise or dishonor a Place, and compared it with Dishonouring of Days. And surely neither Days nor Places are to be honored by us, but God in them: Yet I find a vast difference between Time and Place, though you sometimes said there was the same reason of both. But I find not the same reason in the more general notions of them, much less in the special. It is true, natural actions require Time and Place for the performance of them, the unity whereof together with the unity of the Subject necessarily concur to the individuation of them, if I remember aright my old Philosophy. And the meeting of many about the same action requires set Times and Places: But by Places you mean Churches, which are not Places natural; the like cannot be said of Times. Then as for the special consideration of them; It is apparent that proportion of Time is very momentous for the advancing of Morality and Piety; as by setting apart one day in a week for God's public and solemn service, a greater advancing of Piety is made by far than by the sequestering of one day only in a month or in a year for this: and we find nothing answerable hereunto in Place at all, least of all as commanded either by God or man.

Lastly, as touching the particularity of Time and Place compared together; will you say there is as little evidence for the particular Day to be kept holy to the Lord, as for the particular Place? Sure I am S. Gregory 's is going down, if not altogether down, to be built elsewhere as they think good; we never yet heard the like of the Lord's-Day. Yet I would you could prevail but so far with your great Lord, to draw him to be Assertor eximius sublati discriminis inter sacrum & profanum as well in Time as in Place: though I despair of ever being brought to acknowledge there is no difference between these; least of all to believe that Holiness of Place is more religiously to be observed than Holiness of Time.

But notwithstanding the difference between us herein, you shall always be as dear to me as you have been; and that not as a civil Friend only, but as my Christian Brother too; were our differences in opinion greater than these: For I manifestly perceive how easy a thing it is for good men to take your way about the Holiness of Place; and hereunto myself have been exceeding prone. But do you think indeed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was the word of Ignatius? or can you give any instance of the like, either in his time, or in an 100 years after him? I wish you all happiness as to myself, and rest

An Extract of the above-mentioned Letter of Mr. Potter to Dr. Twisse, necessary for the fuller understanding of some passages in Mr. Mede 's Letters, &c.

I Should be very glad to hear that my Treatise were translated into Latin either by yourself or by any other, (if there be any such that would do it so perspicuously as I believe you would) and I should be glad if yourself or Mr. Mede would add his opinion which he mentions in his Letter, why the Number 666 was taken rather than another whose Root might also have been said to be 25.

That the Number 25 is so conspicuous and remarkable in the Roman Calendar is also a thing remarkable and apposite, and a thing which I did 〈◊〉 in a great Roman Calendar in the Library at Oxford, but did not then under 〈…〉 of it, nor had time, at that instant, to search the reason why that Number 〈…〉 great red Capital figures. I know there are many other things which it hath 〈…〉 which wise and learned men, and such as are 〈◊〉 wi • 〈…〉 may and will observe to the same purpose 〈…〉

I kindly thank you for the sight of Mr. Mede 's 〈…〉 he came to know that I had his judgment of my Book sent unto me, I know 〈…〉 hope it shall be no hurt either to him or me, but an help and furtherance of the Tru •• .

My Letter to Dr. T. was written to a pro ••••• 〈…〉 hematician, and ••• tude of matter forced me to write briefly, and therefore 〈…〉 and therefore it i • • o marvel if my unskillful and confused expressions have caused 〈◊〉 things to be mist • ken at the first reading. If the Fractions of the Root of 666, being 41/51, be appliable not only to the number of Degrees, but also to the number of Minutes of the Latitude of Rome, 'tis more than I observed, and more than I intended. I thought it a sufficient exactness that 41 is the greatest number of Degrees of Latitude of that place, being there is no City near it that can stand in competition with Rome to be the Seat of Antichrist. And if that Parallel which is 41 Degrees of Latitude, and that Meridian which is 41 Degrees of Longitude, do cross and cut each other in any part of S. Peter 's Patrimony, or of those Dominions of Italy which are immediately subjected to the Pope and City of Rome, this seemeth to me to be in this respect a sufficient manifestation of that individual Kingdom and City in which Antichrist was chiefly to reign and reside. And those places and Provinces which were not immediately but mediately ruled by him, were at the time of the Council of Trent chiefly confined within that Parallel which is 51 Degrees of Latitude and that Meridian which is 51 Degrees of Longitude. For these two Numbers 41 and 51, or rather 41/51, being considered the one as Numerator, the other as Denominator of the same Fraction, must not be understood the one of Degrees and the other of Minutes, but both must be applied to divisions of the same denomination, and one be considered as part of the other, and the Numerator as the most principal part which is chiefly intended.

In the second place, Because this Fraction 41/51 supposeth one Integrum to be divided into 51 parts or thereabouts, I therefore observed that one Degree of Longitude in that Circle or Parallel under which Rome lieth did contain in Longitude about 51 Italian or Roman miles, and this supposes one Degree in maximo circulo to be about 68 Italian miles and somewhat more; which agrees very well and strangely with that experimental definition of Snellius, lib. 2. Eratosthen. Bat. cap. 12. where he hath with great evidence of truth and probability defined ambitum terrae in maximo circulo to be 123120000 Roman feet, that is 342000 feet to one Degree, which makes 68 Italian miles and somewhat more.

As concerning that which Mr. Mede adds in his Letter about my Book; I do believe that as Daniel understood not many Visions which were shown unto him; so neither did s. John understand the meaning of the Number of the Beast, nor the Measures of the New Jerusalem, when he wrote the Revelation. And the strange and wonderful Wisdom of God, in discovering so many, so different things concerning Antichrist by one Number only, and in laying a foundation for this discovery by making the Number 12 〈◊〉 able in the Old Testament, in respect of the City Jerusalem and the Patriarchs and Tribes, long before our Savior came in the flesh, hath been to me a great, if not the greatest of all external Testimonies for the Divinity of the Scriptures; and I doubt not but that it will be so to others that do believe it and understand it.

I should be glad to hear what those Exceptions were which Mr. Mede writeth that some made against some things which he related out of my Book. I am confident that all material Objections may be fully answered. Perhaps that which he mentioneth of the Virgin Company was one thing which was objected against it. To which I answer, That it is most true, that the Beast having two horns like the Lamb is opposed to the Lamb, and that the Followers of the Beast which receive his Mark are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Followers of the Lamb: But it is also to be observed That the Number 666 is not said to be the Number of the Followers of the Beast, but of the Beast; and it is also to be observed That the Number 144000 is not said to be the Number of the Lamb, or of that Hierarchy which is most appositely opposed to the Beast, but to be the Number of the Followers of the Lamb. Now although the Lamb be properly opposed to the Beast, and the Followers of the Lamb to the Followers of the Beast; yet the Beast is not so properly opposed to the Followers of the Lamb, nor the Lamb to the Followers of the Beast; and therefore the Number of the Beast is not so directly opposed to the Number of the Followers of the Lamb, as it is to that Number which typeth out chiefly that Hierarchy of the Lamb which is most directly and most eminently opposed to the Beast. Now the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of the Church of Christ is chiefly typed out by the Wall of the New Jerusalem and by the Number 144, and therefore I have said in my Book, That the Number 144 is an Idea (not of the Church in general, although that be also true and affirmed in a general sense, but) of the Hierarchy of the Church. Forasmuch therefore as the Number 144 is a type of that which is more properly and directly opposed to the Beast than the Followers of the Lamb are opposed to the Beast; I therefore conceive this Number 144 to be more directly and immediately opposed to the Number of the Beast than the Number 144000, which is a type of the Followers of the Lamb, and therefore must be opposed, not to the Number of the Beast, but rather to the Number of the Followers of the Beast. And although there be no such Number expressed in the Scriptures, yet if there had been occasion to express the Anti-numerus to 144000, I believe it would have been said to be 666000: For as the Number of the Lamb's Followers is derived from 144, so is 666000 from 666. I have more to say of this, but 'tis now time to hasten my Letter.

As for that Copy of my Book which you sent to my L. S. if you have received it, I desire you to keep it still in your hands, that it may be a witness from whence those divers Copies have proceeded which are now abroad in the world. If any Copy of my Book (having come into some malevolent hands) should be corrupted, and have anything inserted into it which might be offensive to the State; then that Copy which you have would acquit me from it—If you had any Copy which you can spare to return unto me, I had rather it were another than the same I sent you: And of all other I should desire to see one that hath Mr. Mede 's Notes upon it: it should be safely returned again unto you, and I should be thankful to Mr. Mede for anything which he hath added or illustrated or corrected—

I kindly thank you for the sight of such Papers as I have here returned, and shall still rest

EPISTLE LXXV.

I Thank you heartily for communicating Mr. Potter 's Letter with me. I understand now his reason why he took not in the Number of the Virgin-Company to ground his discovery of the Mystery of the Beast's Number upon, as by an Anti-numerus of an Anti-company; and I am in some degree satisfied therewith, yet so as I could still wish he had made some more use of it in his Argument, and not wholly passed by it with silence. I confess the observation of this supposed defect was mine own, and no bodies else: For those I related the Contents of his Book unto, had never (I believe) looked so much into the Apocalypse as to be able to make such an Exception, so far as I could discover by their Discourse. Yet how this Number might be taken in, though not as a principal, yet at least to bear a part, I am yet to seek; which before I read his Letter I thought I had not been: now methinks I see some possibility only a • ar off, and am as one loath to lose it.

The Exceptions I made mention of were not worth specifying, being of the same nature with Dr. T ^s , viz. want of exactness both in the Root and in the Application. Whereupon I desired them to instance in any one Prophecy in the whole Scripture, which they would affirm and could show to be more exactly fulfilled than Mr. Potter (if his Authorities were true) had shewn this to be; yea I urged them as far as the Prophecies concerning Christ himself, the time, the place and manner of his Coming; offering to parallel one Evidence and exactness with another. To which I received no other answer, but that they doubted much I would fall short, and that howsoever it was not good to make such Comparisons: wherein, it may be, they said not amiss.

That observation of mine, of Rome 's Latitude to be 41 degrees and 51 minutes, was upon the sudden. For looking into Stadius his Catalogus Locorum & Vrbium in his Ephemerides, I found the Latitude of Rome to be there 41 degrees and 50 minutes, but in Origanus his Catalogus 42 degrees and 4 minutes, (which is 14 minutes more) in Maginus, as I remember, 42 degrees and 2 minutes; for I have him not in my Study, as I have the other two. I supposed that Stadius had followed Ptolemy; but when I looked some days after, I found in him but 41 degr. 40. min. 'It is somewhat strange there should be no better agreement, if not of Ptolemy with the Neotericks, yet of the Neotericks with themselves, about so famous a City. But that of Stadius is nearest the middle between the extremes. Whatsoever it be, I make no account of it: yet I do not very well understand what Mr. P. means in his Letter, when he saith, That both the Numerator 41 and the Denominator 51 must be applied to divisions of the same Denomination, and yet the one to be part of the other, &c. But I have no time to consider it.

I doubt that the Meridian of 41 degr. of Longitude and the Parallel of 41 degr. Latitude will not cross each other in any part of S. Peter 's Patrimony, nor scarce anywhere upon Land; whether we count the first Meridian with Ptolemy in the Canaries, or with the later Cosmographers in the Azores; the later accounting 10 degrees more or less than the other: which uncertainty also will make that other Application of the Parallel and Meridian 51 to be the Boundaries of the Papal dominion Eastward and Northward at the time of the Council of Trent, to be obnoxious and unuseful.

Concerning the translating of M. Potter 's Book into Latin, I could wish it; but I believe you mistake the possibility of getting it done in Cambridge. He that should do it must have a threefold qualification. 1. He must be ready and master of his Style. 2. He must be one that can understand it. 3. He must be well-affected to the Argument. How hard will it be, think you, to find all these concurrent in the same man here? For myself, I express myself with my pen with as much difficulty, if not more, than I do with my tongue; and so I want the first qualification, though, it may be, not the other two. And for others, I know not any that are able so well affected to the Argument, that they would be willing to undertake it: you may imagine divers impediments that way, which I will not name. But were it not fit rather that Oxford, that bred it, should do this office for it? I think Mr. P. in his Letter guesseth aright.

I forgot to answer to one thing in Mr. Potter's, namely concerning my Copy of his Book. Mr. Hartlib was earnest somewhile since to borrow it of me, to transcribe another conformable to it. I stipulated with him not to let it go out of his house. It is a mistake that I had written any marginal Annotations upon it. I affirmed only that I had written all his Margins with mine own hand, lest the alteration of the pages should confound them; only perhaps I added here and there some numeral references in the Margin, where the Text refers to somewhat spoken of before or to be spoken of afterward. That which I did to it was the distinguishing thereof into 8 Sections, and prefixing in the beginning of the Book the Contents of each of them, ad leniendum taedium Lectoris, and to represent unto him the sum of the Discourse in a short view. Also by breaking of lines I distinguished each Section as it were into Paragraphs, &c.

NOW, Sir, for my Book, I sent it not to you as an Auctoramentum or Pressemony to bind you to be of my opinion; but only as a testimony of that honor I thought I owed you; and yet so much the more willingly, because the Argument confirmed some grounds of Mr. Potter's, if I am not deceived. It was my New-years-gift to my Lord's Grace after he had taken me under his name; which some Friends informed me was a Ceremony of decorum, that I could not now at the first omit, and would serve instead of a journey to London to thank his Grace, &c. I had this ready, and sent it in that name, with the Inscription you see, save only that the words In novi anni auspicium gratique, &c. now appear not, being thought by some fit to be omitted when it was to go to the press: To which honor the Author (if I know his mind) had no ambition it should have been preferred.

Well, but howsoever it came about, you say that part of the Elogium in the Inscription you doubt will do me wrong, [ viz. Sublati inter sacrum & profanum discriminis Assertori ] although you know the contrary to what they will be ready to conceive thereupon. 'It is true; there be some men that will never find the true sense or reason of anything quod dictum aut factum nollent. I have heard of the constructions of my new relation, but God forgive them; I have witnesses enough, which they are not aware of, of their Vnadvisedness, that I may give it no worse term. I am beholden, yea exceedingly beholden to my Lord's Grace for his good opinion of me, (notwithstanding he well knows that in some things I differ from him) and I am bound to acknowledge it; howbeit he yet knows not his Chaplain de facie, nor his Chaplain him. But because there are some that forget there is a Ninth Commandment as well as a Second, and have given me cause to speak, I would have them know what I now say, That I defy them, whosoever they or he be, that says, He is less ambitious or less discontented with his present condition than I am, or were when this happened unto me. And this by the way.

I come again to the Elogium; where I am not so narrowly pent, that I should be confined to the discrimen between sacrum & profanum in Places only, to make it true. You may remember that once upon occasion with you I made 4 sorts of things Sacred; to wit, 1. Personae sacrae, 2. Res sacrae, 3. Loca sacra, 4. Tempora sacra, Personae sacrae, as the Clergy, Res sacrae, (specially so called) as Bona Ecclesiastica, &c. Now I think the world takes notice that my Lord is Assertor eximius of the Discrimination of the first Three from common; and I hope an Instance of One particular amongst Four against the other Three doth not make an Indefinite affirmation not true. Besides, I add the word [Sublati;] but the Discrimination of sacred Time with us was none of the Sublata, though somewhere it be as well as the rest. And the field of my defense is so much the larger, if it be considered that one of the three, Res sacrae, is capable of Subdivision. But enough of this, it being no wellbecoming Theme to dispute upon.

I said, there was eadem ratio Loci & temporis not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but eadem ratio Loci & Temporis sacri; to wit, for the Sanctification (i. e. holy and discriminative usance) due unto them both, and the formal reason in respect whereof it is due. For the reason why a thing is to be Sanctified or Sancte habendum is, because it is Sanctum or Sacrum: Now whatsoever is appropriate unto God and his Service, is such, whether the determination thereof be by God's own immediate Ordination, or man's Devotion, it is all one in this respect, so the Appropriation or Dedication thereof be supposed lawful and agreeable to the Divine will. For this Sanctification we speak of depends not either upon the difference of the cause or manner whereby the thing is consecrated, nor upon the diversity of Natural and Artificial being, but upon the Formalis ratio of the Object, because it is Holy or Sacred, therefore to be sanctified with holy usance. For to Sanctify in Scripture is not only to make holy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but to do unto a thing as becometh its holiness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Moreover I believe the Sanctification of Place to be intended in the Fourth Commandment as well as that of Time; and that not only from the Rule observed in the interpretation of the rest of the Commandments, (by one of the kind named to understand all the rest ejusdem generis, ) but especially the Lord himself hath conjoined them as pairs, Levite. 19. 30. Keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my Sanctuary. And why not, when they are so near a-kin, being both Circumstances of Action, why may I not then say, Quae Deus conjunxit, nemo separet? And it may be (if it be well looked into) the Sanctification of the Lord's-day might be urged with far more advantage upon the ground I intimate, than upon that other which is so much controverted. But it is partiality that undoes all.

It seems by this Objection I have now answered, you supposed the Argument of my Book to be The Reverence of holy Places, which is only The Antiquity of them.

You ask me if I believe indeed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; was Ignatius his word. I say, I do, till I hear some sufficient reason why I should not. For that of my not being able to give an instance of the like either in his time or within 100 years after, seems to me to have no force of concluding at all. When I affirmed in my Altare, That the name of Table could not be shown given to that whereon the Eucharist was celebrated, in any Ecclesiastical Writer confessed to be genuine, before 200 years after Christ; I inferred not therefrom, that therefore the name Table was never used all that time; nor, if I had, would you have believed me. And yet to tell you the truth, when I wrote that, I had some persuasion or suspicion that that Name could not be shown in any Writer for 3 hundred years after Christ, but durst not affirm so much as I thought, because I was not sure of Origen. But when a Friend of mine soon after wondered how I durst avouch in public a thing so incredible, as this to him seemed to be; I discovered that I had affirmed somewhat less than I believed, and desired him to make trial whether he could find it in 300 years or not: wherein when he had spent some time, he could not. He alleged indeed Cyprian de Coena Domini but I told him that was confessed of all sides to be none of his, &c. And now see the luck of it; The week before I received yours, a Friend shown me the New Articles of the New Bishop of Norwich (his Diocesan,) wherein (besides some other unwonted things which somebody will startle at) the Bishop avouches upon the credit of his reading, That the name Table in that sense is never to be found in any Ecclesiastical Writer of the first 300 years, save only once in an occasional passage of Dionysius Areop agita. Now, Sir, what think you of this? Yet you see I can show the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oftener than once in those first 300 years. Yea if you would grant me that the Author of that Hierarchical Treatise (whosoever he were) lived but within the compass of 200 years after Christ, I could give you an instance both of the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 within the time by you limited. For this Dionysius in his Mysterium Synaxeos describes the Deacons standing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in his Theory of the same mentions the sending of the Euergumeni (at the time of the Eucharist) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . However it be, it follows not, that because I can show it but once within that 200 years, therefore I should believe it was used never. Besides, methinks I observe some unreasonableness used in this kind, viz. Notwithstanding such paucity of Monuments remaining unto us of those first Ages, upon every unconcluding suspicion to discredit those we have, and then when we have done, to require proof that such things were in those times, (which we without proof deny) when those who alone could give testimony are disenabled, and sometimes for no other reason but because they give such testimony. Is this dealing reasonable?

As for the taking down of S. Gregory 's Church; I answer, In the Law some things Sacred were unalienable even quoad Individuum, (as for example such as were consecrated by way of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 See Levite. 27. 28, 29. ) Others were unalienable as touching the kind only, and therefore, if need were, the Individuum might be changed, so it were for the better and with the Lord's advantage, which the Law provides should be by adding a fifth part thereunto. See the rest of the Chapter quoted. But what is this to the deciding of the lawfulness or truth of what is in question, to allege that which men do? Is not all the world full of Contradictions? I verily believe that even those who are zealous for the Sanctification of the Lord's-day, do in their practice, if not in their Theory too, overthrow the Principles whereupon it stands.

I think I have no more to make answer to, and I confess I have done this not without some tediousness. For you must pardon me, if, judging as a Stander-by, I am not persuaded you are by nature so prone and pliable, as you think, to the way which you say I take.

Yes, I now find one thing more. S. Gregory 's Church, you say, is going down, at least is to be built elsewhere; but we never yet heard the like of the Lord's-day • No? but I have, namely, that a great man in the Reformation had once a Consultation to have translated the Lord's-day unto Thursday, upon pretence to take away Superstition, and though that Consultation succeeded not, yet he is known to have been no great friend to the hallowing thereof. How true this is I know not, penes authors fides esto; but such a thing I have read, I can assure you.

Thus with my heartiest affection, which I never found myself prone to change for mere difference of Opinion, I commend you and yours to the Divine blessing, and am still

EPISTLE LXVI.

I Cannot but confess myself much obliged unto you for the Papers which you have been pleased to impart unto me. You do well to help us by a fuller unfolding of those excellent Mysteries which divers will take for Paradoxes.—

But I return to your Letter, and assure you that I will have a special care to send back your Papers. In the mean time I pray accept of these enclosed, which concern the work of Pacification. Mr. Dury remembers his respects unto you, and will be glad to embrace your Letter whenever it comes. He hath not yet read your Book, because he can get none for himself, the Book becoming now rare every way. When you have done with the Papers, I pray let me have them again; some of them I had not leisure to read over. The printed Treatise I got from beyond the Seas; the Author of it thus writes unto me: Adsui Doctori Altingo; Is maximopere optat non praemisissem meo contra Bodsaccum Exercitio istud ex Fieldo excerptum. Ratio 1 ^a , Quia falsa sunt quae ill tum de Orientalium hodierna, tum de Occidentalium ante Lutherum Religion refert. 2 ^a , Quia Lutherani inde capient calumniandi ansam, quasi Universalem aliquam Religionum conciliationem moliamur. Intellexi simul hâc occasion Genevae imprimis Novum Testamentum linguâ Graecâ qualis nunc est, adeo ut non tantùm Originale Graecum, sed & Versionem Graecam simus habituri; quam ad rem 1000 Imperiales Domini Ordines dederunt, ut mittantur Exemplaria in Graeciam.

Inter argumenta cur Fieldi sententiam rejicit est, quod Witebergensis quidam olim ad Graecum Patriarcham miserit Confessionem Augustanam, ut approbaret, sed illam ut heterodoxam rejecisse. Quod hodiernus Patriarcha alius sit, id personale esse, & facile apparere ex quibus scriptis ill hauriat. Sepultus est hâc hebdomade noster Burgersdicius, &c.

But I would fain know your judgment about this Censure of Field, it being a thing of very great consequence. Dr. Alting, I hear, is writing an Ecclesiastical History. Thus expecting your Answer, I rest forever

EPISTLE LXXVII.

I Received not your Packet till yesterday at dinner-time. I send with this enclosed a Book to Mr. Dury, which I was fain to rob a Friend of, promising to give him another as good, but I send the Book and this my Letter apart, that the one may bring news of the other, if they should chance not to arrive at your hands together—

I thank you for Mr. Streso. Concerning that of Dr. Field, I have hitherto subscribed to it, according as I conceived to be his meaning; though whether the particulars of his narration be everyone of them true, I cannot affirm: the most, I believe are. But it is no marvel though such a Tenet make your foreign Divines to startle: That notion is almost proper to our English, to maintain that the Roman Church, much more the Greek, • rreth not in Primariis & Fundamentalibus Fidei Articulis, because explicitly they profess them, howsoever by their Assumenta implicitly and by consequent they subvert them. This your foreign Divines, and some too of our own, think to be an harsh assertion, because they rightly conceive not our meaning: whereof you may be more fully informed by Dr. Crakenthorp against Split, cap. 47. and by Dr. Potter in his Charity mistaken. You may remember also that Bishop Davenant (in the Discourse you shown me at London ) by the name of Fundamental Articles understands the Articles of the Creed of all Christians, and no other. Take notice likewise that we say the Roman Church and Ours differ not in the Articles we account to be Fundamental: not that we differ not, and mainly too, in those which they account Fundamental: Nor do we say but by consequent they ruin too even those Articles we account Fundamental, though explicitly they profess them. In a word, we hold That all the Roman Errors consist in the Assumenta they have added to the Foundation, and not in the Foundation itself, which they profess notwithstanding.

Besides that in the main Points of Controversy between them and us, the Truths, we affirm against them were heretofore freely maintained in their Church, as for the substance from time to time; and though for the most part the opposite Faction overtopped them, yet were not the Tenets of that Faction made the Tenets of their Church, till the Council of Trent decreed them, and condemned the other.

This is the sum of the Tenet of ours. But what do I write of these things in so tumultuary a manner? It is a point that requires a man should have his brains at home.

What though the Patriarch Jeremiah rejected the Augustine Confession for Heterodox, when it was sent him? It is true, that often one Sect of Religion condemns that in another which itself affirms; because it understands not its own in another's terms and after another way. Besides, though the Patriarch rejected the Confession • n gross, yet it follows not, he rejected it for those Points whereof Dr. Field affirms; but because it condemned likewise their Assumenta. For it is certain that in the Assumentis we differ mainly from them, and they from us.

Now the clock strikes three, I must an end. So with my best affection I rest

EPISTLE LXXVIII.

HVmanissimis tuis Literis & praeclaro illo, quod amicitiae mecum initae pignus esse voluisti, Scripto, cujus priorem ante aliquot annos, posteriorem nunc primùm video partem, ità animum meum affecisti, ut sufficientes neque jam scribere, neque posthac habere gratias queam; quas quia me refer posse desper • , ideo debitorem me tibi agnosco. Sed ante omnia Candorem tuum exosculor, quo de tuo ergà mea qualiacun{que} in Pacis causa studia affectu certiorem reddis, deque cautela in colligendis Ecclesiasticae Pacis suffragiis adhibenda prudenter moans: Nihil praeter debitum officii erga Superiores respectum à quoquam exigendum; Nihil insciis cujusque Ordinis Primoribus promiscue proponendum; Nihil privatis temere in publico negotio, nihil extra ordinem aggrediendum. Me quod attinet, semper ità cogitavi: attamen nescio quibus adductus tandem fidiculis hoc in me onus susceperim; aliquid ab aliorum provocatione, aliquid à mea vel simplicitate vel temeritate fateor profectum est: certe in hoc mihi Conscientia praebet testimonium, nihil à me hactenus quaesitum quod vel meipsum vel mea, sed tantum quod publicum aliorum commodum • spectar •• . Ab omnium partium legibus & dominio solutus, omnium me Servum exhibui quoad potui. Neque mihi aut ab eruditione aut rerum experientia singulari animus ad haec molimina satis instruct us vires & fiduciam sibi sumpsit; sed invict â potiùs quadam propensitate delatus est in hunc impetum, ut experire • ur quid in praejudiciis animorum inter partes tollendis praestari divinâ benedictione posset à privatae indusiria, & quid apud alios in tam sancta causa juvanda prompti • udinis fu • u • um esset. Siquid praeter spem, non tamen ultra votum accidit, Deo qui corda hominum regit, & abjectis saepe utitur ad gloriae suae manifestationem instrumentis, laus tribuenda est. De caetero quid imposterum mihi conandum incertus sum. Extra sphaeram han • privatae vocationis Theologicae me trahi non facile patiar; atque ideo quoniam res jam paulatim vergit ad publicam tractationem, nihil aliud mihi propono quàm ut propensam hanc animorum inclinationem in tempus usque praestituti Conventûs fovere annitar, & occasionibus sim intentus quibus Belgarum (siquidem haberi facile potest) publicus in hoc Concilio consensus obtineatur. Vidisti jam ex narratiuncula à Lomino Hartlibio missa quid apud Ecclesias Batavicas transactum sit. Tua singularis Prudentia & mihi rem gratam & suâ humanitate dignam fecerit, si non grave • ur suum de meis illis conatibus judicium exponere; An scilicet nimiâ parrhesiâ peccatum non fuerit; Quantum nobis liceat ab illis Ecclesiis exspectare; & Quâ ration posthac, (quoniam de responso Synodico jam solicitus sum) sive non concedant, sive concedant meis postulatis, causa haec cum illis tractanda est. Certum mihi est per Dei gratiam nihil agere quod animorum irritationi ant justae suspicion • praebere possit occasionem: Pacis enim studia cum omni lenitate, humilitate & patientia pacifice sunt tractand • : neque privato mihi aut expedire aut licitum esse judic • , à quoquam effiagitare vel importuniùs extorquere velle quidquam quod non suâ sponte, Conscientiâ duce, Charitate comite, quilibet praestare paratus sit. Hâc lege tecum, Cla •• ssime & Spectatissime Vir, familiaeriter agam, ut cuique nostrùm liceat suo jure uti, libere & loqui & tacere. Ità Divinae gratiae te tuáque studia animitus commendo. Vale, & favore • uo amplectere illum qui est

EPISTLE LXXIX.

I Received yours on Saturday, with the Copy enclosed, and Mr. Dury 's courteous Letter. To which yet I doubt I shall make no answer, but use the liberty he there vouchsafes me; Vt • uique nostrûm liceat suo jureuti, libere & loqui & tacere: For he desires me to give my judgment of his manner of Address and Treati ••• with those of the Batavian Churches; What may be expected from them, and What ••• se were best to be taken in case they grant, or deny. But what were this but for Phormio to teach Hannibal Stratagems of war? Ego vero ità usu rerum non valeo, ut hoc vel cogitare audeam, nedum scribere. For the place I live i • , I could perhaps tell something; but the condition of those Churches and their humors I know not farther than by hear-say, and much of that too I learned by the Papers you last sent me. And for my part, rebus sic stantibus, I cannot conceive any way better than what Mr. Dury there relates he took; whose wisdom and ability therein I am fitter to receive knowledge and information by, than to censure or give direction unto. And in particular methinks the deferring of them to the last, and not dealing with them till all other Churches had declared themselves, will, if anything, bring them off, at least in some degree, to show their concurrence. For in such a case Singularity cannot be without a blur; which perhaps they will consider, though their home contentions have made them, I believe resty enough. But, Lord! is there any hope of a Pacification, whilst each party studies to maintain their advantage against the other entire? A Ioyner cannot set two pieces of Timber together, without paring something from either. I pray remember me most kindly to Mr. Dury.

I send home herewith the Copy of his Epistle ad Batavos; which I shown only to Dr. S. to whom I had communicated the former. Dr. W. and the rest are from home this Easter -time, and I thought not fit to keep it till their return.

And do the affairs in Germany, say you, begin to turn? Lord! what will the Scene be then that is now to come upon the Stage? It is an intricate business, so full of windings and turnings, that no man can yet guess what is the way that Providence aims at to accomplish its end.—

Thus in haste, with my affection and Prayers, I rest

EPISTLE LXXX.

—IT grieves me not a little, yea perplexes me, to hear that Mr. Dury is come off with no better success from my L.—I am loath male augurari; but I like it not. I fear it is mali ominis, and that our State and Church have no mind to put their hand to this Work: Deus avertat omen. But our Church, you know, goes upon differing Principles from the rest of the Reformed, and so steers her course by another Rule than they do. We look after the Form, Rites and Discipline of Antiquity, and endeavor to bring our own as near as we can to that Pattern. We suppose the Reformed Churches have departed farther there-from than needed, and so we are not very solicitous to comply with them; yea we are jealous of such of our own as we see over-zealously addicted to them, lest it be a sign they prefer them before their Mother. This, I suppose, you have observed, and that this disposition in our Church is of late very much increased. Well then; If this Union sought after be like to further and advantage us in the way we affect, we shall listen to it. If it be like to be prejudicial, as namely to give strength and authority to those amongst us who are enamored with the foreign Platform, or bring a yoke upon our own by limiting and making us obnoxious; we'll stand aloof and not meddle with it, lest, we infringe our liberty. This I have always feared would be no small Remora on our part, and I pray God it may fall out beyond my expectation.—

Now for myself; The Acta Lipsiaca I never saw, nor did I find the Extract you mentioned in your Letter: I suppose it was forgotten when you sealed.

But I am afraid you have made Mr. Dury take me for another man than I am: I pray therefore, let him know that I am a private man, one that the Church never took notice of, having no place or dignity in the same, nor any condition or means of living but a poor Fellowship, not known to any of the greater Clergy, nor acquainted with those that are of note in any special manner; in a word, one of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as S. Paul speaks: and therefore see not how my verdict should be of any moment in this cause.

2. I live in the University, where we move only ad motum Primi mobilis; and that discretion is expected at our hands, who are of the inferior Orbs, as not to move without our Superiors. If any one transgress this rule, and offer to meddle in ought that concerns the Public, before the State and those in place declare themselves, he is taken notice of for Factious and a Busie-body; and if he be once thus branded, all the water of the Thames will not wash him clean, if it be objected to his prejudice, though many years after: as we see by daily experience, and of late in the business of—College, if somebody say true. For this cause, I am afraid, Mr. Dury will find our University-men more shy and nice than others, now—hath refused to declare himself, and—to give such encouragement to the business as was expected.

3. That for myself, I am so far inclinable to Peace, that I can yield to a Christian Communion at as great a distance of Opinions as any Protestant whatsoever. For I hold Communion is not to be broken but for Fundamentals: of which kind I take none of the differences between the Calvinists and Lutherans to be. Yet am I not so well versed in the subtleties of those Controversies, as I think fit to adventure my judgment to the public view by an examination and censure of particulars, wherein my unskillfulness would too soon appear. Nor do I think this Union, which every true Christian ought so much to desire, will ever be brought to pass by a full decision of the Controversies; but only by abating of that vast distance which contention hath made, and approaching the differences so near, as either party may be induced to tolerate the other, and acknowledge them for Brethren and Members of the same Body.

To Mr. Dury 's request therefore I answer, That if Mr. Dr. Ward here, or Mr. Dr. Potter at Oxford think fit to declare themselves concerning the Acta Lipsiaca, when I have seen either, I shall not be unwilling to give my general suffrage with reference unto theirs. But to go farther than thus, the Reasons above-mentioned will deter me.

Thus hoping to receive the Extract you mention with your next, and praying Almighty God to remove all obstacles, and to afford Mr. Dury all means of success in this so holy a business, I rest

EPISTLE LXXXI.

IAM in procinctu sum, Reverende Vir, ut in Belgium iter faciam. Vale-dixi Domino Archiepiscopo Cant. & amicis in Aula, & in eo sum ut & caeteris valedicam: Tu mihi praetereundus non eras, cujus non ità pridem humanitatem prolixe expertus sum. Dici non potest quàm grata tuae apud me haereat & haerebit conversationis memoria; quoties enim sermonis tui doctissimi, prudentissimi & utilissimi capita apud animum, quod fit multoties, revolvo, fateor nullam mihi à multis annis horulam tam fructuose, tam jucunde effluxisse, quàm illa fuit quâ tuo usus sum consortio. Nunc brevibus accipe itineris mei scopum. In Belgio nihil urgebo, nihil instanter affectabo, praeter id quod sponte suâ facturi sunt nihil postulabo; id quicquid futurum est in Ecclesiae Germanicae commodum convertetur. Sed apud Germanos haec mihi erunt proposita suasionis & tractationis capita.

• 1. Decreto ab Ordinibus facto contineri saluberrimum componendis Ecclesiae dissidiis cons • lium.
• 2. Ad hujus Decreti executionem pro virili promovendam omnes & Magistratus & Theologos junctis suffragiis, studiis & conatibus, teneri in conscientia: atque ideo Conventûs indictionem non ulteriùs differendam.
• 3. In Conventu hoc ad abolitionem Schismatis indicendo opinionum minutias & difficultates Scholasticarum controversiarum spinosas resecandas à Pacis tractatu; neque de aliis capitibus disputandum, sed explicandum quid utrinque receptum & in confesso est.
• 4. Concordiam in Ecclesiae Primitivae Symbolica, & Christianae Religions Fundamentali veritate, atque in ea Fraternitatis contesserationem, certis canonibus Ecclesiastieis esse confirmandam.
• 5. Symbolicam veritatem illam quae continetur Apostolico, & explicatur Athanasiano Symbolo, & quae confirmata fuit in Nicaeno, Ephesino primo, Constantinopolitano, Chalcedonensi, Milevitano & Arausicano contra Pelagianos Conciliis, quibuscum Confessiones Protestantium & inter se harmonice & subordinate cum sacra Scriptura consentiant, per se solam ad animarum salutem sufficere iis qui ex Verbo Dei in Fidei simplicitate illam haurientes, de caetero voluntati ejus sine admixtione cultûs Idolatrici obediunt.
• 6. Omnes extra hunc Fidei tenorem Scholarum controversi • s in utramque partem salvâ charitate inter Doctos agitari; à simplicioribus tuto & utiliter ignorari, atque ideo pro concione nequaquam contentiose tractari debere: atque hoc Patribus Ecclesiae Primitivae in more positum fuisse constat.
• 7. Causas Schismatum & inextricabilium in Ecclesia Christiana confusionum oriri hoc seculo, partim ex neglectis rerum Fundamentalium & Non-fundamentalium in Fide & Praxi limitibus; partim ex nimis curiosa Mysteriorum perscrutatione, & promiscua privatarum de iis opinionum evulgatione; partim ex spreto Antiquitatis Primaevae de Sacrae Scripturae sensu judicio; partim ex praepostero & amarulento refutandi potiùs alienam sententiam, quàm inoffenso veritatem ex proprio sensu explicandi studio; partim ex usurpata unius in alterius conscientiam & intellectum tyrannica definiendi potestate & censura; partim ex amissa pristinae disciplinae regula; partim denique ex neglectis Sanctae Communionis officiis, fraternaeque Communicationis inter Ecclesias distinctas sopitis super mutua in rebus spiritualibus aedificatione affectibus. Hinc obortam Opinionum & Rituum omnimodam diversitatem; inde multiformem Ecclesiarum in Fidei fundamento alioquin consentientium faciem emicuisse; haec rerum imperitis aestimatoribus speciem contrarietatis, atque inde dubitationis, disquisitionis, dissidii & Schismatis ansam praebuisse.
• 8. Hisce malis remedium hoc tempore calamitoso nullum accommodatius excogitari posse hoc Protestantium praestituto Conventu; cujus effectus hic expetendus est, Vt in Doctrinalibus utrinque concessis Fraternitas, in dubiis & utilibus commoda explicatio, in reliquis sentiendi libertas & tolerantia communibus suffragiis sanciatur; in publico autem Cultu ac Ritibus Ecclesiasticis ea conformitas quae necessaria ad mutuae aedificationis & commercii sacri affectus confirmandos videbitur, certis legibus circumscribatur.

Hîc vides institutum meum: cui assequendo licet me imparem agnoscam, nihil tamen pro tenui virium mearum demenso reliqui faciam ad summum & sincerum conatum. Multum tribuo, idque merito, tuae eruditioni, pietati & prudentiae. Ergo si quid visum fuerit super hisce monere, feceris amico & conservo Christi tui observantissimo rem gratam, & forsan publico non inutilem. Exspecto etiam ut me tuis vel ad Dominum de Dieu, vel alios quosvis, aut literis aut mandatis, siquid nunciandum est, perferendis adhibeas. Si quid autem sequenti Septimanâ huc deferatur quod mihi traditum volueris, praesentem adhuc me, & tuis, Reverende Vir, paratissimum obsequiis invenies.

EPISTLE LXXXII.

IMo vero, Reverende & Ornatissime Vir, me potiùs nimiae & inconsuetae loquacitatis meae veniam petere decuit, quàm hanc gratiam à te reportare. Poenitebat fateor, & pudebat, postquam tu discesseras, & ego me recolueram, dissertationis apud te tam tumultuariae & nusquam cohaerentis. Sed mirae tu humanitatis homo es, qui etiam Amicorum errores & vitia in gratiae & amoris Argumentum vertis.

Tuas ad Dominum Doctorem Wardum ipse propriis meis manibus reddidi, sed negotiosum reperi, ut solet, Comitiis Academicis instantibus. Has quas vides mitto tuâ curâ ad Dominum Ludovicum de Dieu perferendas.

Perlegi & con • ideravi diligenter Tractationis tuae futurae capita & scopum; in quibus omnia mirifice probo, neque in mentem mihi venit quicquam quod addi vellem. Nihil enim desiderari videtur. Et certe non erat ut ab eo qui rerum usum non habet multum exspectes: votum tamen quoddam meum tibi aperiam.

In Articulos Fundamentales optârim equidem fieri posse ut paulo altiùs inquireretur, útque non enumeratione solâ, (quod hucusque factum) sed Rei ipsius definitione aliquid statuatur; quâ nempe oftenderetur, in quo demum Articuli Fundamentalis ratio & naturae sitae sit. Admodum enim dignum est consideratione, neminem fere nostrorum reperiri qui hac in parte quidquam decernere ausus suit, imo ne aggredi quidem: cùm tamen ab ejusmodi aliquo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 omne de Articulis Fundamentalibus & Non-fundamentalibus judicium pendere necesse est. Ratio in aperto est; Cavet quisque suae Sectae placitis, metuitque ne dogmata sua, hoc pacto e Fundamentalium numero excidisse videantur. Hoc enim partium studiis in religione innatum est, ut dogmata, pro quibus cum parte adversa contendunt, Fundamentalium numero omnino inseri vellent, saltem non ex professo eliminari. Cavent etiam prudentiores, ne mitiori sort errorum censur • damnatae alicui Sectae aut Haeresi patrocinari aut favere viderentur.

Sed quoniam exigua est spes, fore ut in hac parte quicquam communibus suffragiis unquam definiatur; ideo forte priscae Ecclesiae ejúsque Symbolis acquiescendum. Certum enim est, qui tunc Fundamentalis Articulus non fuerit, neque hodie haberi debere.

Haec habui, nec quid amplius, Vir Clarissime, quae ad tuas responderem. I am illud solum restat, ut votis te abeuntem prosequar, Deúmque venerer, ut scopo tuo piissimo benignus adesse velit, te ubicunque terrarum protegat, & conatibus tuis felicem succe •• um largiatur. Ità vovet

EPISTLE LXXXIII.

I Received your last, with the continuation of Mr. Dury 's progress and success. I gave it to read first to—, then to some others of lower rank, lastly, to—. I know not whom I shall communicate it with besides; yet I will keep it a week longer to that purpose. But I will tell you, so unwilling are ours here to acquaint themselves with any such business, that you shall scarce get them to read anything that way without much entreaty. Yea I found—himself, when I carried him this, in somewhat a like disposition. Fain he would have declined the reading of it; You can tell (said he) the substance of it, &c. One Dr. a great Calvinist for the points of Predestination, being shewn it by a friend to whom I had lent it, could not be gotten, after he had read a leaf or thereabouts, to read one jot more, but cried out, It is a thing simply impossible, and never can or will be —I know one in the world, otherwise a wise, discreet, understanding man, to whom discoursing historically about Mr. Dury 's negotiation and hopes, he commended it for a good and pious endeavor: But I pray God (saith he) he doth not much hurt, as things now stand at this time. He meant, as I supposed, give advantage to the Arminian party, whereunto he is a great opposite. Yea I will tell you, but sub sigillo, that I have heard—himself say as much heretofore. You see how hard it is for men who have once drawn blood in these Controversies, I mean have publicly engaged and declared themselves in them, to listen to any overture of Peace. But enough of this.

You long, you say, to hear my Answer to the particulars of your Letter. Which do you mean? I suppose chiefly that of Fundamental Articles. But if such great Prelates and learned Doctors (as you mention) detrect the defining of the Ratio of a Fundamental Article, or designing the Number of them, as a matter not only difficult, but inconvenient and dangerous; Quid ego miser homuncio facerem? I confess I am in part guilty of advising Mr. Dury to urge men to think of such a Definition, as a ground to examine the points of difference by, of what nature they are: But I intimated withal how likely they would be to detrect it, and wherefore; namely, lest by that means they might either declare some darling Opinion of their own not to be Fundamental, and thereby prejudice their own cause; or else exclude out of that number some Articles formerly determined by the Church, and so incur a suspicion or be liable to be upbraided with favoring some condemned Heresy.

But what if, to avoid the aforesaid Inconveniences, we should go this way to work, Make two sorts of Fundamental Articles, Fundamentals of Salvation, and Fundamentals of Ecclesiastical Communion? one, of such as are necessarii cognitu & creditu ad Salutem simply and absolutely, and therefore no Christian soul that shall be saved uncapable to understand them; another, of such as are necessarii creditu ad Communionem Ecclesiasticam in regard of the predecision of the Church.

The first not to be of such Truths as are merely Speculative, and contained only in the Understanding; but of such only as have a necessary influence upon Practice: and not all those neither, but such as have necessary influence upon the Act and Function of Christian life, or whereon the Acts without which a Christian lives not necessarily depend.

Such, namely, as without the knowledge and belief whereof we can neither invocate the Father aright, nor have that Faith and reliance upon him and his Son our Mediator Jesus Christ, which is requisite to Remission of sins and the hope of the Life to come.

How far this Ratio of a Fundamental Article will stretch, I know not; but believe it will fetch in most of the Articles of the Apostles Creed. And by it also those two main Errors of the Socinians, the one denying the Divine Nature, the other the Satisfaction of Christ, may be discerned to be Fundamental. For without the belief of the first, the Divine Majesty cannot be rightly, that is, incommunicably, worshipped, so as to have no other God's besides him: For he that believes not Christ to be Consubstantial with the Father, and yet honors him with the same worship, worships not the Father incommunicably; which is the Formalis ratio of the worship of the true God, from whom we look for eternal Life. And without the belief of the Second (the Satisfaction of Christ ) there can be (I suppose) no saving Faith or reliance upon Christ for Forgiveness of sin. After this manner may other Articles be examined. Thus much of the first sort of Fundamental Truths, measured by the necessitude they have with those Acts which are required to Salvation.

Concerning the second sort of Fundamentals, viz. necessary ad Communionem Ecclesiasticam; It is not fit that the Church should admit any to her Communion which shall professedly deny or refuse their assent to such Catholic Truths as she hath anciently declared, by universal Authority, for the Symbol and Badge of such as should have Communion with her.

And this sort of Articles without doubt fetches a greater compass, and comprehends more than the other, as being ordinate and measured by another End, to wit, of Discipline; and so contains not only such Truths, the knowledge whereof and assent whereto is necessary unto the being of Christian life, but also to the well-being thereof; and therefore not needful to be understood of everyone distinctly and explicitly, as the former, but implicitly only and as far as they shall be capable or have means to come to the knowledge thereof. This is the Sum of my thoughts concerning Fundamentals: If I have not expressed myself so dilucidly as I should, I pray help it with some intention of your conceit in the reading.

For the Book you speak of, I like it not; I knew by hear-say much of the Author and his condition some years before the High-Commissi • n took notice of him, and wondered he escaped so long. For in every company he came, he took an intolerable liberty of Invectives and Contumelies against the Ecclesiastical State, when no occasion was offered him. Such Books as these never did good in our Church, and have been as disadvantageous to their Party who vent them, as they have been prejudicial to the common Cause. I durst almost affirm, that the alienation which appears in our Church of late from the rest of the Reformed hath grown for a great part from such intemperancy and indiscretion as this is, and will be still increased more and more, if those who seem to be the chief favorers of them go on in this manner. He hath too ready a Faculty in expressing himself with his pen, unless he would employ it better. For who can excuse him from a malignant disposition towards his own Mother, thus to publish her faults in Latin, of purpose to discover her shame to strangers, and to call her Sisters to see it, as Cham did his Brothers? Think what kind of crime it is for a man that is Civis and a Member, to traduce the Rulers of his people among foreiners; and what little good affection they are like to expect from ours, who are made partisans in such a kind.

—Thus with my best affection I rest, and am

EPISTLE LXXXIV.

I Read over your Streso with some attention, and find many learned and considerable passages and discourses therein: But for my Animadversions which you look for, it were against my Genius; for I am one that had rather give my opinion by much, (though the world hath taught me even there to be somewhat nice,) than censure another man's. But in general, I conceive his way to be somewhat ambiguous and intricate, more than needs.

He distinguisheth Three sorts of Fundamentals. One he calls Fundamentum ipsum: The other two he measures by their relation to it, either à parte ante, and such he terms Sub-fundamentales; or à parte Post, which may be called Super-fundamentales. The one, of such Truths quae substernuntur Fundamento; the other, such as follow by immediate consequence from the same. This I take to be the Sum of his opinion.

Now for that which is his Fundamentum ipsum or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I make no doubt but the acknowledgment of the truth thereof is Fundamental ad Salutem: So I believe also are his Ante or Sub -fundamentals; though the most of them not proper to Christianity, but common to it with Judaism. For the Church of the Gospel is built or graffed upon the Jewish, the common Foundation remaining the same in both. But as for the third sort of Fundamentals, or Super -fundamentals, which he makes such as are by immediate or necessary consequence deducible from the Fundamentum Salutis; I make some question whether all such are necessaria cognitu & creditu ad Salutem simply. First, because the necessity of such consequence may not be apprehended by all who hold the Fundamentum. Secondly, because I am not yet persuaded, that to deny or be ignorant of a Truth which is merely Speculative (such as some of these Consequences may be) is damnable; but only of such Truths, the knowledge and acknowledgment whereof hath necessary connection with some practical requisite unto Salvation; I mean, whereon depends necessarily the acquiring of some Act necessary, or the avoiding some Act repugnant to Salvation.

So that still, it seems to me, the readiest and easiest way for resolution in this matter is, To inquire and examine what those Acts are wherein consists our Spiritual life, or that Union and Fellowship which we have with the Father and his Son our Mediator Jesus Christ. That which is necessarium cognitu & creditu unto these is Fundamental ad Salutem, i.e. cujus agnitioni Salus tanquam Fundamento innititur: That which is not so, is not Fundamental ad Salutem. For example, He that comes unto God (saith S. Paul) must believe that God is: So likewise, He that comes unto Christ, or unto the Father by him, (as everyone must do that will be saved) must believe that Christ is, and that he is constituted the Mediator between God and us. He that comes unto and relies upon Christ for remission of sin, must believe that Christ suffered, and was offered a Sacrifice for the sins of men, and thereby purchased that power to confer remission unto all that should repent and believe in his Name. He that bids a true farewell to sin, and savingly buckles to the works of a new life, must believe there is a life to come, and a Day wherein God by the Man he hath ordained shall judge both the quick and dead, and give unto everyone according to his works; according to that of S. Paul, Acts 24. 15, 16. I have hope towards God; that there shall be a Resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. [ For this cause] do I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offense toward God and toward men. According to these examples you may examine more.

The difference between Mr. Streso 's way and mine is this: He measures his Fundamentals by their relation to one Fundamentum; I measure all by the relation they have to Eternal life, in regard of those Acts and Dispositions whereby we are capable thereof.

Take this Similitude; In a Creature endued with animal life are many Members or Organs, whereof though none can be wanting, hurt or wounded, without some deformity, defect or detriment of the whole; yet all are not essential unto the Life of the Body, but such only from whence those Faculties and Functions flow whereon Life necessarily depends; such as are Respiratio, Nutritio, Gustus, Tactus, Pulsus, Somnus, and the like: Therefore the Organs whereon these depend can neither be wanting, nor notoriously hurt or wounded, but the Body presently dieth. Without Legs, Arms, Tongue, Eyes, Ears, Nose, a man may live, though a most pitiful, ugly and loathsome spectacle, and more fit for the Spittle than the public society of men: But without Head, Heart, Lungs, Stomach, and the like, he cannot; namely because these Members, and the sound and good temper of them in some degree, are necessary to those Faculties and Functions which are requisite unto Life. Apply this, and improve it by your Meditation. Vale.

EPISTLE LXXXV.

I Have received the Acta Lipsiaca, but if I could have given you notice in time, I would have saved you that labor, and borrowed of Dr. W. for he had promised to lend me his. When I had read it over, Lord! me thought, what little differences are these to break communion for? viz. for one or two Speculative Subtilties, for some Logical or Metaphysical Notion. So I believe much of these disputes (when the wisest and moderatest of both sides have expounded themselves) is (I will not say mere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .—For your Extracts, I read them presently, and laid them by; and to confess the truth, some business following presently took me so much up, that I had almost forgot I had them, till your admonition put me now in mind of them.

That George Francis his way Degradibus necessitatis dogmatum Christianorum, quibus Fidei, Spei & Charitatis officia reguntur, methinks by the Title should come somewhat near that fancy. 'It is true that he says, Some men have such an unhappiness of Logic, that by an affected following their methods and Technological artifices they make things more obscure and intricate, which in the true use of Logic should be made more easy and perspicuous.

I have not yet attentively read Mr. Dury's Consultation: which I will do, and then send it back: For men's minds here are so remote from thoughts of this nature, that it is to little purpose to communicate it to many. The way to determine Fundamental Articles must be made very short, easy and evident; or it will breed as many Controversies as are about the Points themselves in question. I can gather that by what I sometimes meet with. It is not fit that a Confession which concerns all that will be saved to know and remember should be any long or tedious Discourse. The Ten Commandments given by God are an Epitome faciendorum; The Lord's Prayer is Summa or Epitome petendorum: According to which Pattern the Confession we seek for should be but Summa credendorum.

Thus with my prayers and best affection, I rest

EPISTLE LXXXVI.

I Have received yours. It seems strange to me that men should hold, that those who err in Fundamentals cannot be saved, and yet maintain it scarce possible to set down the Ratio of a Fundamental Article, or any 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whereby to know them.

What though Fundamentum & Fundamentalia be Metaphorical terms? yet may they soon be turned into proper ones, namely, Articuli cognitu & creditu necessarii ad Salutem. Here is no Metaphor: Whether therefore may there any Ratio or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be given to discern these?

I believe not that Canon of the Council of Ephesus intended to prescribe to any other Council of like Authority, not to explicate or improve the Creed of Nice, as they did that of the Apostles; but that no private Bishop should compose any other Formula Fidei, to be a Rule and Symbolum of Communion, than that of Nice.

Thus with my Prayers and best affection, I remain

EPISTLE LXXXVII.

YOU wish I had declared myself more largely: But what needed it? you had the substance of all I had to say. But if you would have it more fully, then thus.

• 1. By Fundamental Articles in the inquiry we mean such as are Necessarii cognitu & creditu ad Salutem; that is, Fundamenta Salutis, Fundamental to Salvation; not Fundamenta Theologicarum Veritatum, Principles whence Theological Verities are deduced. For these, though they may be sometimes coincident, are not the same.
• 2. What then though the Term Fundamental be Metaphorical and improper? yet we see it may easily (if we understand our own meaning) be expressed in clear and proper terms. And therefore this can be no impediment to the finding or defining the Ratio of such Articles, whereby they may be known and distinguished from others.
• 3. And what though the whole Scripture be Fundamentum or Principium Veritatum Theologicarum or Dogmatum Fidei? Yet is not every content in Scripture necessary to be known and believed explicitly unto Salvation; and therefore this Notion of Fundamentum nothing to the purpose; since (as I said) Principia Theologica, or Fundamentalia dogmatum, and Fundamentalia Salutis are not the same, but differ formally, though some of them may be materially coincident.

• 4. But the Definition of such Fundamental Articles would be dangerous, inconvenient, and subject to much reprehension, yea, in respect of the diversity of men's judgments, is in a manner impossible. This methinks is very strange, That any who acknowledge there be some Truths necessary to be known and explicitly believed unto Salvation, should yet deny there can be any Ratio or Character given whereby to know them; yea affirm it to be unsafe to determine any such, if it might be found, or that any enumeration of such Articles should be made. What? Cannot or may not those Truths be defined and known, without an explicit belief whereof we cannot be saved? What will follow upon this?

  Neither when we speak of defining here, do we mean any such matter as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or exactness of a Logical definition, (which might entangle us in School-niceties and janglings,) but any description or designation of that Ratio or distinguishing Character whereby such Truths as are cognitu & creditu necessaria ad Salutem might be known from others. And this sure might be done without any such engagement in Logical scrupulosity.

• 5. As for the Objection of the Canon of the Oeeumenical Council of Ephesus; Certainly that Council never intended to restrain the power of any Council or other public Ecclesiastical Authority like itself, but only private Persons, from attempting to make any such Creed, Formula, or Confession of Faith, besides that of Nice. This I suppose may be gathered from those words, Si Episcopy, &c. Si Clerici, &c. Si Laici, &c. and the Censure to be laid upon them. Nor does it seem simply and altogether to forbid them neither, to compose any such for private instruction or use; but only for a public intent, to be tendered as a Form of Confession of Faith to Pagans or Jews at their Baptism, or to Heretics when they were again received into the Church.

  For why should not the Churches now, as well as then, have the like power, upon the like occasion, further to explicate or make more explicit the former Symbols of Faith, as the Council of Nice did that of the Apostles, yea or any Church or Churches that are or would be of the same Communion, to do it for themselves? For then we know the Churches were all of one Communion; now they are not, and therefore may provide for themselves according to their condition.

  Besides, how came the Creed of Athanasius to be since publicly received in the Church, or the Council of Chalcedon, after this of Ephesus, to make a new Exposition of Faith, (unless this Canon were understood as aforesaid,) since neither of them are the same with that of Nice? Or how could the Reformed Churches make such public Confessions for themselves as they have done?

  Thus I think I have declared myself largely enough now; and perhaps more largely than befitted me, when I consider to whom it hath reference. But my hope is, you will conceal the Author's name from any man, and not reveal it save to Mr. Dury alone. And so, with my best affection, I remain

EPISTLE LXXXVIII.

WHen I read over Mr. Dury 's Consultation, (before his Discourse ad Dominum Forbesium came to my hands) I perceived he aimed at the self-same ground for the discovery and discerning of Fundamental Verities from not-Fundamental that I had formerly done in mine to you, though in a differing way of expression, as men that conceive apart are wont to do. I made them to be such Truths as have necessary influence upon the Acts and Functions of Christian life, or without the explicit knowledge whereof those Acts and Functions cannot be exercised. He goes further, and specifies wherein this Christian life consisteth: namely, As Natural life consists in the conjunction of the Soul with the Body; so doth Spiritual life in the conjunction of Men with God, that is, in being in Covenant with him. All those Verities therefore, the knowledge and belief whereof is necessary to the Acts and Functions requisite to the being and continuation in the Covenant with God in Jesus Christ, are Fundamental Verities, without the explicit knowledge and belief of which a man cannot be saved.

But for the framing or composing such a Fundamental Confession as is sought for, let me discover my Opinion, Fancy, or whatsoever it be. I observe, That the Confessions or Creeds of the Ancient Church (which were their Symbols of Communion) were always the former Creeds or Confessions enlarged with such further additions or explanations subjoined to the former Articles respectively as the Heresies of the Times made requisite for the distinction of Orthodox Believers. So the Nicene Creed was the Creed of the Apostles enlarged in the Articles of the Father and Son,