Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586-1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism (International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées)

CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1.i THE HISTORY OF BRITISH APOCALYPTIC THOUGHT The study of early modern Britain between the ...

Author: Jeffrey K. Jue

20 downloads 781 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

1.i THE HISTORY OF BRITISH APOCALYPTIC THOUGHT The study of early modern Britain between the Reformation of the 1530s and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms of the 1640s has undergone a series of historiographical revisions. The dramatic events during that century were marked by a religious struggle that produced a Protestant nation, divided internally, yet clearly opposed to Rome. Likewise the political environment instilled a sense of responsible awareness regarding the administration of the realm and the defense of constitutional liberty.1 Whig Historians from the nineteenth century described these changes as a “Puritan Revolution.”2 Essentially this was England’s inevitable march towards enlightenment as a resultt of religious and political maturation.3 Subsequent Marxist historians attributed these radical changes to socio-economic factors.4 Britain was witnessing the decline of the medieval feudal system and the rise of a new capitalist class. Both of these early views claimed that brewing social, political and economic unrest culminated in extreme radical action. More recently, beginning in the 1980s, new studies appeared that began to challenge these old assumptions. Relying on careful archival research, many of these studies discarded the former conception of this period as “revolutionary”, instead arguing that the Reformation was in fact a gradual and unpopular process.5 In 1

Margo Todd (ed.) Reformation to Revolution: Politics and Religion in Early Modern England (London and New York, 1995), p. 1. 2 S. R. Gardiner, The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution (London, 1876). 3 Todd, Reformation and Revolution, p. 1. 4 Christopher Hill, “A Bourgeois Revolution?”, The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill, vol. III (Brighton, 1986), pp. 94-125. 5 Patrick Collinson, The Religion of the Protestants (Oxford, 1983); J. J. Scarisbrick, The Reformation and the English People (Oxford, 1984); Christopher Haigh (ed.), The English

1

2

Introduction

addition scholars revised the history of the t 1640s with a greater emphasis on the religious divisions within the Church compounding in war.6 Instead of portraying radical puritans versus conservative Anglicans, some revisionists claimed that the disruption of a Calvinist consensus by Arminians, and the re-imposition of popish ceremonies by Archbishop Laud during the reign of Charles I, pushed the nation to war.7 These new studies continue to be expanded and challenged, but what is unanimously clear is that the old paradigm of a radical revolution is no longer acceptable.8 Margo Todd summarizes this new approach: “the revisionists do not necessarily agree with each other, except in n dismissing absolutely the old ‘Puritan Revolution’ as a struggle of the godly reformed against the resurgent popery in Laudian guise.”9 While revisionist and now some counter-revisionist studies are continuing to rewrite the social, political and economic history of early modern Britain, one area of study has yet to be thoroughly re-examined and re-evaluated: the apocalyptic tradition in Britain.10 The history of British apocalyptic thought was a topic of great Reformation Revised (Cambridge, 1987); idem, English Reformations: Religion, Politics and Society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993); Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400-c.1580 (New Haven, 1992). 6 Ken Fincham (ed.), The Early Stuart Church 1603-1640 (London, 1993). It should be noted that focusing on religion did not exclude revisionist studies t of the political climate as well. See Anthony Fletcher, The Outbreak of the English Civil Warr (London, 1981); J. P. Sommerville, Politics and Ideology in England 1603-1640 (Harlow, Essex, 1986); Conrad Russell, The Causes of the English Civil Warr (Oxford, 1990); idem, Unrevolutionary Englandd (London, 1990); John Morrill, The Revolt of the Provinces: Conservatives and Radicals in the English Civil War, 16301640 (London, 1980, 2ndd edition); idem, The Nature of the English Revolution: Essays by John Morrilll (London and New York, 1993). It is interesting to point out that Morrill, a political revisionist, gives more weight to religious ffactors during the early seventeenth century. See: Morrill, “The Religious Context of the English Civil War”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, 34 (1984), pp. 155-178. 7 Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c.1590-1640 (Oxford, 1987). 8 Tyacke’s revisions have been challenged by Peter White and Kevin Sharpe. See Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil Warr (Cambridge, 1992); Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, 1993). 9 Todd, Reformation to Revolution, p. 3. 10 Counter-revisionist studies are now reacting against some of the first revisionists. See: A.G. Dickens, The English Reformation (University Park, PA, 1989, 2nd edition); Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge, 1982); idem, Anglicans and Puritans? (London, 1988); David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England 1603-1660 (Oxford, 1987). In addition to these revisions and counter-revisions, other scholars have attempted to move beyond an Anglo-centric aapproach by incorporating Scottish and Irish interactions. See: Jane Ohlmeyer, Civil War and Restoration in the Three Stuart Kingdoms: the political career of Randal MacDonnell first marquis of Antrim, 1609-83 (Cambridge, 1993); Allan Macinnes, Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788 (East Linton, 1996); Allan Macinnes and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Stuart Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century: Awkward Neighbours (Dublin, 2001); David Armitage and Michael Braddick (eds.), The British Atlantic World 1500-1800 (New York, 2002).

Introduction

3

interest in the 1970s. All the major surveys of apocalypticism during the sixteenth and seventeenth century were published during that decade.11 Consequently all of these studies promoted the conclusions of either the previous Whig or Marxist historiographies. Apocalyptic thought, and especially millenarianism, became a convenient theological rationale which supported a revolutionary agenda in early modern England. The visions of the Apocalypse prophesied the final defeat of the Antichrist and the establishment of Christ’s millennial kingdom on earth. As a result, according to these earlier studies, interest in the Apocalypse helped to fuel the fire of revolution, since revolt could be justified now by divine mandate and framed within an apocalyptic timeline. The forces of Satan (represented by Charles I and his crypto-papist Archbishop) had to be defeated in anticipation of the end of human history and the inauguration of the millennial kingdom of Christ. Thus, these surveys neatly aligned the rise of apocalyptic interest and the popularity of millenarianism with the chaotic years of war and devastation in the early seventeenth century. Apocalyptic and millenarian thought was equated precisely with revolution. Since the publication of these surveys there has been a surprising silence from historians regarding the study of early modern British apocalyptic thought. The 1980s added only a few publications of collected essays to the standing literature on the subject.12 With the dawn of a new millennium, conveniently interest in the history of apocalypticism was revived, especially in more popular publications.13 Only one academic monograph appeared in 2000 focusing again on early modern British apocalyptic interest, but it still perpetuates the historiographical approach of the 1970s.14 Crawford Gribben’s study of British 11

Surveys include: Peter Toon (ed.), Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israell (Cambridge and London, 1970); Bryan W. Ball, A Great Expectation: Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism to 1660 (Leiden, 1975); Richard Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse: Sixteenth Century Apocalypticism, Millenarianism and the English Reformation (Oxford, 1978); Paul Christianson, Reformers in Babylon: English apocalyptic visions from the reformations to the eve of the civil war (Toronto, 1978); Bernard Capp, The Fifth Monarchy Men (London, 1972); Katherine R. Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain, 1530-1634 (Oxford, 1979). 12 Essay collections include: C.A. Patrides and Joseph Wittreich (eds.), The Apocalypse in English Renaissance thought and literature (Manchester, 1984); Richard H. Popkin (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought 1650-1800 (Leiden, 1988). 13 Popular surveys published on the eve of and after 2000 include: David Katz and Richard H. Popkin, Messianic Revolution: Radical Religious Politics to the End of the Second Millennium (New York, 1998); Frederic Baumgartner, Longing for the End: A History of Millennialism in Western Civilization (New York, 1999); Robert Clouse, Robert Hosack and Richard Pierard, The New Millennium Manuel: A Once and Future Guide (Grand Rapids, 1999); Eugene Weber, Apocalypses: Prophecies, Cults and Millennial Beliefs Through the Ages (Cambridge, Mass., 2000). 14 Crawford Gribben’s The Puritan Millennium: Literature & Theology 1550-1682 (Dublin, 2000), is the most recent monograph. In addition Richard Popkin (along with others) has published three of a four volume collection of essay focusing primarily on continental millenarianism: M. Goldish & R. H. Popkin (eds.), Millenarianism and Messianism in Early l Modern European Culture, vol. I: Jewish Messianism in the Early Modern Worldd (Dordrecht, 2001); J. E. Force & R. H. Popkin (eds.), Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture, vol. III: The

4

Introduction

millenarianism claims that the prime motivation for executing Charles I was a radical millenarian eschatology. The Stuarts had promoted their dynasty on the premise that they were rulers by divine right - God’s representatives on earth. The regicides, fuelled by millenarian fervour, took advantage of this to argue that this was all the more reason for replacing the royal dynasty with the one they represented. Theregicide was nothing less than a clearing of the way for the second coming of Christ, England’s rightful king.15 In thirty years of historical research very little has changed. A revision of the history of British apocalyptic thought is long overdue.

1.ii JOSEPH MEDE AND ENGLISH MILLENARIANISM By the mid-seventeenth century the mostt popular eschatological position in England was millenarianism. It was repudiated previously in the Forty-Two Articles of Religion of 1552, but reintroduced in the seventeenth century. What accounted for this reintroduction of a controversial eschatology? On the continent Johann Heinrich Alsted published his Diatribe de mille annos in 1627, and others like Carolus Gallus, Calvin’s former student, and Johannes Piscator, Alsted’s colleague in Herborn, previously had held to a millenarian position.16 Yet the revival of this position in England was not without an indigenous contributor. Joseph Mede published his Clavis Apocalyptica the same year as Alsted’s book. His interpretations would prove to have a sustained influence. Mede gained millenarian disciples in England, the continent and North America, including notable scholars like John Milton, Henry More, and Isaac Newton; and his apocalyptic conclusions would continue to be discussed well into the eighteenth century.17 Millenarian Turn: Millenarian Context of Science, Politics and Everyday Anglo-American Life in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Dordrecht, 2001); J. C. Laursen & R. H. Popkin (eds.), Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture, vol. IV: Continental Millenarians: Protestants, Catholics and Heretics (Dordrecht, 2001). 15 Gribben, The Puritan Millennium, p. 196. 16 Carolus Gallus, Clavis prophetica (Antwerp, 1592); Johannes Piscator, In Apocalypsin Johannis Commentarius (Herborn, 1613, 1621, 2nd edition); idem, Johannis Piscatoris Commentarii in omnes labores Noui Testamenti, 2 volumes, (Herborn, 1621); also see: Howard B. Hotson, Paradise Postponed: Johann Heinrich Alsted and the Birth of Calvinist Millenarianism (Dordrecht, 2000), pp. 109-115. 17 W.H. Oliver discusses eighteenth century millenarianism in: W. H. Oliver, Prophets and Millennialists: The Uses of Biblical Prophecy in England from the 1790s to the 1840s (Oxford, 1978), pp. 55-56. Also consult: Leroy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, vols. 3 & 4, (Washington D.C., 1946); James H. Moorhead, “Apocalypticism in Mainstream Protestantism, 1800 to the Present”, in Stephen

Introduction

5

The first publication of the Clavis Apocalyptica proposed Mede’s unique chronological sequence for the visions of the Apocalypse. This provided a creative “key” to unlocking the meaning of this prophetic book. The Clavis was republished in 1632 with a commentary on the text of the Apocalypse. In addition to this monograph, Mede wrote further comments in short treatises and numerous private letters. Besides these treatises and letters the only other significant study was a series of sermons on I Timothy 4 given at the university chapel, which was published posthumously in 1641. All of these works were focused primarily on apocalyptic passages in the Bible. Consequently, the person and writings of Joseph Mede provide a unique source in which to observe the emergence and influence of millenarianism in the English apocalyptic tradition. Examining Mede and his writings within the context of the seventeenth century will contribute to a more accurate picture of English millenarianism. The premature application of social scientific formulations to early modern millenarianism by scholars in the 1970s has led into a historiographical cul-de-sac, which could not account for disparate variations of millenarianism. It is important to produce a conception which Mede himself would recognize, without rashly superimposing modern or postmodern configurations.18 Additionally Mede’s writings will reveal the specific sources that contributed to a comprehensive millenarian eschatology. Furthermore Mede’s interpretations provide a good starting point for tracing the legacy of English millenarianism as it continued after his death in 1638. The indebtedness to Mede of other commentators will help to determine the nature, shape and influence of millenarianism in various contexts beyond the 1640s.

1.iii

LEADING QUESTIONS

The comparatively limited sources – outside of his apocalyptic writings - make it difficult to study extensively the political, philosophical, social and theological thought of Joseph Mede. Nevertheless it is important to place Mede and his apocalyptic writings within the context of the early seventeenth century in order to answer the most significant and fundamental question: did Mede consider millenarianism a theological and biblical motivation for radical activism resulting in revolution? In the years that Mede lived, leading up to the outbreak of war, partisan groups were divided over heated political and theological issues. Determining

J. Stein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, Volume 3: Apocalypticism in the Modern Period and the Contemporary Age (New York, 1998), pp. 72-107. 18 This is an approach that Brad Gregory advocates in his study of early modern martyrdom. Gregory argues that historians should seek to define early modern figures in such a way that they “would have recognized themselves, [and] not puzzled over modern or postmodern reconfigurations of who they were.” Brad S. Gregory, Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1999), p. 11.

6

Introduction

Mede’s attitudes and positions within such a volatile climate will shed light on how he viewed the application of millenarianism in his current environment. It is also important to ask when and why Mede became a millenarian? As previously stated, the Church of England in the sixteenth century had ruled that millenarianism was outside the bounds of orthodoxy. Yet the seventeenth century would witness the proliferation of this previously heretical doctrine from Mede onward. Dating his millenarian conversion will help to locate historically the rebirth of millenarianism and also open the possibility of identifying a pree or nonmillenarian Mede. Then it can be asked, what were the events and factors that led to the reintroduction of millenarianism in the mind of Mede? Nearly as provocative as Mede’s own eschatology is the study of his millenarian legacy that continued into the eighteenth century. While it is important to examine this legacy chronologically, especially its sustained popularity during less explosive years, it is also vital to map out Mede’s legacy geographically. What was the reception and influence of Mede beyond England and the British Isles? Issues and events on the continent and in North America sometimes paralleled but often differed from those in Britain. What form did apocalyptic thought take and to what extent did millenarianism in these foreign contexts maintain Mede’s distinct conclusions? The crucial task will be to answer these questions and produce a more accurate understanding of seventeenth-century millenarianism.

CHAPTER TWO

Biography

2.i JOSEPH MEDE: A BIOGRAPHY Lost among the catalogue of seventeenth-century English Divines is the name Joseph Mede. While current scholarship on early modern Britain continues to produce voluminous studies on more recognizable figures like John Owen or Richard Baxter, individuals like Mede have been relegated to the margins and reduced to historical anonymity. However the seventeenth century paints a different portrait of Mede and his place within the religious history of Britain.

2.ii EARLY YEARS (1586-1602) Little is written on Joseph Mede’s early years. All previous biographical summaries are based, almost entirely, on the account of his life found in the edited volumes of his works.1 This preface gives the most extensive details of Mede’s life ever published. Speculation surrounds the anonymous authors of this biography. John Worthington, the editor of Mede’s collective works, describes the first part of the biography as “written by some of great acquaintance with him, and that always had a just esteem for him.”2 Likewise the second part was sent by another, “Doctor anciently of the same University, one who frequently resorted to Mr. Mede, and thought himself richly rewarded by his discourse for every journey he made to his Chamber.”3 It is commonly assumed that Worthington himself is one of the two authors, while the identity of the other

1

“The Life of the Reverend and most Learned Joseph Mede, B. D.” and “An Appendix to the foregoing History”, in Joseph Mede, Works, pp. I-XLV. 2 “General Preface”, in Mede, Works. 3 Ibid.

7

Biography may be John Alsop.4 Drawing from this earliest biography, supplemented by additional archival sources, this biographical sketch will attempt to introduce the details and significance of the life of Joseph Mede. Joseph Mede was born in 1586 at Breden in Essex. His parents were described as individuals of “honest rank,” and distant relatives to Sir John Mede of Wendon Lofts in Essex. Sir John would later serve as a valuable patron during Mede’s career at Cambridge. Little is known of Mede’s childhood, other then the fact that at ten years of age both he and his father fell ill from smallpox. His father never recovered and his mother remarried a certain Mr. Gower from Nasing. Mede had two sisters, Rebecca and “Sister Casse.” John Alsop recorded in his account of Mede’s estate specific amounts of money left to the children of each of his two sisters.5 Mede’s education was a high priority for his parents. His stepfather sent him to school in Hoddseden, and then to Wethersfield f in Essex. A popular story was told about Mede that during his early school days he purchased a copy of Robert Bellarmine’s Hebrew grammar and proceeded to teach himself the rudimentary principles of that ancient language, spurning the discouragement of his teacher.6 In Wethersfield it was likely that he studied under the puritan non-conformist Richard Rogers.7 Rogers was appointed lecturer in Wethersfield in 1573 and was an active supporter for non-conformity during the Elizabethan reforms.8 He objected to Bishop Whitgift’s Three Articles, and in 1588 he was involved in the signing of a proto-congregationalist covenant (with h twenty others) in Wethersfield.9 The covenant effectively established an independent gathering “for the continuance of love and for the edifying one of another, after some bodily repast and refreshing.”10 From Rogers, at an early age, Mede mustt have gained first-hand knowledge of the conflicts and tensions brewing in the Church of England, particularly from the puritan vantage point. This partially explains why Mede was so reluctant to engage 4

Alsop was a former student and close friend. He was named the executor of Mede’s will and preached the sermon at Mede’s funeral. 5 Mede’s will is found in Christ’s College Archives, Box M72 (F). The children of Rebecca were Joseph, Rebecca, Samuel and Sarah; the children of his other sister were Joseph, Elizabeth, Anna, Mary, Rebecca and Henry. Mede bequeathed £40 to each of his two godsons (the two Josephs), and £20 to each of the other nephews and nieces. CCA, Box M72 (G) folio 1r; David Cockburn, A critical edition of the letters of the Reverend Joseph Mead, 1626-1627, contained in the British Library Harleain MS.390 (University of Cambridge, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1994), p. 29. 6 Mede, Works, I. 7 John Peile, Biographical Register of Christ’s College e 1505-1905 and of the earlier foundation, God’s House 1448-1505, Vol. I, 1448-1665 (Cambridge, 1910), p. 245. 8 “Rogers, Richard”, DNB, vol. XVII, p. 138. 9 Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movementt (Oxford, 1967, reprinted 1998), pp. 264, 382; idem, The Religion of Protestants, pp. 269-271. 10 Richard Rogers, Seaven Treatises, p. 497; Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement, p. 382.

Biography

9

in the political debates of his own generation. Due to his outspokenness, Rogers was twice suspended from his ministerial duties, the last time in 1607, prior to Mede completing his studies in Wethersfield.11 Another possible influence on Mede was Rogers’ theological emphasis on practical Christian conduct. In 1603 Rogers’ publishedd Seaven Treatises containing such directions as is gathered out of the Holie Scriptures.12 The intention of this book was to set forth a practical divinity to instruct Christians in their daily lives. In the preface Rogers reveals his intention, that the Christian man, and he who is faithfull indeede, may so carrie himselfe in his course, as he may have no thought or purpose to revolt and turne from this hope which is set before him, but be perswaded that he is infinitly incouraged, to hold out constantly therein, against all that might come in his way contrarie.13 His emphasis was not on precise doctrine, although Rogers did not neglect that aspect, but on practical living. Likewise for Mede, in his own life and his wider theology, the priority of godly living often eclipsed the substantive doctrines being debated in the seventeenth century.14

2.iii UNIVERSITY YEARS (1602-1610) In 1602 Mede enrolled at Richard Rogers’ alma mater, Christ’s College at the University of Cambridge. This was an obvious choice in many ways. Samuel Ward, Rogers’ stepson, had also attended Christ’s from 1588 to 1596, and would later serve as Master of the new Sidney Sussex College.15 Still more significantly, Daniel Rogers, Richard’s eldest son, was a fellow at Christ’s and assigned to be Mede’s tutor. Cambridge in the early 1600s was a citadel of puritanism. Mede enrolled the year of William Perkins’ death, nevertheless Perkin’s tremendous influence continued at Christ’s and throughout the

11

“Rogers”, DNB, vol. XVII, pp. 137-138. The full title is, Seaven Treatises containing such directions as is gathered out of the Holie Scriptures, leading and guiding to true happiness, both in this life, and in the life to come: and may be called the practice of christianite (London, 1603). 13 Rogers, Seaven Treatises, Preface, A6. 14 It is not inconceivable that Mede was aware of Rogers’ book. The Seaven Treatises were republished four times in 1604, 1605, 1612 and 1620. In addition an abridgment was also published in 1618 which also saw four republications in 1619, 1623, 1624 and 1635. STC, p. 284. 15 Collinson, The Religion of the Protestants, p. 175; “Ward, Samuel”, DNB, vol. XX, p. 792. 12

Biography University.16 At Christ’s, Mede was exposed to such notable puritan scholars as William Ames and Thomas Bainbridge.17 The younger Rogers bore a number of similarities to his father, especially a staunch commitment to defending the puritan cause.18 Daniel was considered suspect under the Laudian regime for condemning Arminianism along with practices within the Church of England that resembled popish ceremonies.19 After only three years as Mede’s tutor he left Cambridge to serve as the minister at Haversham a in Buckinghamshire; after some time in Haversham he moved back home to Wethersfield to follow in his father’s footsteps as lecturer.20 Daniel Roger’s theological sympathies had little formative influence on Mede, except to distinguish a brand of radical puritanism that Mede rejected. In many ways Mede’s early education - steeped in puritanism - would prove invaluable for navigating the treacherous theological waters of seventeenth-century England. Following Daniel Rogers’ departure, William Addison replaced him as Mede’s tutor. Mede found Addison’s ecclesiastical position much more congenial to that of his previous tutor. Addison was sympathetic towards continual reforms, without however advocating any radical changes. Throughout his career Addison remained a loyal cleric within the Church of England, being appointed rector of Brampton St. Mary, Northamptonshire, and later rector of Whitfield in Northumberland.21 The closeness between Addison and Mede was evident in 1610 when Addison was appointed as a Junior Proctor. It was the tradition that all new Junior Proctors participate in a scholastic disputation. Addison asked Mede to serve as moderator of his disputation.22 Undergraduate education at Cambridge in the early seventeenth century began with a broad foundation. Aspects of humanism and scholasticism formed the core curriculum.23 Logic, rhetoric, ethics, metaphysics, physics, mathematics, 16 Paul R. Schaefer, Jr., The Spiritual Brotherhood on the Habits of the Heart: Cambridge Protestants and the Doctrine of Sanctification: From William Perkins to Thomas Shepherd (University of Oxford, DPhil. Dissertation, 1994). 17 William Ames was a fellow at Christ’s from 1601-1610, and Thomas Bainbridge was a fellow from 1599 to 1622, and then as the Master from 1622-1646. John Peile, A History of Christ’s College (Cambridge, 1910), pp. 207, 211. 18 “Rogers, Daniel”, DNB, vol. XVII, pp. 117-118. 19 Benjamin Brooks, The Lives of the Puritans, vol. 3 (London, 1813; republished Morgan, PA, 1996), pp. 149-150. 20 Ibid. 149. 21 Peile, Biographical Register, p. 225. 22 Peile records that Mede moderated at Addison’s “Disses.” Peile, Biographical Register, p. 225. It is likely that this was an abbreviation for the dismissal address given by the moderator to conclude a disputation. William T. Costello, The Scholastic Curriculum at Early SeventeenthCentury Cambridge (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 24. 23 Undergraduate education still included the Scholastic lecture, disputations and declamations, along with Humanist elements like the study off classical texts and languages. John Morgan, Godly

Biography 11 and cosmography were all required subjects.24 Mastery of this material provided the foundation for advanced studies in medicine, law, music or theology. For those, like Mede, who continued in theology, additional study in near-eastern biblical languages proved to be an invaluable asset. Under Addison’s tutelage Mede distinguished himself, and in 1610 he received his Master of Arts degree. Such early recognition marked the beginning of Mede’s academic career.

2.iv FELLOW AT CHRIST’S COLLEGE (1610-1638) The events that surrounded Mede’s election to Fellow at Christ’s were indicative of the political and ecclesiastical debates that entangled the early Stuart Church. The first attempt to elect Mede to the King Edward fellowship was unsuccessful because the Master of Christ’s College, Valentine Cary, suspected that Mede “looked too much towards Geneva” – an unsubstantiated accusation that Mede supported the puritan agenda.25 Cary perceived that Mede was sympathetic toward the faction within Christ’s that had opposed his own election to Master in 1609.26 This group included Mede’s former tutors Rogers and Addison.27 Consequently, support from outside the University was needed to secure Mede’s election; so Lancelot Andrewes (then Bishop of Ely and later Bishop of Winchester) intervened on Mede’s behalf. Additionally it has been suggested that Sir Martin Stuteville, with whom Mede would have regular correspondence, also aided during the election.28 Finally in 1613 Mede’s election was completed and he began fulfilling his duties as a fellow and tutor. Shortly after his election, Mede was made Reader of the Greek Lecture of Sir Walter Mildmay’s foundation. He devoutly performed his duties as a tutor Learning: Puritan Attitudes towards Reason, Learning, and Education, 1560-1640. (Cambridge, 1986), p. 228; more specifics on scholasticism in Cambridge can be found in, Costello, The Scholastic Curriculum, pp. 7-35. 24 Ibid. 36-106. 25 Ibid. XXXVI. 26 More details about Cary’s election can be found in, Stephen A. Bondos-Greene, “The End of an Era: Cambridge Puritanism and the Christ’s College Election of 1609”, The Historical Journal, 25, I (1982), pp. 197-208. 27 Ibid. 28 Cockburn identified the close tie between Cary and Stuteville; Cary was the godfather of one of Stuteville’s daughters, and included Stuteville in his will. Cockburn, A Critical Edition, p. 31. Also see Peile, Biographical Register, pp. 245-26; J. B. Mullinger, The University of Cambridge, Volume III: From the Election of Buckingham to the Chancellorship in 1626 to the Decline of the Platonist Movementt (Cambridge, 1911), pp. 17-18. Likewise Stuteville became so impressed with Mede that he sent his two sons to Christ’s, along with his brother-in-law’s son, Justinan Isham, and three other relatives. Piele, Biographical Register, i. 387; Sir G. Isham (ed.), The correspondences of Bishop Brian Duppa and Sir Justinian Isham 1650-1660 (Lamport, Northants., 1954), pp. xxxiii-iv; Cockburn, A Critical Edition, pp. 32-33.

Biography with both academic rigor and pastoral compassion. Mede conducted individual lectures which he tailored to the specific needs of each student.29 The basic Cambridge University core curriculum that Mede had completed in his own student days was covered. Mede incorporated r the latest pedagogical resources including the innovative works of Bartholomew Keckermann and Johann Heinrich Alsted.30 Emphasis was placed on the study of philosophy, theology and the classical languages of Greek and Latin.31 While the standards of academic excellence were high, Mede never disregarded lessons in practical divinity for his students. In the course of their studies, Mede emphasized three maxims for scholarship: first, obtain an understanding of the universal Christian truths; r second, in all things demonstrate charity; and finally, third, in presenting one’s position, always proceed “Socratically,” or by building a mountain of postulations – one on top of the other.32 Here Mede sought to combine the best of scholarly pursuits with an impeccable Christian attitude. Such attention and concern would attract a variety of students who studied at Christ’s College in the early seventeenth century, includingg such prominent figures as Henry More, Thomas Goodwin and John Milton.33

2.v THE SCHOLAR The corpus of Mede’s writings can be divided into three sections. The first were fifty-three short discourses preached in Cambridge.34 These covered a variety of topics and give added insight to Mede’s theology beyond the other two more 29

John Morgan commented that Mede recognized a division in his students between those pursuing secular versus ministerial careers. He would begin all students with the same academic foundation, but would later focus on specific disciplines depending upon the student. The foundation was logic, religion, and the classical languages – Latin and Greek. Books on these topics were the most frequently purchased for his students. John Morgan, Godly Learning, p. 283. Mede’s book purchases for his students can be found in the Account Books of Joseph Mead d in Christ’s College Library. 30 Mede’s account books included repeated purchases of Keckermann’s Systema Logicae (Hanover, 1600), Systema S.S. Theologiae (Hanover, 1602), and Systema Physicum…(Hanover, 1610), along with Alsted’s Encyclopedia septem tomis distincta…(Herborn, 1630), The Account Books of Joseph Mead, (CCL). More on Keckermann and Alsted can be found in Howard B. Hotson, “Philosophical pedagogy in reformed central Europe between Ramus and Comenius: a survey of the continental background of the ‘Three Foreigners’”, in M. Greengass, M. Leslie & T. Raylor (eds.), Samuel Hartlib & Universal Reformation (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 29-50; idem, Johann Heinrich Alsted, 1588-1638: Between Renaissance, Reformation and Universal Reform (Oxford, 2000). 31 Refer to fn. 30. 32 Mede, Works, p. XXXIX. 33 While Mede did not serve as a tutor to these three, they all acknowledge his influence upon them. 34 Mede, Works, pp. 1-311.

Biography 13 focused sections. The range of topics included everything from the details of soteriology to the proper date of Christ’s birth. While Mede was primarily recognized for his other writings, these discourses display the breadth and depth of his scholarly interests. The second section contained Mede’s works on ecclesiology and Christian worship.35 His first significant piece in this section was a Latin tract entitled De Sanctitate Relativa addressed to Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, in which he discussed the necessity of revering the sacred.36 It was the reputation of this tract that most likely convinced Andrewes to support Mede’s election to Fellow at Christ’s College.37 Following this first tract, Mede continued to deal with the question of the “sacred,” particularly as it was applied to Christian worship. In three other treatises entitled, The Reverence of God’s House, The Christian Sacrifice and The Name Θγειαετηριον or Altare anciently given to the Holy Table, Mede applied the same principles in order to demonstrate that the worship practices within the Church of England had biblical warrant. Additionally Mede wrote another treatise entitled, Churches, that is, Appropriate Places for Christian Worship, Both in, and ever since, the Apostles Times. Here Mede attempted to demonstrate historically that arbitrary private meetings for the purpose of worship never had been the practice of the early church. This was a deliberate attempt to oppose those puritan separatists who were beginning to espouse a congregational ecclesiastic polity. The preface of Mede’s collective works states that the treatises and tracts found in this section were his “eldest thoughts and studies.”38 They were probably written sometime in the mid-1630s, with The Name …Altare published in 1637, and The Reverence of God’s House, along with Churches…the Appropriate Places for Christian Worship published in 1638, just before Mede’s death. Mede dedicated these books to Archbishop William Laud and John Cosin, procuring their guarded favor during some of the most difficult times for the Church of England. It was no coincidence that these three were published during the height of the debate over practices in worship within the Church of England, just four short years before these mounting tensions would push the country into civil war. The last section of Mede’s writings was the most influential and universally respected. The skill and learning displayed in his apocalyptic writings set him apart from other biblical commentators of his day. The words of William Twisse, 35

Ibid, pp. 319-408. Unfortunately this was not published during the time of Mede’s election; had it been, it would have probably given Mede enough recognition to surpass the politics of Christ’s. Mede, Works, p. III. De Sanctitate Relativa was later included in his collective works under the title Concio ad Clerum, De Sanctuario Dei, seu De Sanctiate Relativa. Mede, Works, pp. 398-408. 37 Mullinger also states that it was because of this tract that Andrewes offered Mede a position as his household chaplain. Mullinger, The University of Cambridge, p. 17. 38 Mede, Works, General Preface, p. ix. 36

Biography first prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly and close friend to Mede, are often quoted to demonstrate Mede’s uniqueness: “Master Mede hath many notions of so rare a nature, that I do not finde he is beholding to any other for them, but onely to his owne studiousnesse and dexteritie, with the blessing of God upon his labours.”39 The most famous of his apocalyptic writings was the work entitled the Clavis Apocalyptica, first published in 1627. This was not a full commentary on the Apocalypse, but an outline of his method, the use of synchronisms, which served as Mede’s key to unlocking the mysteries of this book. The Clavis Apocalyptica was republished in 1632, this time accompanied by a full commentary. This book was circulated throughout Britain, continental Europe and North America, gaining Mede international interest and appreciation for his exegetical conclusions. The Clavis Apocalyptica was not his only apocalyptic work, but from 1632 until his death Mede was unable to publish any other books related to this topic due to a ban issued by Archbishop Laud. The Archbishop would not permit the publication of any book identifying Rome or the Papacy as the Antichrist - a key interpretation for any Protestant apocalyptic commentator.40 Consequently none of Mede’s other works were published during his lifetime. Instead his Apostasy of the Latter Times was published in 1641, A Paraphrase and Exposition of the Prophesies of Saint Peterr in 1642, and Daniel’s Weekes in 1643. Along with these added titles, in 1643 the Clavis Apocalyptica was again republished, but this time translated into English with the endorsement of the Long Parliament. Beyond the works already mentioned, Mede wrote a few other short treatises which were collected and published by Worthington in his collective works.41

2.vi CORRESPONDENCE One final point should be added in regard to Mede’s life. Book IV of his collected works contains ninety-eight letters of correspondence between Mede and significant political and ecclesiastical figures in Britain and continental Europe.42 This network of communication reflects the broad interest of intellectuals during the early modern period. Most of these letters are filled with inquiries regarding Mede’s apocalyptic interpretations, specifically his method and its application to events on the continent, in England, and in North America. 39

“A Preface written by Doctor Twisse, shewing the Methode and Excellency of Mr Medes interpretation of this Mysterious book of the Revelation of Saint John”, in Joseph Mede, The Key of the Revelation, A4. 40 All such works were banned between 1633-1640. Anthony Milton, n Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600-1640 (Cambridge, 1995), p. 120. 41 Mede, Works, pp. 419-724. 42 These are letters written by and to Mede. Mede, Works, Book IV, pp. 731-883.

Biography 15 Mede’s correspondence demonstrates two specific points. First, these letters help to solidify Mede’s reputation as an expert on the Apocalypse during the seventeenth century. His letters are filled with queries from theologians not only in England, but also Ireland, the Dutch Republic, and France.43 Most were seeking further elaboration on some of Mede’s specific interpretative conclusions, while others were interested in circulating more copies of the Clavis Apocalyptica; Paul Testard even wrote to communicate that he had translated it into French.44 Likewise, biblical scholars who were less convinced by Mede’s exegetical conclusions wrote to him as well. The need to respond to Mede’s writings is telling in and of itself. Mede’s re-introduction of millenarianism was stimulating theological thought. Due to his growing popularity, those who disagreed obviously felt it was necessary to respond to Mede. Second, Mede’s correspondence provides additional evidence for examining the extent of intellectual exchange during the early seventeenth century. Networks were established beyond simply the British Isles. Theological thought was not confined to one’s particular country, but was communicated across Europe and to North America. Scholars regularly discussed each other’s work through personal correspondence and printed replies. The cross-fertilization of thought created an academic community, which openly engaged with and often times debated the latest scholarly works.45 Furthermore an additional body of Mede’s letters should be mentioned in regard to networks. From 1619 to 1631 Mede wrote weekly to his close friend Sir Martin Stuteville in Dalham.46 These letters contained transcriptions of news tracts from London, as well as Mede’s own comments regarding current events in Cambridge, London and the continent. Mede’s letters to Stuteville provide a fascinating look at how news was received and disseminated in the early modern period. Battles during the Thirty Years War, gossip about political affairs in London, and updates from the University were all reported meticulously. Clearly Mede had a great interest in and concern for the world around him.

43 There are letters from Bishop James Ussher in Ireland, Ludovicus De Dieu in the Netherlands, and Paul Testard in France. Mede, Works, pp. 732-733; 792-793. 44 Ibid. 792-793. 45 Recent studies have begun to demonstrate the extent of interchange between Britain and the continent. See: Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Cumbria, 1998); Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford, 2003). 46 These letters are found in the British Library, Harleian Manuscripts 389, 390. Edited editions of the letters are: Daphne M. Wedgbury, An edition of the letters (1621-1625) of the Reverend Joseph Mead to Sir Martin Stuteville of Suffolk in BL MS Harleain 389 (University of Leicester, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1991); David Cockburn, A Critical Edition.

Biography

2.vii CONCLUSION The actual events of Joseph Mede’s life were not exciting. Most of it was lived in relative isolation in Christ’s College. However, from the simple chambers of his study in Cambridge flowed forth a fount of learning that contributed to the development of certain aspects of theology and biblical exegesis for at least the next century. Students attending Cambridge, fellow English divines, and foreign scholars who came into contact with Mede were all exposed to his scholarly pursuits. The remainder of Mede’s life was spent as a scholar and teacher at Christ’s. He refused all appointments that would have brought greater prestige and prominence. Twice Archbishop James Ussher of Armaugh invited Mede to accept the provostship of Trinity College in Dublin, but he politely declined both times. Likewise it seemed that Mede, in his later days, was even offered a position as Archbishop Laud’s household chaplain.47 Again Mede declined, preferring the quieter life behind the walls of his study. On 1 October of 1638, at the age of fifty-two, Mede fell seriously ill and died. Many friends and admirers lamented Mede’s death.48 The executor of his will, and his colleague, John Alsop, preached a fitting funeral sermon from Genesis 5:24, “And Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.”

47

Northants. Record Office, Isham Correspondence MS 221; as found in Anthony Milton, The Laudians and the Church of Rome c.1625-1640 0 (Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge University, 1989), p. 29. 48 In a letter to Samuel Hartlib dated 29 October 1639, E. Ironside wrote, “I am sorry for the death of Mr. Mede, learning sufferes in the loss of such men.” HP 44/6/1A-2B.

CHAPTER THREE

Crypto-Papists, Anti-Calvinists and the Antichrist

3.i MILLENARIANISM AND THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION The biography of Joseph Mede concludes with a most telling statement: We will onely observe one thing more concerning the Time of his Death, That he was taken away from the Evils that were ready to come upon this Island: a Favour which God vouchsafes to many of the righteous.1 On the second of October 1638, the inconspicuous Cambridge biblical scholar was laid to rest in the inner chapel of Christ’s College. As if scripted by a master playwright, Mede exits the scene2 just before what Christopher Hill describes as “the greatest upheaval that has yet occurred in Britain.”3 From 1638 to 1660 England would experience widespread ecclesiastical, political and social unrest. The Church of England would be torn apart by embittered factions insisting on more thorough reforms, while Parliament itself would repudiate the divine right of the monarch plunging the nation into civil war. Mede’s biographer alluded to his timely passing as a blessing which prevented him from experiencing the coming years of strife and despair. Yet from another perspective he was spared from witnessing the rampant exploitation of his own apocalyptic writings during those tumultuous years. Many radical factions would rely on Mede’s millenarianism as a religious and rational justification for drastic ecclesiastical

1

Mede, Works, “Authour’s Life”, p. XXXIV. At Mede’s funeral, John Alsop preached from the text of Genesis 5:24; the account of the Old Testament saint Enoch who was spared from experiencing death because God translated him directly to heaven. Mede, Works, “Authour’s Life”, p. XXXIV. 3 Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down (London, 1972), p. 13. 2

19

20 Crypto-Papists, Anti-Calvinists and the Antichrist

and political activism during the years of the Civil Wars and through the Interregnum period.4 Observing the use of Mede’s apocalyptic writings during the 1640s, previous generations of British scholars confidently affirmed the association of millenarianism with a radical agenda. Tai Liu argued that from 1643-1649, as a result of millenarian implications regarding the role of the church in the imminent millennial kingdom, opposing parties at the Westminster Assembly were divided over the issue of ecclesiastical polity.5 Both Bernard Capp and William Lamont asserted that the ranks of the military were infected with a sense of triumphant expectation. Factions in Cromwell’s New Model Army and members of the Fifth Monarchists attempted to usher in the millennium through their own violent efforts.6 Even more Hugh Trevor-Roper identified the political agenda of John Dury and Samuel Hartlib, who believed that the reunification of the Protestant church would mark an eschatological event, inaugurating a millennial Eden.7 Finally, again illustrating the exploitation of Mede’s writings, Hill pointed out that in 1643, Parliament authorized the publication of the first English translation of Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptica;8 a possible political ploy to infuse an apocalyptic urgency in support of the Parliamentarian cause against the King. All of these studies presented a historical account of millenarianism inextricably associated with the radical intentions of certain seventeenth-century Englishmen. From these studies a consensus definition of millenarianism has emerged which assumes that radicalism is an essential and necessary component of a millenarian eschatology. While some of the inheritors of Mede’s eschatology did indeed wed his millenarianism to the extreme ecclesiastical and political agendas of the day, did that properly define all millenarians as radical activists? If not, what was the relation between millenarianism and activism?9 Likewise, and most important, did Mede himself conform to this radical paradigm? Would he have approved of 4

See Christianson, Reformers and Babylon; Capp, The Fifth Monarch Men; Christopher Hill, Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in Interpretation of the English Revolution of the 17th Century (New York, 1997); William Lamont, Godly Rule: Politics and Religion 1603-1660 (London, 1969); Tai Liu, Discord in Zion: The Puritan Divines and the Puritan Revolution 1640-1660 (The Hague, 1973); J. F. Macgregor and B. Reay (eds.), Radical Religion in the English Revolution (Oxford, 1984). 5 Liu, Discord in Zion, pp. 29-56. 6 Capp, The Fifth Monarchy Men, pp.99-130; Lamont, Godly Rule, pp. 137-162. 7 Hugh Trevor-Roper, Religion, the Reformation and Social Change (London, 1967), pp. 237-293. 8 Christopher Hill, Antichrist in Seventeenth-Century England d (Oxford, 1971), pp. 27-28; The Clavis Apocalyptica was first published anonymously by Mede in 1627, republished in 1632 and translated as: Joseph Mede, The Key of the Revelation, trans. by Richard More (London, 1643). 9 See Bernard Capp, “The political dimension of apocalyptic thought”, in C.A. Patrides and J. Wittreich (eds.), The Apocalypse in English Renaissance thought and literature, pp. 93-124.


21

the application of his millenarianism during the revolutionary environment of mid-seventeenth century England? The answer to these questions can only be found by examining Mede within the political and ecclesiastical context of early seventeenth-century England. Mede, of course, formulated his millenarianism during the volatile period that would erupt in civil war after his death. Within this period a number of issues sparked dissent and belligerence. By carefully determining Mede’s position on three issues which were crucial during the early Stuart period, Mede’s political and ecclesiastical sympathies can be revealed, and ultimately conclusions can then be drawn as to whether he did or did not intend to promote a radical agenda through his millenarianism. Within the corpus of Mede’s published works his millenarian writings have received far more attention; however, a careful examination of Mede’s non-apocalyptic writings reveals a startlingly different portrait of the “Father of British Millenarianism.” By specifically focusing on four of Mede’s brief treatises on the church: The Reverence of God’s House, The Christian Sacrifice, The Name Thysiasterion or Altare anciently given to the Holy Tablee and Churches, that is, Appropriate Places for Christian Worship, along with other small treatises and correspondences commenting on his contemporary political climate,10 a reexamination of the association between millenarianism and radicalism within the context of antebellum England can be accomplished. Subsequently, n this thorough examination of the patriarch of English millenarianism will refine our conception of the relationship between millenarianism and radical activism, and ultimately contribute to a more accurate definition of seventeenth-century English millenarianism.

3.ii CRYPTO-PAPISTS During the seventeenth century conflict between partisan groups within the church in England mirrored the battlefields where the Parliamentary Army engaged the royalist troops of Charles I. Rejecting the traditionally “halfly reformed” settlement instituted during the Elizabethan period, demands increased within the Church for a proper form of worship consistent with the best Reformed models on the continent. Puritan activists demanded an end to the Laudian statutes which too closely resembled vestiges of popery. These ecclesiastical radicals saw extravagant forms of external worship as idolatrous and inconsistent with the regulative principle of worship set forth in Scripture. 10

Joseph Mede, The Reverence of Gods house a sermon preached at St. Maries in Cambridge before the universitie on St. Matthies [sic] day anno 1635/6 6 (London, 1638); The Name Thysiasterion, or altare anciently given to the holy table a common-place…(London, 1648); The Christian Sacrifice, in Mede, Works, pp.355-379; Churches, that is, appropriate places for Christian worship both in and ever since the Apostles times…(London, 1638); These can be found along with Mede’s correspondence in his collective works.


Contrary to these radical puritans, the central principle for Mede’s position on worship included the necessity of outward forms. While many of the more zealous puritans argued that the character of New Testament worship should be spiritual and internal, Mede thought otherwise: the assertion “that the worship of the Gospel should be onely spiritual, and no external worship required therein… is repugnant not onely to the practice and experience of the Christian Religion in all Ages, but also to the express Ordinances of the Gospel itself.”11 In the treatise, The Reverence of God’s House, Mede defended the traditional practice of the genuflexio versus altare, or bending the knee towards the altar. Mede argued from examples in the Decalogue and even considered the neglect of this practice to be a sin: That although Bodily worship, being considered in it self, be one of the minor Legis [minor laws], of the lesser things of the Law, and the honour done unto God thereby of no great value (though not of none) in his sight; yet may a voluntary and presumptuous neglect even of so small a duty be a great and hainous sin, because such a neglect proceeds from a prophane disposition and election of the heart.12 For Mede, the glorification of God in worship must be done with the body as well as the heart. He deduced that if the mouth was employed for singing during worship, other parts of the body could be used similarly.13 Moreover Mede made a precise distinction, in a letter to William Twisse, between an image and a place. For Mede, to worship an image was idolatrous, “for God is a jealous God, and cannot endure that the worship we give to him should look towards anything as an Object but Himself.”14 He then explained that it would be absurd to disallow worshipping towards a place, for then, we must not look toward any created things when we pray, not to Heaven, not turn our selves towards the Table where God’s blessings are when we say Grace,…not lawful to invocate God in his Temple, not lawful to pray unto him with a Book, not use the Communion Table as a place to give praise and thanks unto his Name.15 It is evident from this treatise that Mede did not conform to the radical changes demanded by the puritans, but instead upheld the established practices of the Laudian Episcopals. 11

Mede, Works, p. 47. Ibid. 350. 13 Ibid. 396. 14 Ibid. 818. 15 Ibid. 818. 12


23

Following his defense of the practice of genuflexion, Mede’s next two works defended the legitimate use of the words “altar” and “sacrifice” to describe the communion table and the Eucharist. In the minds of seventeenth-century Protestants, any reference to the table as an “altar” invoked images of the superstitious mass and the infamous doctrine of transubstantiation. For the Romanists, the table was where the miracle of transubstantiation transforms the consecrated bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ. Because of the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the mass can be described as a re-sacrificing of Christ and the table can properly be called an altar. While most Protestants strictly denied the doctrine of transubstantiation, referring to the Eucharist as a sacrifice and the table as an altar was acceptable in the Church of England under the tenure of Archbishop Laud.16 Radical puritans considered Laudians crypto-papists, and while Mede’s position was consistent with the Laudians, in order to avoid such accusations it was necessary for him to distinguish himself clearly from the Romanists.17 In the treatise The Christian Sacrifice, Mede stated that the sacrament of communion served as a commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross: “what time then so fit and reasonable to commend our devotion unto God, as when the Lamb of God lies slain upon the holy Table; and we receive visibly, though mystically, those gracious pledges of his blessed Body and Blood.”18 Prudently Mede distinguished his position from the Roman Catholics: It is one thing to say, That the Lord’s Supper is a Sacrifice, and another to say That Christ is properly sacrificed f therein. These are not the same: For there may be a Sacrifice which is a representation of another Sacrifice, and yet a Sacrifice too. And such a Sacrifice is this of the New Testament, a Sacrifice wherein another Sacrifice, that of Christ’s death upon the cross, is commemorated.19 This subtle distinction justified, for Mede, the use of the word sacrifice to describe the Lord’s Supper, and conveniently allowed him to deflect any accusations of popery. Furthermore in his treatise The Name Altar Anciently Given to the Holy Table, he illustrated from the annals of church history that the Communion Table previously had been referred to as an altar. Mede made great use of patristic sources, claiming that Tertullian, Cyprian and Eusebius supported this position.20 According to Mede, the historical precedent for the legitimate use of the term 16

Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp. 196-205. Ibid. 119. 18 Mede, Works, p. 357. 19 Ibid. 369. 20 Ibid. 384-385. 17


altar must not be overlooked. In these short treatises Mede again disassociated himself from radical ecclesiastical groups, who insisted on drastic changes in the forms of worship within the English Church. Debates over particular practices in the Church of England were not the only points of contention. In 1643 the task assigned by Parliament to the Assembly of Divines gathered at Westminster Abbey was to complete a thorough Reformation of the Church of England.21 Puritan activists saw this as an ideal opportunity to lobby for a radical restructuring of the Church. The issue at the Assembly that sparked the most passionate debates was the question of ecclesiastical polity. The Assembly was split between Presbyterians and Independents, who agreed on rejecting the former Episcopal polity butt were unable to reconcile their own differences. In a wider context, Parliament was facing the stark reality that to continue a war against the monarchy would be futile without external financial and military support. Following the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant with Scotland, Parliament assured their new allies that the Church of England would align more closely with the Presbyterianism of the Scottish Church in exchange for aid against Charles I.22 Consequently, attempts to reform the ecclesiastical polity of the Church were burdened by multiple radical intentions. As if it were a prelude to these ecclesiastical divisions, Mede published his brief work: Churches, that is, the Appropriate Place for Christian Worship in 1638. In this treatise he opposed the congregational form of church government supported by the Independents at the Westminster Assembly. Some scholars have tried to trace the ties between the Independents and millenarian doctrines. Tai Liu claimed that, “Independency as church form was not just a principle of religious toleration or liberty but an application in church polity of the millenarian perceptions of the Independent divines in regard to the nature of the Kingdom of Christ in the coming millennium.”23 Millenarianism was seen as the theological grounds for congregationalism. Yet Mede, whom the Independents regarded as an authority on millenarianism, produced a treatise discrediting congregationalism. At the Assembly, the Independents attempted to buttress their position by appealing to the pattern set by the first-century church.24 From the biblical account in the Acts of the Apostles, they were persuaded that the early church was scattered and met in multiple independent locations. This justified 21

See Robert Paul, The Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the ‘Grand Debate’ (Edinburgh, 1985). 22 Paul, The Assembly of the Lord, pp. 68-69. 23 Liu, Discord in Zion, p. 8. 24 The Independents’ position was published in Daniel Cawdry, Vindiciae Clavium (London, 1648); Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, William Bridge, Sidrach Simpson, Jeremiah Burroughs, An Apologeticall Narration (1644); with responses from Answer of the Assembly of Divines (London, 1648); Robert Baillie, A Dissuave from the errours of the time wherein the tenets of the principall sects, especially the Independents are drawn togetherr (London, 1645).


25

the Independents’ claim that the local churches were independent of each other and given the authority to rule autonomously. Mede objected to this depiction of the early church as an unorganised conglomeration: It is taken in a manner for granted by most of our Reformed Writers, … That in the Apostles times, and the Ages next after them… Christians had no Oratories or Places set apart for Divine worship; but that they assembled here and there promiscuously and uncertainly, as they pleased, or the occasioned [sic] served, in places of common use, and not otherwise. But this is an errour, I intend to demonstrate by good evidence.25 Meticulously Mede reviewed the history of the early church, from the first through the third century, in order to prove that congregations were organized and did meet in officially sanctioned venues for worship. As a result he was convinced that the early church was not comprised of scattered, independent and autonomous congregations. On the other hand, Mede equally did not support the Presbyterians, since he maintained, in a short discourse on I Corinthians 4:1, the precedent for governing bishops. The bishop is the Inspector totius Cleri or examiner of all the clergy, who individually rules and holds jurisdiction over a number of presbyters.26 The bishops are “to be Heads, Chiefs, and Presidents of their Brethren.”27 Mede was no convert to either Congregationalism or Presbyterianism. Within the context off this highly charged debate, Mede’s conclusion did not support either of the two radical options, but instead he remained loyal to an Episcopal polity. 3.iii ANTI-CALVINISTS In addition to the issues of polity, doctrinal debates were another point of disagreement within the Church of England. In 1973 Nicholas Tyacke published a ground-breaking article entitled, “Puritanism, Arminianism and CounterRevolution.”28 Previous interpretations of Elizabethan and early Stuart England depicted an escalating conflict between the established Anglican order and radical puritan sectarians. As Margo Todd states, “Tyacke turned this model on its head and set the agenda for historical debate on early Stuart religion for the k Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of next two decades.”29 In this article and his book 25

Mede, Works, p. 319. Ibid. 26. 27 Ibid. 26. 28 Nicholas Tyacke, “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution”, in C. Russell, The Origins of the English Civil Warr (London, 1973), pp. 19-143. 29 Todd, Reformation to Revolution, p. 53. 26


English Arminianism, c.1590-1640,30 Tyacke argues for a consensus between bishops and puritans over a Calvinistic interpretation of the doctrine of grace. According to Tyacke, therefore, it is not until the ascendance in 1633 of Archbishop Laud and his supporters, who advocated an Arminian understanding of predestination that conflict erupted. Tyacke’s research opened the door for new perspectives regarding the religious causes of the English Civil Wars. While his work is considered significant, Tyacke’s revisions have nott gone unchallenged. Both Peter White and Kevin Sharpe have contested d his conclusions repeatedly.31 The Laudian camp, in their interpretation, advocated more moderate views which did not necessarily support Arminianism; the Laudians never intended to oppose the Calvinists, but sincerely desired to preserve unity within the Church by suppressing doctrinal debates over issues which they considered non-essential. However in their attempts to refute Tyacke’s rigid distinction between Arminians and Calvinists, White and Sharpe often revert to the previous paradigm of Anglicans versus puritans.32 Still other scholars, like Peter Lake and Hugh Trevor-Roper, have attempted to locate some middle ground between the extreme positions of Tyacke, White and Sharpe.33 More recent studies have introduced new approaches to understanding the theological and resulting political conflicts of the Stuart period. Anthony Milton in his book, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought 1600-1640, offers another alternative to the rigid polarization of partisan groups as a result of a single doctrinal issue. Milton’s intention is to avoid the by now traditional Arminian/Calvinist divide, and to look behind the polemical categories through which modes of controversial discourse operated during this period. Instead to present a broad spectrum of views running from crypto-popish ‘Arminian’ zealots on the one hand, through to die-hard puritan nonconformists on the other.34 Milton’s approach, which incorporates a “broad spectrum of views,” allows for a more accurate examination of the nexus of theological and political thought 30

See fn. 7. White, Predestination, Policy and Polemics; idem, “The Via Media in the Early Stuart Church”, in Todd, Reformation to Revolution, pp. 78-96; Sharpe, The Personal Rule; idem, “Archbishop Laud”, in Todd, Reformation to Revolution, pp. 71-77. 32 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p. 4, 8n. 33 Peter Lake, Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hookerr (London, 1988); idem, “Calvinism and the English Church”, in Todd, Reformation and Revolution, pp. 179-207; Hugh Trevor-Roper, Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans Seventeenth Century Essays (London, 1987). 34 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p. 5 31


27

preceding the outbreak of war in 1643. This approach will expose other neglected, but significant, areas of contention and illustrate the difficulties in imposing clear lines of opposition on a single doctrinal issue. Even within the debate over predestination, rigid definitions of Calvinism and Arminianism – like the one employed by Tyacke and White – did not accurately portray the diversity within the Reformed tradition. Seán Hughes correctly concludes that “the Reformed tradition was dynamic and highly diverse…[and attempts] to fix the boundaries of Reformed thought in a rigid way soon run into difficulties.”35 Instead of narrowly focusing on one point, it is important to consider a spectrum of issues within which an individual would combine various degrees of commitment. While diversity within the tradition existed, it is still helpful to look at the debate over predestination, recognizing that it was one strand of tension amongst a number of issues. Nevertheless the polemics over this controversial doctrine still were exacting and unyielding. These debates exercised a considerable influence on many institutions within early seventeenth-century England. Where, within this theological maelstrom, did Mede stand in relation to the doctrine of predestination? Before answering this question it must be said that Mede always displayed an extremely cautious and moderate disposition. At Cambridge, the yearly commencement address became the forum where views on predestination were openly advocated.36 Both the stauncher Calvinist and Arminian parties aggressively lobbied for their candidate to present the annual address. In a letter written in 1634 and recounted by his biographer, Mede described how there were “great combustions and divisions among the Heads of the University in preparation to the Commencement, each party a being desirous to get the advantage in the Election … and the more Calvinian Party having prevailed upon this occasion”.37 Subsequent to this election, Mede wrote how he avoided visiting a certain factional friend because he feared “being taken to be of a

35

Seán F. Hughes, ‘The Problem m of “Calvinism”: English theologies of predestination c. 15801630’, in S. Wabuda and C. Litzenberger (eds.), Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A Tribute to Patrick Collinson by his students (Aldershot, 1998), p. 233. Hughes has demonstrated that Tyacke and White both follow a problematic historiographical method which has defined English Calvinism as a particular brand of Calvinism most influenced by Theodore Beza, and not consistent with John Calvin’s own position. The strongest advocates off this reading are, Basil Hall, “Calvin against the Calvinists”, in G. E. Duffield (ed.), John Calvin (Abingdon, 1966), pp. 19-37; Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France (London, 1969); R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford, 1979). The best responses to these studies are, Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists (Edinburgh, 1982); Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Durham, N.C., 1986); Carl R. Trueman and R. S. Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessmentt (Cumbria, 1999). 36 Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, pp. 33, 39. 37 Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. XIX.


[s]ide.”38 Recognizing the political gravity of this issue, Mede attempted to distance himself from these controversies and avoid being associated with either party. As a result, determining Mede’s position on the doctrine of predestination is not a simple task. While the difficulty lies in his obvious discretion, there is evidence that does provide some indication of Mede’s opinions. Some impression can be drawn from a survey of Mede’s close associates. Mede’s closest friend at Christ’s College was William Chappell. In 1638 Chappell was elected provost of Trinity College, Dublin. A sympathetic Arminian, he was essentially hand-picked by Archbishop Laud in order to oppose any selection by the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher.39 Likewise Mede also corresponded frequently with Thomas Jackson. Mede’s biographer described Jackson as his “honoured friend.”40 Supporting the Arminian view, Jackson was involved in a number of acrimonious debates at Oxford and his Platonism was opposed by Mede’s good Calvinist friend Twisse.41 While it is important not to judge Mede as “guilty by association,” arguments to support the contrary are unfounded. In the appendix to Mede’s biography, the anonymous author attributed Mede’s difficulties in being elected to fellow as due to the fact “that he looked too much towards Geneva.”42 Scholars have repeatedly pointed to this reference in an attempt to demonstrate Mede’s Calvinistic sympathies. Kevin Sharpe, in his massive work on Charles I, cited this quote in order to support his assumption of a conforming Calvinist enclave which also upheld the Laudian forms of worship.43 Yet a more careful look at the context of this quotation paints quite a different picture. Valentine Cary, the Master of Christ’s College, opposed Mede’s election because of previous opposition against his own election to Master.44 In 1609 Christ’s College was in the midst of a political struggle between the fellows and James I over the election of a new master. Desiring to preserve the College’s puritanism, the fellows’ choice was William Pemberton. The King demanded a more moderate candidate and unilaterally appointed Cary as the new master. In the bitter aftermath of this decision, Mede’s candidacy was perceived as another attempt to promote a puritan agenda. Predestination was not the deciding issue, but rather the question of conforming or not conforming to the wishes of the King and his bishops. In 38

Ibid. XIX. Trevor-Roper, Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans, pp. 141-142. 40 Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. III. 41 William Twisse, A Discovery of D. Jackson’s Vanitie (Amsterdam, 1631). Also see Sarah Hutton, “Thomas Jackson, Oxford Platonist and William Twisse, Aristotelian”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 39 (1978), pp. 635-652; White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, pp. 256-271; Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, pp. 58-86. 42 Mede, Works, “An Appendix to the foregoing History”, p. XXXVI. 43 Sharpe, The Personal Rule, p. 330. 44 Cockburn, A Critical Edition, p. 30; S.A. Bondos-Greene, “The End of an Era?”, pp. 197-208. 39


29

the end it was the endorsement of Lancelott Andrewes, which resulted in Mede’s successful election.45 As mentioned before, Andrewes was so impressed with Mede that he wanted him for his household-chaplain.46 It is inconsistent to infer that Mede’s election was impeded because of his alleged Calvinism, when the surrounding circumstances never addressed the issue of predestination. Consequently, Mede cannot be labeled categorically a Calvinist based on an ambiguous reference to Geneva. Another piece of the enigmatic puzzle regarding Mede’s position on predestination was his report on the York House Conference. In February 1626, a conference was called at the Duke of Buckingham’s residence, York House in the Strand, to resolve the controversial tenets presented in Richard Montagu’s A New Gagg for an Old Goose.47 The conference was called because of Calvinist pressure to charge Montagu with heresy. Many anticipated a favorable Calvinist outcome, but the verdict was inconclusive at best.48 Much to the disappointment of the Calvinists, the York House conference f did not result in an overwhelming Calvinist victory. Writing to Sir Martin Stuteville in a letter dated the fourth of March 1625/6, Mede warned, “I suppose more had a hand in it, whom no experience will teach, how hazardous are the events for the most part of such conferences, where both parties stand for their credit, and each must stand or fall according to the favor, or prevailing inclination of the auditors.”49 In commenting on the events of the York House conference, Mede wrote with a deprecating tone towards the Calvinists. His description revealed no feelings of remorse or disappointment regarding the outcome, but rather a sharp warning against overconfident expectations. One final piece of evidence, which sheds more light on Mede’s position on the doctrine of predestination, is revealed in another account given by his biographer: His spirit was stirred within him, it was when he observ’d some to contend with an unmeasurable confidence and bitter zeal for that black Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation; upon which occasion he could not forbear to tell some of his Friends, That it was an Opinion he could never digest: beingherein much of Dr. Jackson’s mind, That generally the Propugners of such Tenets were men resolved in their Affections of Love and Hatred, both of judgment of God and his Decrees. To the like purpose he express’d himself…in a letter to an ancient Friend of his, formerly of the same 45

Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. III. Ibid. III. 47 see Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, pp. 164-180; White, Predestination, pp. 224-229. 48 Cockburn, A Critical Edition, pp. 184-185. 49 BL Harleian MSS 389. 46


Colledge; ‘It seems harsh, that of those whom God hath elected ad media Salutis, and calls by the preaching of his Gospel, any should be absolutely and peremptorily ordain’d to damnation.’50 In rejecting the doctrine of absolute reprobation, similarly with Thomas Jackson, Mede denied a fundamental tenet of Calvinism. While Mede’s caution and discretion has made it difficult to determine conclusively his position, the evidence does seem to suggest that Mede was more sympathetic to the Arminian understanding of predestination, a position not favored by the more radical puritans.51

3.iv ANTICHRIST Shedding the anachronistic Anglican versus puritan paradigm, up to this point it may be presumed that Joseph Mede can be best described as an Arminian according to Tyacke’s historiographical categories. If that were the case Mede should be included with the likes of Richard Montugu, John Overall, John Cosin and Richard Neile – all committed Laudians. Indeed further evidence for this is the fact that Mede sent copies of his non-apocalyptic books to John Cosin, soliciting Cosin’s comments and suggestions. Mede’s books were well received and circulated, as Cosin responded, Sir, you have been ten times as good as your word; for every copie of your book that you sent me (besides mine owne) I have had many solemn thanks returned to me from those friends here upon whom I bestowed them,…They read it over and over, and are so well affected with it, that wee all say here…it will certainly conduce to the settling of men’s minds and judgments in this question more than all the other writings which have gone forth about it.52 Moreover Mede dedicated his Churches, That is Appropriate Places for Christian Worship to Archbishop Laud. Yet if Mede’s situation within early seventeenthcentury England was so transparent, why was he considered d persona non grata by the Laudian establishment? It seems peculiar that this recognized scholar, who ostensibly defended such distinctive Laudian tenets, actually maintained an equal 50

Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. XVIII-XIX. It is probably inaccurate to speak of only two exclusive views on the doctrine of predestination. Recent scholarship has described multiple theologies of predestination within sixteenth and seventeenth centuries theologies. Yet the two extremes can be described as a strict Calvinists versus an Arminian position. See Hughes, ‘‘The Problem of ‘Calvinism”’, pp. 229-249. 52 John Cosin, The Correspondence of John Cosin, ed. G. Ornsby, 2 vols., Sortees Society, 52, 55 (1868-1872), p. 220. 51


31

affiliation with the “hotter puritans.” Whatt was it that endeared Mede to those who would otherwise unequivocally rejectt him due to his positions on the forms of worship, ecclesiastical polity and predestination? To answer this question the apocalyptic climate of the early seventeenth century must be taken into consideration. In a letter to Sir Martin Stuteville, Mede retold this story: A certain oatmeal maker, taking upon him to be a preacher and therefore imprisoned, was called before the High Commission, where, keeping on his hat, and being asked why he did not put it off, he answered he would never put off his hat to bishops. ‘Butt you will to Privy Councillors?’ said one of them. ‘Then as you are Privy Councillors’, quoth he, ‘I put off my hat; but as you are rags of the Beast, lo! I put it on again.’53 This amusing account of the Laudian bishops being referred to as “rags of the Beast,” is one example of the prevalence of apocalyptic thought that permeated Mede’s time. There was one rigid religious dichotomy which can be identified in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This was illustrated by the vast chasm which separated Protestants from Roman Catholics. Wars over this fundamental difference were fought both in print and on the battlefield. Moreover these polemics were infused with an apocalyptic dimension as Protestants became more and more convinced of the fulfillment of biblical prophecies in their own time. Perpetuating this debate was the Protestant identification of the papacy as the Antichrist and the Beast prophesied in the Book of Daniel, John’s Epistles, and the Book of Revelation.54 Beginning with Martin Luther’s new found and convenient appreciation for the usefulness of the Apocalypse,55 subsequent reformers invoked this interpretation and fostered an ethos of genuine fear of popery. As a student of biblical prophecy, Mede was an heir of this Protestant apocalyptic tradition. He was unwavering in his identification of the papacy with the servants of the Devil. In his writings, Mede interpreted the papacy as the Beasts depicted in Daniel 9 and Revelation 13, the Man of Sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:9, the False-Prophet of Revelation 13, the Whore of Babylon in 53

Joseph Mede to Sir Martin Stuteville, 17 April 1630, in R. F. Williams (ed.), Court and Times of Charles II, ii (1848), p. 71. 54 See Hill, Antichrist; Peter Lake, “The Significance of the Elizabethan Identification of the Pope as Antichrist”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 31:2 (April 1980), pp. 163-178; idem, “William Bradshaw, Antichrist and the Community of the Godly”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 36:4 (October 1985), pp. 570-589; Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse, pp. 91-112; Christianson, Reformers and Babylon, pp. 1-93; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp. 93-127. 55 In 1528 Luther wrote the preface, edited and published a Lollard commentary on the Apocalypse. Martin Luther, (ed.), Commentarius in Apocalypsin ante Centum Annos aeditus (Wittenburg, 1528).


Revelation 17, and of course, the Antichrist from I John 2.56 Describing the judgment of the fourth vial in Revelation 16:8-9, Mede wrote, “The Heaven therefore of the Antichristian world, is either that supreme and universal authoritie of the Pope; or any other excellent, and regall Authoritie whatsoever in the world of the Beast, that is in the whole universality of the Provinces acknowledging the Pope of Rome for their head.”57 The Pope was the head of the Anti-Christian world and identified by Mede as the Antichrist. Likewise Mede condemned Roman Catholic teachings and practices as idolatrous, and as such, they were nothing less than the doctrines of demons.58 For Mede, this was the “apostasy of the latter times,” prophesied in I Timothy, and the “King of this Apostatical Kingdom is the Two-horned False-Prophet, the Roman Bishop.”59 In an effort to deter further anti-papal polemics, from 1633 to 1640, Archbishop Laud forebade the publication of any material identifying the pope as Antichrist. The Laudians where already suspected of being crypto-papist, and this intolerance therefore unleashed a flood of anti-papal fear.60 Indeed Mede’s reluctance to relent from his interpretation of the apocalyptic Antichrist prevented him from gaining the favor of the Laudians. Unquestionably a man of his scholarly stature and reputation for defending Laudian forms of worship should have easily risen to great prominence. Yet lamenting to William Twisse in a letter dated 13 May 1635, Mede wrote, “it may be I have had so many Notions that way as would have made another man a Dean or a Prebend or something else ere this. But the point of the Pope’s being Antichrist, as a dead fly, marred the savour of that ointment.”61 Again in the same letter, Mede prefaced his defense of the practice of genuflecting toward the altar by assuring Twisse that he did not defend this position because of its convenient acceptability under the Laudian 56

Mede, The Key, Part I, pp. 64-65, 67-68, 70, 101, 104, 115; Mede, The Apostasy of the Latter Times, pp. 44-45, 53, 58, 75; Mede, Works, p. 595. 57 Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 117. 58 Mede, The Apostasy, pp. 40, 49. 59 Mede, Works, p. 922. 60 See Peter Lake, “Anti-popery: the structure off a prejudice”, in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), The English Civil Warr (London, 1997), pp. 181-210; Russell, The Causes of the English Civil War, pp. 58-82. Likewise Robin Clifton observes: r “The panicky depth of opposition to Archbishop Laud’s regime can now be fully appreciated. His policies expressed the same attitudes that had corrupted early Christianity. Whether orr not Laud consciously intended to lead England back to Catholicism was in the last analysis irrelevant since the emphasis placed by Charles I and his Archbishop upon ceremonial, clerical dress, confession, doctrinal Arminianism, and the authority of the priest over the laymen would ultimately and inevitably return the Church to its corrupted, pre-Reformation condition. Puritans resisted Laud’s practices with a ferocity often apparently disproportionate to the actual measures he proposed because they saw the issue as one of resisting a fatal drift: not the practice in itself but the end to which it pointed occupied their attention,” Clifton, “Fear of Popery”, Russell (ed.), The Origins of the English Civil War, p. 152. 61 Mede, Works, p. 818.


33

tenure. Mede wanted to avoid any accusation that he had “made the bent of the Times the rule of [his] opinions”.62 Because if his intention was to pander to popular opinion, he should also “quickly renounce [the] Tenet of the Apocalyptical Beast, which … few men now hold, yea or would fain do.”63 Clearly Mede was unwilling, in the face of considerable hostility and pressure, to reject the doctrine of the papal identification of the Antichrist. Although disowned by the Laudians, Mede’s apocalyptic writings gained a sympathetic reading amongst his puritan admirers. Already mentioned was Twisse’s admiration despite Mede’s close personal and theological association with Thomas Jackson. In addition Mede corresponded with Archbishop James Ussher, a keen apocalypticist in his own right.64 Mede sent a number of copies of his Clavis Apocalyptica to Ussher for his evaluation.65 Moreover prior to William Chappell’s election to the provostship of Trinity College, in 1629 Ussher attempted to fill the vacancy with his own short list of candidates. First was the well- respected puritan Richard Sibbes, Master of St. Catherine’s College, Cambridge.66 Second was Mede. Unfortunately for Ussher both men declined the offer, but clearly Ussher did not hold the same animosity toward Mede that he would later display towards Chappell. For many of the puritans, Mede’s unrelenting identification of the pope as Antichrist seemed to eclipse his other less acceptable theological positions. In light of the apocalyptic climate of early seventeenth-century Britain, for Joseph Mede, the decisive issue was not his sympathies with Arminianism but his adamant interpretation of the Antichrist prophesied in the Bible.

3.v CONCLUSION Upon examining Joseph Mede’s ecclesiastical and theological commitments within the volatile context of early Stuart England it quickly becomes apparent that the previous conception of millenarianism is inadequate. Millenarianism did not necessarily lead to radical activism. It is true that millenarianism was adopted by many of the more politically active puritans, and often used as a theological justification for their actions. For example Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptica was translated by Richard More (a Member of Parliament) and 62

Ibid. 818. Ibid. 818. 64 Alan Ford, “James Ussher and the creation of an Irish protestant identity”, in Brendan Bradshaw and Peter Roberts, (eds.), British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1553-1707 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 185-212; Trevor-Roper, Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans, pp. 120-165. 65 The first shipment of Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptica to Bishop Ussher was lost. In a letter dated 22 May 1628, Mede informed Ussher that he was sending three or four additional copies. Mede, Works, p. 33. 66 Brooks, The Lives of the Puritans, vol.2, p. 17. 63


authorized for publication by Parliament at the height of civil unrest in 1643. Initially it was published exclusively in Latin, a language reserved for a learned and educated reader.67 The significance of this lies in the fact that the English translation was published posthumously: again, Mede died in 1638, so there is no way to know whether he would have approved of this publication. Why then did Parliament now authorize the publication of a decisively millenarian book? The most plausible answer is that Parliamentt intended to use Mede’s work as a timely propaganda piece in attacking the ecclesiastical establishment endorsed by Charles I. While it cannot be known for certain if Mede would have approved of such a politicized and intentional use of his writings, certain details do give some indication to the contrary. The fact that Mede wished to remain anonymous reveals a sense of caution on his part over the content expounded in his book. Perhaps he anticipated the violent potential of what he was discovering and wanted to guard against its misuse. Mede also displayed a reluctance to distribute his writings and was often distraught when they were circulated without his permission.68 Such extreme caution and reluctance on the part of Mede to pursue any mass exposure for his work does not characterize an individual with revolutionary intentions. It seems unlikely that “inspiring revolutionary fervour,” as Paul Christianson described, was the intent of Mede’s writings.69 Mede’s apocalyptic interpretations were undoubtedly viewed as the profoundest expression of millenarianism, but a divorce occurred within the ecclesiastical and theological constructs of Mede. In nearly all other instances, 67

See Andrew Pettegree, “The Latin Polemic off the Marian Exiles”, in James Kirk (ed.) Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England and Scotland, 1400-1642 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 305329. Pettegree argues that the Marian exiles overcame language barriers by publishing their defense of the English Reformation in Latin. They targeted an international audience of educated and prominent “European statesmen and church leaders,” who were capable of reading Latin. The common person did not possess such skills. Of course Mede could be accused of intending to infect the intellectual elite in hopes of stirring a “revolution from above.” However this argument has been repeatedly refuted in the counter-revisionist works of Dickens, The English Reformation; Anne Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620-1660 (Cambridge, 1987); David Underdown, Fire From Heaven (New Haven, 1992). These authors argue that the English Revolution was just as much a movement from the local towns and parishes as from the centers of the intellectual, political and social elite. 68 In a letter from William Twisse addressed to Mede, his reluctance is revealed: “O how have you blessed me, and still continue to bless me with your Papers! I protest unto you, your Letters, your Conjectures, your Meditations, are the greatest Jewels my Study contains. I approve your Reasons for not proceeding to publish any more at this Present; but as Mariners provide against a storm, so may we for a calm. I have therefore observed how, after Civil Wars in Christendom, many excellent things came forth which were studied in the time of Trouble. Did not Cicero the like in times of like condition? I am glad your thoughts reflect…on the same subject, that your friends in private may enjoy the benefit of your labours and talents.” Mede, Works, p. 798. 69 Christianson, Reformers and Babylon, p. 128.


35

apart from apocalyptic, Mede held positions highly problematic for the puritans. Even though he was convinced that the papacy was Antichrist, he never turned that identification on the established Church in England, nor did he accuse it of capitulating towards Rome in any of its practices or theological positions. Quite the opposite, Mede defended the practices, polity and theological sympathies of the Church of England. In the polemically charged atmosphere of seventeenthcentury England, millenarianism did not necessitate a radical attack against the Church of England. Subsequently, the previous definition of millenarianism requires a careful and thorough revision in order to gain a more accurate picture of Mede and his millenarian legacy.

CHAPTER FOUR

Joseph Mede and the Cambridge Platonists

4.i MEDE AND THE CAMBRIDGE PLATONISTS The varying theological commitments of individuals like Joseph Mede demonstrates the complexity of religious dialogue in the seventeenth century. Lines of demarcation were not neat and simple. In the mind of Mede, millenarianism did not necessitate an escalating dissatisfaction with the church headed by William Laud. Contrary to what many have assumed, Mede’s millenarianism and his other theological and ecclesiastical convictions were not mutually exclusive. In a similar misinterpretation, intellectual historians have attempted to place Mede’s millenarianism within a specific philosophical context distinct to the seventeenth century, these scholars connected millenarianism with the rebirth of Platonism at the University of Cambridge. Subsequently, the position of the Cambridge Platonists was seen as a philosophical expression conducive to millenarianism, and thus it has been claimed that both traditions (apocalyptic and philosophical) originated from the same controversial source. A relationship between Joseph Mede and the early Latitudinarians or Cambridge Platonists is frequently cited.1 Mede is commonly identified as the

1 Some scholars question whether the term “Cambridge Platonists” is really legitimate, since many of those associated with the movement have little connection with Cambridge, nor does Plato’s philosophy properly summarize their thought, see Isabel Rivers, Reason, Grace, and Sentiment: A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660-1780, Volume I, Whichcote to Wesley (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 25-30; Rupert A. Hall, Henry More: Magic, Religion and Experimentt (Oxford, 1990), pp. 59-60. Likewise there is some debate whether the Cambridge Platonists were distinct from the Latitudinarians, see Martin I. J. Griffen, Jr., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth-Century Church of England d (Leiden, 1992), pp. 99-101. However this chapter will focus exclusively on those individuals educated at Cambridge who may not have agreed unconditionally with the Latitudinarians, but can be assumed under the broader umbrella of “latitudinarianism.” These individuals will be referred to as the Cambridge Platonists.

37

38 Cambridge Platonists

founder of the seventeenth-century English platonic movement. This postulation has gained wide acceptance in past studies where Mede is referred to as: “the father…of the Cambridge movement,”2 “forerunner of [this] new movement,”3 “the precursor of the platonic school of the next generation,”4 and the creator of “an anti-dogmatic, liberal intellectual climate well-suited to the birth of Cambridge Platonism.”5 Since many of the most prominent Cambridge Platonists were also millenarians, the roots of this movement are repeatedly attributed to Mede, yet none of these studies have documented an actual philosophical or theological connection between Mede and the individual Platonists, and consequently Platonism and millenarianism. Was Mede, in fact, a Platonist and did this contribute in any way to his millenarianism, and ultimately to the millenarian legacy inherited by his platonic disciples? In searching for the origins of Cambridge Platonism, it is important to examine the evidence for clear and substantial lines of theological and philosophical influence.

4.ii CO-RESIDENTS IN CAMBRIDGE The most obvious place to begin is within the confines of seventeenth-century Cambridge University. As stated earlier, Mede’s professional tenure at Christ’s College began in 1613, when he was elected fellow, and continued until his death in 1638.6 The first generation of Platonists, which included Benjamin Whichcote, John Smith, Ralph Cudworth and Henry More, all had strong ties with the University. In 1626 Whichcote enrolled at Christ’s sister puritan institution, Emmanuel College.7 Upon confirmation of his M.A. degree in 1633, he was elected fellow and continued at Cambridge in various capacities with only brief appointments outside of the University.8 Coincidentally on a visit to Ralph Cudworth at Christ’s College, Whichcote fell ill and died in 1683. Although no correspondence exists between Whichcote and Mede, Whichcote’s student days and his early academic/ministerial career overlapped with Mede’s years at Christ’s. Furthermore, at Emmanuel, Whichcote served as tutor to another future latitudinarian, John Worthington. Worthington was the editor of Mede’s collected works published in 1664 (republished in 1672 and 1677). It 2

“Worthington, John”, DNB, vol. 21, pp. 955-957. James Deotis Roberts, Sr., From Puritanism to Platonism in Seventeenth Century England d (The Hague, 1968), p. 207. 4 Peile, Biographical Register, p. 246. 5 Robert Crocker, “Henry More: A Biographical Essay”, in Sarah Hutton (ed.), Henry More (16141687) Tercentenary Studies (Dordrecht, 1990), p. 3. 6 Peile, Biographical Register, p. 246. 7 Roberts, Puritanism to Platonism, p. 2. 8 During the Restoration Whichcote was removed from the provostship of King’s College. E. T. Campagnac, The Cambridge Platonists (Oxford, 1901), pp. xx-xxvi; Roberts, Puritanism to Platonism, pp. 1-16. 3

Cambridge Platonists

39

would not be implausible to suggest that Whichcote had some familiarity with arguably the most recognized editorial project of one of his closest students. Similarly Ralph Cudworth and John Smith were classmates of Worthington, with Smith also being tutored by Whichcote. Cudworth enrolled at Emmanuel in 1632, and Smith later in 1636.9 Both spent the majority of their careers in Cambridge, although Cudworth served ten years as prebend in Gloucester before his death in 1678, while Smith died in 1652 at the young age of thirty-five. There is no substantial documented relationship between Mede and either Cudworth or Smith, other than a six-year period of co-residence in Cambridge and a continual latitudinarian association with Worthington. With that said, at this point the reputation of Joseph Mede in Cambridge should not be underestimated. His reputation as a scholar extended throughoutt Britain, continental Europe and Colonial North America. He regularly corresponded with ecclesiastical leaders and scholars, who sought to draw on his knowledge of the Apocalypse.10 Mede’s biographer wrote, “when Foreiners travelling into England came to visit the University of Cambridge, they would carefully seek him out, and endeavoured to gain his acquaintance, as much as any others then more eminent in place.”11 With such international acclaim surely those contemporaries within Cambridge, at the very least, would have inquired about the learned divine at Christ’s. Furthermore, another likely opportunity for exposure would have been through Mede’s sermons preached at St. Mary’s Church before the University. Mede delivered brief discourses in 1632, 1633, 1635, and 1637.12 These were all given during the earlier years in which Cudworth and Smith were students. Lastly, amongst all the Cambridge Platonists Henry More possessed the most obvious and substantial link with Mede. More began his studies at Christ’s in 1631 under the tutelage of William Chappell.13 Chappell was a colleague and close friend of Mede. As a student More was exposed regularly to the preeminent scholar within his own college. Christ’s College in the 1630’s was divided into three factions: those who followed William Power (Fellow, 15991644), others who sided with Chappell, and the third group that favored Mede.14 The perception was that Power’s sympathizers were too “loose,” in their theological precision. Power himself was an ardent supporter of Laud’s practices within the Church of England. Chappell’s followers were considered too

9

“Cudworth, Ralph”, DNB, vol. 5, pp. 271-272; “Smith, John”, DNB, vol. 18, pp. 482-483. Mede’s correspondences include such notable figures as the Archbishop of Armagh: James Ussher; Professor at Leiden: Ludovicus de Dieu; Professor at Saumur: Paul Testard; Irenicists: Samuel Hartlib and John Dury; Ambassador William Temple and others. Mede, Works, pp. 731883. 11 Mede, Works, p. VII. 12 Ibid. General Preface. 13 Hall, p. 83. 14 Peile, Christ’s College, p. 138. 10

40


“precise” and often bore the epithet “puritan”. As discussed earlier Mede’s own position conformed to neither party. He upheld theological commitments common with both the puritans and Laudians. Although tutored by Chappell, More’s latent latitudinarianism would naturally find Mede more attractive. In a letter to John Worthington dated September 1644, More gave an admiring description of Mede: “there was that modesty and melancholy and sedate seriousness in his look that did speak him a scholar.”15 In the year following Mede’s death More was elected to replace him as fellow, and began to follow in the scholarly pursuits of his mentor. The clearest theological impression left on More was Mede’s apocalyptic interpretations.16 More described Mede as “that incomparable interpreter of prophecies.”17 Likewise More completed his own study of the Apocalypse in 1680, entitled Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, where he acknowledged his indebtedness to Mede.18 Clearly More was not simply acquainted with Mede, but extremely well versed in the scholarly achievements of his predecessor.

4.iii THE PLATONIC MEDE? Mede enjoyed more or less familiar associations with Whichcote, Smith, Cudworth and More; and all four of these Cambridge students fostered a deep philosophical interest in Platonism, hence their movement’s designation.19 Yet, if Mede is to be considered the “founder” of the Cambridge Platonist movement, it must also be demonstrated that his philosophical interest was consistently platonic as well, as some have indeed suggested. Unfortunately there is little evidence to support this claim. Mede wrote no philosophical treatises, instead 15

John Worthington, The Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John Worthington, vol. 1, ed. J. Crossley, (Manchester, 1847-86), p. 2, 136. 16 J. van den Berg, “Continuity within a changing context: Henry More’s millenarianism, seen against the background of the millenarian concepts of Joseph Mede”, Martin Brecht, F. de Boor, K. Deppermann, U. Gäbler, H. Lehmann and J. Wallmann (eds.), Pietismus und Neuzeit Ein Jahrbuch zur Geschichte des neueren Protestantismus, Band 14: Chiliasmus in Deutschland und England im. 17 Jahrhundertt (Göttingen, 1988), pp. 185-202; Sarah Hutton, “Henry More and the Apocalypse”, in Michael Wilks (ed.), Prophecy and Eschatology (Oxford, 1994), pp. 131-140. Chapter 8 will discuss Mede’s influence on More’s interpretations of the Apocalypse. 17 Hall, Henry More, p. 84. 18 “[H]e that I am most of all beholden to, is that incomparably Pious and Learned person Mr Joseph Mede, once one of the Fellows of our Colledge, in whose steps where he treads right, I thought I was bound to insist, as also in any others as far as they are in a true path.” Henry More, Apocalypsis Apocalypseos (London, 1680), p. 249. 19 It should also be noted at this point that the Cambridge Platonists were not singularly followers of Plato, but also Plotinus and the subsequent Neo-Platonist philosophers. David W. Dockrill, “The Heritage of Patristic Platonism in Seventeenth-century English Philosophical Theology”, in G. A. J. Rogers, J. M. Vienne & Y. C. Zarka (eds.), The Cambridge Platonists in Philosophical Context: Politics, Metaphysics and Religion (Dordrecht, 1997), pp. 55-79.


41

preferring to comment exclusively on the Bible and other theological and ecclesiastical matters. The only account of Mede’s philosophical interest is a brief biographical detail in which he was said to have wrestled with skepticism as a young student.20 His use of Plato or the Neo-Platonists was extremely limited, with little detectable effect on his overall philosophy or theology. In his book, From Puritanism to Platonism in Seventeenth Century England, James Roberts highlights one particular platonic idea adopted by seventeenthcentury theologians. In their efforts to explain and defend the mediatorial office of Christ, the Cambridge Platonist discovered similarities with the platonic understanding of the transcendent deity. Orthodox Christianity traditionally confessed that the absolute holiness and righteousness of God precluded any communion with utterly depraved men and women. The necessity for a mediator was introduced in the person and work of Jesus Christ in order to reconcile the corrupt sinner with the righteous God. The Cambridge Platonists found a coordinate concept in platonic philosophy. Commenting on the ancient platonic philosophers, Roberts writes, they ‘were aware of man’s fallen condition and offered this as an explanation for the impossibility m of man’s approach to supreme Deity. It was for this reason that they introduced a sort of “middle powers” called Daemons as intermediate between Deity and man. Now they were correct as to the idea, but they knew not the Person.’21 Now the Cambridge Platonists capitalized upon this point by using it as an illustration of ancient heathens who were able to recognize the need for mediation, in order to castigate those in the seventeenth-century who denied the mediatorial function of Christ. Henry More focused on this very point in his criticism of the Quakers: For the Light within me, that is, my Reason and Conscience, does assure me that the ancient and Apostolick Faith according to the Historical meaningthereof is very solid and true; and that the Offices of Christ are 20

Mede, Works, p. II. Richard H. Popkin has made frequent use of this biographical detail in order to illustrate how the study of biblical prophecy, with a particular millenarian persuasion, served as a solution for combating seventeenth-century skepticism. Richard H. Popkin, “Introduction”, in Popkin (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism, p. 5; idem, “The Spiritualistic Cosmologies of Henry More and Anne Conway”, in Hutton (ed.), Henry More, p. 99; idem, The Third Force in Seventeenth-Century Thoughtt (Leiden, 1992), pp. 92-93; idem, “The Religious Background of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy”, in Daniel Garber and Michael Ayers (eds.), The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, vol. II (Cambridge, 1998), p. 398. However this point is slightly overstated in regards to Mede. The biographical account makes no mention that his study of biblical prophecy provided the solution for his skepticism. It simply states, “by the mercy of God he quickly made his way out of these troublesome Labyrinths.” Moreover the biographer regards this period of doubting as transpiring before Mede even graduated from Christ’s College; well before he would begin any concentrated study of biblical prophecy. Furthermore there is no reference to his youthful skepticism in any of Mede’s apocalyptic writings. 21 Roberts, Puritanism to Platonism, p. 135.


never to be antiquated till his visible return to Judgement according to the literal sense of the Creed; and that Familisme is a mere Flam of the Devil, a smooth tale to seduce the simple from their Allegeance to Christ.22 In addition Whichcote pointed to the Old Testament sacrificial system where the High Priest stood as the “middle person” reconciling God and the people. The Cambridge Platonists maintained that, for the New Testament church, Christ has made the definitive atonement and broughtt final reconciliation for the people. Christ thus stood as the platonic “middle person” between God and man.23 It is not unique to discover that Mede also proclaimed the necessity of Christ as the mediator between God and man. This after all was historic Christian orthodoxy. However it is revealing to see that Mede discovered and utilized the same platonic evidence that Whichcote and More affirmed. Even more, this idea of “middle beings” became an integral component in Mede’s study of sacred history and his nascent millenarianism. Sometime between 1615 and 1620 (that is, before the publication of Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptica), Mede delivered a series of sermons on I Timothy 4:1-3 at Great St. Mary’s Chapel.24 Mede carefully detailed the historic fulfillment of the great “apostasy” prophesied by the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy. For Mede, the great apostasy was not a future event, but fell within a specified period in the past. He determined that the “latter times” would be a period of “idolatry and spirituall fornication.”25 This period was likewise prophesied in Daniel 7, falling within the last times of the fourth kingdom.26 Mede determined that this period began with the rise of the papacy, which he agreed was identified with the infamous Antichrist. Three dates were given to mark the initial fulfillment of this prophesy: 365 AD after the death of the Emperor Julian, 410 AD with the sacking of Rome by Alaric the Goth, and finally 455 AD with the death of Valentinian III, the last Emperor of the West. This three-stage decline of the 22

Henry More, The Grand Mystery of Godliness (London, 1660), p. 533. Benjamin Whichcote, The Works of Benjamin Whichcote, vol. II (New York, 1977) [Reprinted from 1751 edition] pp. 254, 302-304. More can be said about the philosophical and theological influence of Platonism at Cambridge, however the general point is that Platonism was appropriate positively and extensively by these Cambridge scholars. Further details on Cambridge Platonism can be found in the substantial work of Sarah Hutton: Sarah Hutton and Ann Baldwin (eds.), Platonism and the English Imagination (Cambridge, 1994); S. Hutton, “Lord Herbert and the Cambridge Platonists”, in S. Brown (ed.), British Philosophy and the Age of Enlightenment, Routledge History of Philosophy, vol. 5. (London, 1995), pp. 20-42; S. Hutton, “The Cambridge Platonists”, in S. Nadler (ed.), Blackwell Companion to Early Modern Philosophy (Oxford, 2002), pp. 308-319. Also see R. Crocker, Herny More. 1614-1687: A Biography of Cambridge Platonist (Dordrecht, 2004). 24 Mede, The Apostasy of the Latter Times (London, 1641); see chapter 4. 25 Mede, The Apostasy, p. 46. 26 Ibid. 46. 23


43

Roman Emperors corresponded with the rise of the Satanic papacy, and the mark of the great apostasy was introduced by the very institution that professed to be the defender of the gospel. But what specifically was the “Great Apostasy?” As alluded to earlier, it was a form of idolatry. Yet, Mede identified the apostasy with a particular practice found within the Roman Catholic Church. For Mede, the cult of Saints, or the veneration of the Saints, marked the Great Apostasy forewarned in I Timothy. The adoration of Saints was a direct offense against the character of God, who alone was worthy to be worshipped. Moreover any practice which detracted from this singular devotion was considered idolatrous. Mede wrote, “praying to Saints glorified, as mediators and agents for us with God is justly charged with Idolatry.”27 In discussing the origins of this apostasy, Mede introduced his understanding of platonic “middle beings”. The rise of the cult of Saints was nothing more then the revival of a particular doctrine found in what Mede called “gentile theology”. He equated the veneration of Saints with the doctrine of demons found in ancient religions. However demons, here specifically, were not defined as biblical fallen angels. Mede explained, “Daemons, in Gentiles Theology, were Deastri or inferiour sort of deifed powers, as a middle betweene the Soveraigne Gods and mortall men: so saith Plato…so say all the Platonists, and well nigh all other sects of Philosophers.”28 The ancient philosophers understood that mediators were needed between mortal men and the gods, and thus “daemons” were identified as these middle beings. In the same way the r the same theological concept in apostate Roman Catholic Church incorporated the idolatrous adoration of saints, and thereby minimized the singular mediatorial function of Christ. This apostasy marked the revival of this pagan doctrine in the Christian Church, which traditionally confessed to only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ. Mede asked, Now therefore judge impartially whether Saint Pauls prophesie be not fulfilled already amongst Christians, who foretold that the time should come that they should Apostatize and revive againe…Doctrines of 27 Mede, The Apostasy, p. 31. In addition, he also tied in the mass as idolatrous because it promoted “bread worship”. Ibid. 45. 28 Ibid. 9. Even more, Mede defined the theology of demons in five points: “[F]irst, for their nature and degree, to have beene supposed by the Gentiles an inferiour, and middle sort of divine powers, betweene the soveraigne, and heavenly gods, and mortall men. Secondly, their office to be as Mediators and agents betweene these soveraigne Gods, and men. Thirdly, their originall, to be the deifed soules of worthy men after death; and some of an higher degree, which had no beginning, or ever were imprisoned in mortall bodies. Fourthly, the way to worship them, to finde and receive benefits from them, namely, by consecrate Images and Pillars, wherein to have, and retaine their presence at devotions to be given to them. Fifthly, to adore their reliques, and to Temple them.” Ibid. 24.


Daemons? Whether the deifying and worshipping of Saints, and Angels, whether the bowing downe to Images,…whether the adoring or templing of reliques, whether these make not as lively an image of the Gentiles Theologie of Daemons…as possible could be expressed?29 Mede answered his own questions with a resounding affirmation. With his exegesis of the fourth chapter of I Timothy, Mede presented his most extensive use of platonic ideas.30 However, in this example platonic philosophy was illustrated negatively with no positive benefit for constructing r theology. Mede did not frame his world according to Plato, nor did he erect a grand cosmology based upon platonic ideas. In fact, platonic influence was cited as a fulfilment of prophecy found in a specific error within Roman Catholic theology.

4.iv THEOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS: ANTI-CALVINISTS If there are no clearly detectable philosophical links between Mede and the Cambridge Platonists then other lines must be examined to demonstrate valid connections. Commenting on the theological thought of the Cambridge Platonists, Isabel Rivers writes, Broadly speaking, two crucial shifts in ideas took place in this period. The first is an emphasis in Anglican thought on the capacity of human reason and free will to co-operate with divine grace in order to achieve the holy and happy life. This optimistic portrait of human nature represents a rejection of the orthodox Reformation tradition, which stresses the depravity of human nature and God’s arbitrary exercise of his free grace in electing few to salvation. The second is the attempt to divorce ethics from religion, and to find the springs of human action not in the co-operation of human nature and divine grace but in the constitution of human nature alone.31 As was stated before, Rivers describes one of the divisive theological issues of the day in the seventeenth century: the doctrine of predestination.32 This was not a point of contention exclusive to Britain, since the continental churches were also embroiled in their own disagreements over divine election and reprobation. 29

Ibid. 24. In a discourse on II Peter 2:1, Mede specifically cites Plato in support of “middle sort of Divine Powers between Sovereign gods and mortal men”. Mede, Works, p. 242. 31 Rivers, Reason, Grace and Sentiment, p. 1. 32 Chapter 1 addresses the context of the predestinarian debates in the Church of England. For more background on the Reformed doctrine of predestination see: Muller, Christ and the Decree, pp. 127-174. 30


45

In 1618 the Synod of Dordt responded to the controversial position of the Dutch Remonstrants.33 The outcome of this Synod produced the standard for Reformed orthodoxy in the Canons of Dordt.34 Although the English delegates endorsed the repudiation of the Remonstrants, the decision of Dordt was not representative of the entire English Church. The years following the Synod saw a dramatic escalation in debates, which ultimately served as one particular religious catalyst for war. Two statements from the Canons of Dordt proved to be most offensive to those who did not subscribe to the strict Calvinism imposed by the Synod. First, the doctrine of double-predestination caused tremendous tension.35 This definition of election was not overtly provocative since it borrowed from biblical language found in Romans (8:30) and Ephesians (1:4-6). However, the reciprocal doctrine of reprobation proved extremely offensive.36 Many who 33

For details regarding the Synod of Dort see: J. van den Berg, “The Synod of Dort in the Balance”, in J. De Bruijn, P. Holtrop and E. van der Wall (eds.), Johannes van den Berg, Religious Currents and Cross-Currents: Essays on Early Modern Protestantism and the Protestant Enlightenmentt (Leiden, 1999), pp. 1-17; J.V. Fesko, Diversity within the Reformed Tradition: Supra and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort and Westminsterr (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Aberdeen, 1999); W. Robert Godfrey, Tensions Within Internationall Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 (Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1974); idem, “John Hales Good-Night to John Calvin”, in C.R. Trueman & R.S. Clark, Protestant Scholasticism, pp. 165-180; A. W. Harrison, The Beginnings of Arminianism to the Synod of Dortt (London, 1926); Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp. 418-425; John Platt, “Eirenical Anglicans at the synod of Dort”, in D. Baker (ed.), Reform and the Reformation: England and the Continent c.1500c.1750 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 221-243; Donald Sinnema, “Reformed Scholasticism and the Synod of Dort (1618-1619)”, in B.J. van der Walt (ed.), John Calvin’s Institutes: His Opus Magnum (Potchefstroom, 1986), pp. 467-506; W. van’t Spijker, et al., De Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619 (Houten, 1987). 34 The Canon included statements on election, reprobation, the extent of the atonement, free will, conversion, and the perseverance of the Saints; Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, pp. 175-202. The Canons of Dort can be found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: with a history and critical notes, vols. 1-3 (Grand Rapids, 1983 6th edition), pp. 550-579, 581-597; Acta Synodi Nationalis…Dordrechti habitae anno 1618 ett 1619. Accedunt plenissima de quinque articulis theologorum judicia (Dordrecht, 1620). 35 “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from the primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation.” First Head, Article Seven, Canons of Dordt. 36 “What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election is the express testimony of sacred Scripture that not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, has decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but, permitting them in His justt judgment to follow their own ways, at last, for the declaration of His justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins. And this is the decree of reprobation, which by no


opposed the doctrine of reprobation did so on the grounds of compassion and genuine Christian charity. How could God unequivocally decree a determined number from humankind to be damned eternally r to hell, with no possibility of salvation whatsoever? Likewise, did this then abrogate the responsibility of man and logically make God the author of sin? Questions like these made the doctrine of double-predestination difficult to accept by many English divines. Included amongst these divines was Joseph Mede. As stated in the previous chapter, Mede’s sympathies did not lie with the strict Calvinists, and his biographer detailed Mede’s reaction to Dordt: When that unhappy difference about the point of Predestination and its Appendants…was blown to so high a flame in the Low-Countreys, and began to kindle strifes here at home, he [Mede] would often say, he wondred that men would with so great animosity contend about those obscure Speculations and condemn one another with such severity.37 In the combustible environment of Cambridge, Mede was careful not to disclose his opinions, often seeing value in both positions.38 Still, Mede rejected Dordt’s staunch double-predestination.39 The second statement from the Canons to which many objected concerned the role of man’s free will in response to the gospel.40 The Synod of Dordt attributed the act of conversion wholly to the grace of God without any contribution on behalf of man. The initiative was completely God’s, and nothing within man (free will or otherwise), added to an individual’s response to the gospel. The elect were simply drawn by an irresistible grace that accomplished means makes God the Author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous Judge and Avenger thereof.” First Head, Article 15, Canons of Dordt. 37 Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. XVIII. 38 His biographer recalls another incidence, “That in those days when the Controversies between the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants made so great a noise in the world, he was wont to bring his Common-places to an ancient Friend and Collegue to be perused by him, with a desire that he would expunge whatsoever did but seem to countenance the Positions of either party.” Ibid. XIX. Likewise see chapter 3. 39 Ibid. XVIII- XIX. 40 “But that others who are called by the gospel obey the call and are converted is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will, whereby one distinguishes himself above others equally furnished with grace sufficient for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains); but it must be wholly ascribed to God, who, as He has chosen His own from eternity in Christ, so He calls them effectually t in time, confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of His own Son; that they may show forth the praises of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light, and may glory not in themselves but in the Lord, according to the testimony of the apostles in various places.” Third and Fourth Head, Article 10, Canons of Dordt.


47

God’s eternal decree. Any ability given to man’s free will in salvation was expressly denied.41 Although in his writings Mede did not comment on the doctrine of free will, his position can be cautiously deduced from the logical conclusion of someone who denied absolute reprobation. If the number of the reprobate was not fixed in the decrees of God, then what determined one individual’s response to the gospel versus another? Some degree of ability must be attributed to man’s free will. Additionally, Mede’s position can be determined with greater certainty through another comment by his biographer. Apparently, on this point “being herein much of Dr. Jackson’s mind,” Mede agreed with the learned Professor from Oxford.42 Dr. Thomas Jackson was a reputable scholar and churchman, serving as President of Corpus Christi College and vicar of St Nicholas, Newcastle.43 Upon his publication of A Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes in 1628, Jackson fell under great suspicion for advocating views sympathetic to Arminianism.44 None other than Mede’s good friend, William Twisse, objected to the assertions set forth in Jackson’s book. Jackson argued that within God’s decrees there were elements of contingency, where God’s infinite wisdom accounted for the freedom of choice; and this in no way violated the immutability of God’s will.45 A degree of choice, or willing, was ascribed to man because: in the Divine Essence all real effects, all events possible, whether necessary, casual, or contingent, are eminently contained, the perfect knowledge of his own essence necessarily includes the perfect knowledge,

41

Canons of Dordt, Third and Fourth Head: Paragraph 3 & 4, Dordt opposed those “Who teach: That in spiritual death the spiritual gifts are not separate from the will of man, since the will in itself has never been corrupted, but only hindered through the darkness of their understanding and the irregularity of the affection; and that, these hindrances having been removed, the will can then bring into operation its nature powers, that is, that the will of itself is able to will and to choose, or not to will and not to choose, all manner of good which may be presented to it…[and those] Who teach: That the unregenerate man is not really nor utterly dead in sin, nor destitute of all powers unto spiritual good, but that he can yet hunger and thirst after righteousness and life, and offer the sacrifice of a contrite and broken spirit, which is pleasing to God.” 42 Mede, Works,“The Authour’s Life”, p. XIX. 43 White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, pp. 257-258. For more details on Jackson see, Sarah Hutton, “Thomas Jackson”, pp. 635-652; M. E. van der Schaaf, The Theology of Thomas Jackson (1579-1640): An Anglican Alternative to Roman Catholicism, Puritanism and Calvinism (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1979). 44 The extent of Jackson’s Anti-Calvinism is embroiled m in the much covered debate between Tyacke and White. Regardless of either interpretation, as this chapter argues, Jackson’s views do demonstrate a deviation from Dort. 45 White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, pp. 262-263; Thomas Jackson, The Works of Thomas Jackson, D.D., Vol. V, (Oxford, 1844), pp. 88-89.


not only of all things that have been, are or shall be, but of all things that might have been or possibly may be.46 Jackson’s position stood outside the Canons which did not recognize any statements that explained God’s decrees as dependent on a condition.47 Thus, Jackson granted some degree of free will to man in responding to God’s grace.48 Again, while Mede’s view of free will can not be determined from his own writings, yet with Mede’s biographer’s citation of his affinity towards Jackson, it may be suggested that he shared “the same mind” with Jackson in regards to the specific formulation of free will. Furthermore a rejection of absolute reprobation often logically coincided with a more liberal view of man’s will. It is important to recognize that a tertium quid d emerged from the Calvinist versus Arminian debates at the Synod of Dordt.49 Much of the debates centered upon the Arminian understanding of the extent of Christ’s atoning work. Commenting on the Remonstrants’ position, W. R. Godfrey writes, “Their basic notion was that Christ made salvation possible for all men, but that this salvation was actualized in men only by their response of faith.”50 On this issue of the extent of atonement and possible universal grace, there was diversity among the members of the Synod. Some of the delegates from Bremen and England (especially John Davenant and Joseph Hall) favored the understanding that Christ had died for all

46

Ibid. 100. First Head, Article Nine, “This election was not founded upon foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition of which it depended”. Likewise the Canons in First Head, Paragraph Five, rejected the position which stated, “That the incomplete and non-decisive election of particular persons to salvation occurred because of a foreseen faith, conversion, holiness, godliness, which either began or continued for some time; but that the complete and decisive election occurred because of foreseen perseverance unto the end in n faith, conversion, holiness, and godliness; and that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, for the sake of which he who is chosen is more worthy than he who is not chosen; and that therefore faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are conditions which, being required beforehand, were foreseen as being met by those who will be fully elected, and are causes without which the unchangeable election to glory does not occur.” On this point Jackson approached an Arminian understanding of “middle knowledge,” where contingencies were compatible with God’s eternal decrees, see Eef Dekker, “Was Arminius a Molinist?” Sixteenth Century Journal, XXVII/2 (1996), pp. 337-352; Richard A. Muller, God, Creation and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius (Grand Rapids, 1991), pp. 143-210. 48 Commenting on Jackson’s debates with Twisse, White writes, “Where Jackson had argued that God’s power for good was subject to the contingency of free will, Twisse affirmed that every particular event came about as the result of the divine decree,” White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, p. 264. 49 Paul Lim argues that this third option had a significant impact in England during the interregnum period. Paul Chang-Ha Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-Century Contextt (Leiden and Boston, 2004), pp. 173-182. 50 Godfrey, Tensions Within International Calvinism, p. 151. 47


49

men, thus positing a somewhat hypothetical universal grace.51 Yet within the course of the debates, a careful distinction emerged clarifying the difference between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s atoning work. Christ’s death is sufficient in value to save every man, however it is only efficacious for those who believe. Godfrey describes this third way as an attempt to avoid “both the Arminian and strict Calvinist extremes.”52 Perhaps this was Mede’s position which allowed him to fraternize with both Arminians and Calvinists? After all Mede had great respect for Davenant and deferred to him on other issues.53 However in order to determine if Mede was sympathetic to the hypothetical universalist position, it is important to recall two basic Arminian tenets. While Davenant and some other delegates were concerned over the stricter Calvinist understanding of the atonement, they unequivocally affirmed a doctrine of reprobation. Davenant was convinced thatt God decreed the reprobate without any contingencies.54 This was not the case for the Remonstrants. They denied an “absolute and antecedent decree of God” that would exclude anyone from “participation in the fruits of the death off Christ;” and the reprobates are simply those who do not believe that Christ died for them.55 Second, although Davenant and others were willing to speak about Christ’s atoning work as sufficient for all but only efficacious for those who believe, the efficacy is not dependent upon the action of the human will to respond according to its own ability. Davenant is very clear, The death of Christ being granted to bee applicable to all men on condition of faith, it is consistent with the goodness aand justice of God to supply or deny, either to nations or individuals, the means of application, and that according to the good pleasure of his own will, not according to the disparity of human wills.56

51

Ibid. 152-157. While this position is commonly referred to as hypothetical universalism, it should be pointed out that Davenant’s position actually t avoids the “hypothetical” situation. 52 Ibid. 178. 53 See chapter 3. 54 Donald Sinnema, The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618-19) In Light of the History of this Doctrine (University of St, Michael’s College, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1985), pp. 342343. 55 The Latin text is found in the Acta Synodi Nationalis, Session 45, December 17, p. 129. The English translation is in Peter Y. DeJong, Crisis in the Reformed d Churches: Essays in commemoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 9 (Grand Rapids, 1968), pp. 224-225. 56 John Davenant, “A Dissertation on the Death of Christ”, in John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, translated by Josiah Allport (London, 1831), II, p. 475. This was first published as John Davenant, Dissertationes Duae; Prima, de Morte Christi; Altera, de Praedestinatione et Electione (Cambridge, 1650).


The Remonstrants affirmed the ability of the will to respond and thus receive the effects of Christ’s atonement. Consequently, to speak of the sufficiency of universal grace, as Davenant and others believed, did not necessitate an Arminian interpretation of either reprobation or the ffunction of the will in salvation. In the end Davenant and other delegates who disagreed on the issue of the atonement, still endorsed the Synod’s condemnation of the Remonstrants. While Mede did not write any treatise dealing with the extent of the atonement, his comments regarding reprobation and the Synod’s conclusions suggests that he had very little sympathy for either the stricter Calvinist or Davenantian positions. In the same manner the Cambridge Platonists rejected the doctrine of doublepredestination as formulated in the Canons of Dordt.57 Like Mede, the Cambridge Platonists rejected the doctrinal formulation of predestination that required the number of the reprobate to be fixed according to the decrees of God. Henry More’s understanding of this doctrine was representative of the Cambridge Platonists; Richard Ward, in his biography of Henry More, recorded a young More’s response to this doctrine: such a deep aversion in my temper to this opinion, and so firm and unshaken a persuasion of the divine justice and goodness that on a certain day,…musing and concerning these things with myself and recalling to my mind this doctrine of Calvin, I did thus seriously and deliberately conclude with myself,…If I am one of those that are predestined unto Hell, where all things are full of nothing but cursing and blasphemy, yet will I behave myself there patiently and submissively towards God; and if there be any one thing more than another that is acceptable to him, that will I set myself to do with a sincere heart and to the utmost of my power,…being certainly persuaded that if I thus demeaned myself, he would hardly keep me long in that place.58 While these might be the wandering thoughts of a young schoolboy, nevertheless they demonstrate More’s visceral reaction to this doctrine.59 Later More would attempt to construct his own “middle way” a between the Calvinist and Arminian

57

“But the greatest objection of conservatives like Bunyan to the moral theology of the Latitudinarians [or Cambridge Platonists] was that they rejected the doctrine of absolute reprobation…on their part, the Latitudinarians were equally emphatic in asserting that predestinarianism such as that of the Synod of Dort implied a misapprehension about the nature of God.” Griffen, Latitudinarianism, pp. 122-123. 58 Richard Ward, The Life of the Learned and Pious Dr. Henry More (London, 1710), pp. 6-7. 59 Apparently More was thinking over this profound f theological doctrine when he was a schoolboy at Eton. Ibid. 6-7.


51

positions.60 He argued that mankind was divided between the elect and the probationers; the elect were “irresistibly saved”, while the probationers have a “capacity” for being saved, “some greater, some less.”61 An individual’s “capacity” depended on the exercise of his free will. More believed this new approach combined the strengths of the strict Calvinist and Arminian positions. Within the Arminian system it extended the goodness of God by actually confirming some individuals as elect, while in the Calvinist system it extended that same goodness towards those who were considered absolute reprobates.62 Thus all redemptive goodness can be ascribed to God’s grace, and a subsequently the damnation rests solely in the fault of the unbeliever.63 Even more, with regards to man’s free will, Ralph Cudworth’s A Treatise of Freewilll demonstrated the Platonist position.64 Cudworth objected to the Reformed understanding of free will because, “we seem clearly to be led by the instincts of nature to think that there is something…in our own power (though dependently upon God almighty), and that we are not altogether passive in our acting, not determined by inevitable necessity in whatsoever we do.”65 In this regard Cudworth attempted to arrogate some power to man’s will in order to maintain man’s responsibility for his actions. He wanted to avoid any instances where someone might “impute the evil of all man’s wicked actions to God the creator and maker of them.”666 Thus it must be maintained that man possesses a “contingent liberty” in order to determine for himself.67 Furthermore, Cudworth instructed that free will allowed God justly to condemn man according to his actions, instead of shifting the blame to an external predetermined coercion.68 Consequently, in order 60

Henry More, The Theological Works of the most pious and learned Henry More, D.D. sometime fellow of Christ’s College in Cambridge (London, 1708), p. 352. 61 Ibid. 352. 62 “For whatever Good Arminianism pretends concerning all Mankind, is exhibited to this Part not absolutely elected, and to the other Part the Goodness of God is greater than is alloted by Arminius. And whatever Good there is pretended inn Calvinism to that Part that is absolutely elected, the same Goodness is here exhibited, and besides that direful Vizard pull’d off that Ignorance and Melancholy had put upon Divine Providence and on the lovely Face of the Gospel.” More, Theological Works, p. 352. 63 Ibid. 352. 64 Ralph Cudworth, A Treatise of Freewilll (London, 1838); selection can also be found in, idem, A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality With a Treatise of Freewill, edited by Sarah Hutton (Cambridge, 1996). 65 Cudworth, Freewill, p. 1. 66 Cudworth A Treatise (Hutton edition), p. 155. 67 “[I]t needs be granted that there is a contingentt liberty, and that men have something in their own power, add something of their own, so that they can change themselves and determine themselves, and all things are not linked and tied in a fatal adamantine chain of causes.” Ibid. 163. 68 “But this arbitrary and contingent liberty of the Deity is carried on much too far by those who extend it to the necessitating of all creaturely actions and volitions, by a Divine predetermination of everything, with a consequent irresistible influence; and to the reprobating of far the greater part of mankind, by absolute decrees from eternity, and without and respect to their own actions, also, the


for the justice of God to be rightly executed, free will must be granted to the individual. Therefore from the examples of More and Cudworth, it can be concluded that their views of predestination (which include election, reprobation and free will), were similar to what we cautiously can derive from Mede’s. In the polarizing context of seventeenth-century England, on this issue, this theological connection would categorize Mede and the Cambridge Platonists as sympathetic towards AntiCalvinism.

4.v THEOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS: THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION The central doctrine of the Reformation was the doctrine of justification. It was succinctly captured in the age-old question found in the book of Job, “how can a man be made right before God?”69 While the answer to that question divided Protestants and Roman Catholics, in addition variations and subtle nuances emerged within an assumed Protestant consensus.70 In 1643, following the outbreak of war between the Parliamentary army and the soldiers of Charles I, the Westminster Assembly was called to compose a new confession and adopt a new ecclesiastical polity for the Church of England. The Assembly produced the Westminster Confession of Faith, along with a Larger and Shorter Catechism and a Directory of Public Worship.71 Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession contains the Assembly’s definition of justification.72 All Protestants adamantly would assert that justification was based upon imputed and not infused righteousness; however the Westminster Confession’s definition of justification was very specific in stating that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, according to his obedience and

future execution thereof, by damning of them for what they were necessitated unavoidably to do by G[od] Al[mighty] himself.” Ibid. 165-166. 69 Job 9:2 70 Two histories of the doctrine of justification are Alister E. McGrath, Justitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge, 1998, 2ndd edition) and Albrecht Ritschl, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine t of Justification and Reconciliation, trans. John S. Black (Edinburgh, 1872). 71 Studies of the Westminster Assembly include, William Beveridge, A Short History of the Westminster Assembly (Edinburgh, 1904); William M. Hetherington, History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edinbugh, 1843); Larry Jackson Holley, The Divines of the Westminster Assembly: A Study of Puritanism and Parliamentt (Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1979); Robert S. Paul, The Assembly of the Lord. 72 “Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous: not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s h sake alone: not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience, to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they y receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith: which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.” WCF Ch. XI:I; The Westminster Standards can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (London, 1646; Glasgow, 1990, 6th edition).


53

satisfaction, is the sole grounds for justification. a Nothing is contributed on the part of the justified. Likewise the Confession distinguished justification as both the pardoning of sins and the accounting aand accepting of one as righteous. In the Confession justification contains both negative and positive aspects. The negative refers to the death of Christ that pays the sinner’s debt and satisfies God’s justice. The positive aspect accounts for the acceptance of the sinner as righteous due to the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience, which requires nothing more.73 Furthermore, the Confession clearly distinguished between justification and sanctification, where justification is based upon Christ’s work alone with no contribution from man, while sanctification involved the renovation of the regenerate who then could accomplish genuine works of righteousness.74 Although the Westminster Confession became the standard for Reformed orthodoxy, many within the English Church dissented from the Confession’s formulation of justification. Commenting on the Church of England during the early Reformation, Alister McGrath writes, “[t]he assertion that justification is the forgiveness or non-imputation of sin without the simultaneous assertion that righteousness is imputed to the believer, or with the assertion that justification is to be understood as making righteous, appears to be characteristic of the English Reformation until the late 1530’s.”75 Likewise McGrath noted the development of two traditions during the Carolinian period where the “formal cause of justification is held to be either imputed righteousness or inherent and imputed righteousness – but not inherent righteousness alone.”76 The first tradition followed the Westminster Standards, while the second tradition subsumed sanctification under justification and discarded any reference to the perfect obedience of Christ alone as the grounds for justification. In Mede’s comments on justification he more closely reflected McGrath’s second tradition.77 Although the Assembly convened after Mede had died in 1638, a number of the delegates were colleagues and former students at 73

Larger Catechism, Question 70. “They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” WCF XIII.I. 75 McGrath, Justitia Dei, p. 286. 76 Ibid. 296. 77 There were also some delegates at the Assembly who took objection to the formulation of the doctrine of justification which included Christ’s perfect obedience. Robert Paul commented that none other than the first Prolocutor of the Assembly, William Twisse objected to this statement. “Dr. Twisse, Thomas Gataker and Richard Vines argued learnedly that only the passive obedience and sufferings of Christ were imputed to the believer, while Dr. Daniel Featley argued just as strongly (and apparently more persuasively) thatt both Christ’s passive obedience and his active obedience to the Law were imputed to the believer.” Paul, The Assembly, p. 85. 74


Cambridge. Sixty-eight of the one hundred and twenty-five delegates completed degrees at Cambridge, nine from Mede’s own college.78 Again Twisse, the first Prolocuter, was a close friend to Mede and another delegate John Dury was an admirer.79 From the Cambridge alumni, the reputation of Samuel Ward, Master of Sidney Sussex, was well known and Mede made mention of him in his correspondence.80 Additionally Francis Coke’s tenure as fellow at Christ’s College coincided with Mede’s from 1620 to 1637.81 Likewise Thomas Goodwin was a student under Mede and credited much of his later apocalyptic interpretations to his former teacher at Christ’s.82 Thus, even though the Assembly was called after Mede’s death, the theological varieties expressed during the sessions in the Jerusalem Chamber would not have been foreign to Mede. Mede’s discourse on Matthew 11:28-29 revealed his articulation of justification which included only the “merits and satisfaction of Christ accepted for us and imputed to us.”83 The merits of Christ were defined exclusively as the suffering and death of Christ, with no mention of Christ’s perfect obedience.84 For Mede, justification was limited to an acquittal of the guilt of sin before God and the punishment accorded under the Law.85 How then, according to Mede, does one earn righteousness and eternal life if justification simply absolves the guilt and sin of the individual? Mede answered this query by placing sanctification much more closely in relation to justification. He argued that, just as “the bloud and sufferings of Jesus Christ, imputed to us by Faith, cleanseth and acquitteth us of all the sins whereof we stood guilty…so the imputed righteousness…makes our works (though of themselves far short of what they should be, yet) to be acceptable and just in the eyes of the Almighty.”86 Christ’s perfect obedience did not fulfill the Law on behalf of the believer, but instead his righteousness was imputed to the believer in order to sanctify the believer’s own

78

Holley, Divines, p. 240. See Chapter 3. 80 Mede, Works, pp. 866, 871. 81 Holley, Divines, p. 294. 82 Ibid. 306-306; Goodwin’s comments on the Apocalypse can be found in Thomas Goodwin, The Works of Thomas Goodwin, D.D., sometime President of Magdalene College Oxford, Vol. 3 (Edinburgh, 1861-1866). 83 Mede, Works, p. 155; “And this is that we call Justification of a Sinner, which is an Absolution or remission of Sins by the onley merits and satisfaction of Christ accepted for us and imputed to us: An acquitting and cancelling of all bonds and obligations of transgressions for Christ’s sake, through the onely merit of his death, passion and shedding of his bloud. For he that hath right in Christ to be partaker of his righteousness, and of whatsoever satisfaction he hath undergone for the sins of mankind; whereby he is justified, that is, acquit before God of the guilt of sin, and of the punishment according to the Law due for the same.” 84 Ibid. 155. 85 Ibid. 155. 86 Ibid. 156. 79


55

works, thus meriting eternal life.87 Mede merged sanctification with the category of justification, “but besides Justification, there is a sanctification, with the works of piety towards God and righteousness towards men, as the Fruits, yea as the End of our Justification, required to eternal life.”88 The promise of eternal life was not based solely on the merits of Christ, imputed to the believer, but upon the believer’s sanctified works in Christ. What then accounted for Mede’s differing formulation of the doctrine of justification? Why did he and others insist on the need to include an aspect of man’s work in their understanding of justification? Plainly, it was not a subtle Roman Catholic ploy to insert once again an aspect of man’s abilities or works in salvation. Both English traditions opposed any construction that based justification on anything except faith alone, through Christ alone. However, one of the greatest theological and practical fears in the seventeenth-century church was the fear of Antinomianism.89 This fear was not only present in Britain and the continent, but led to controversy in colonial North America as well. For theologians and ministers spiritual discipline and moral purity were of the highest priority for all members of the visible body of Christ. They opposed any doctrine that would suggest an eternal certitude without any moral demands. These ministers feared that the Westminster Confession’s view of justification might suggest to someone that they had a free license to act immorally because their eternal position was secure in Christ’s perfect fulfillment of the Law. Mede shared the same fears and concerns. He was afraid that, in salvation, some would be “idle and doe nothing.”90 Instead Mede focused the argument on the reward earned as a result of meritorious works. Of course, Mede argued that man’s work has no merit in and of itself, thus circumventing any charge that he was teaching justification by works alone, but rather through the righteousness of Christ’s works, man’s works were now seen as worthy and capable of meriting God’s reward. Mede continued by explaining that the person who understood the requirements of the Law, and his own weakness and insufficiency, would ultimately conclude in despair that attempting any work was absolutely futile. Instead, this person simply would choose to do nothing. But those who believe that their failings were covered by Christ’s righteousness can be confident that

87

Ibid. 156. Ibid. 114. 89 Studies of Antinomianism in the seventeenth-century include, C. F. Adams (ed.), Antinomianism in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay 1636-8 (New York, 1967); Davd Hall (ed.), The Antinomian Controversy, 1636-1638: A Documentary History (Connecticut, 1968); Gertrude Huehns, Antinomianism in English History, with special reference to the period 1640-1660 0 (London, 1951). 90 Mede, Works, p. 215. 88


their works are acceptable unto God.91 By making sanctified works a component of justification, Mede sought to refute any Antinomian inclinations. In the same manner, the Cambridge Platonists also rejected the Westminster Confession’s formulation of the doctrine of justification. John Tulloch comments that, for the Cambridge Platonists, the “character of the Westminster Confession of Faith drew a reaction towards a more liberal theology.”92 Liberal in their case referred to the abandonment of justification based on the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Christ, merited by his perfect obedience. It was clear that the Platonists were not sympathetic to the puritan contingent assembled at Westminster. None of them was present, even though many were students and fellow classmates at Emmanuel College in Cambridge – the bastion of puritan conservatism, boasting the highest number of graduates (16) in attendance at the Assembly.93 Moreover Anthony Tuckney, Whichcote’s former tutor at Emmanuel and a delegate to the Assembly, looked upon him with great suspicion.94 Within such a factional ecclesiastical environment, points of contention were closely scrutinized by opposing parties. In the same manner as Mede, Benjamin Whichcote defined justification as merely the “pardon of sin,” without reference to the imputation of righteousness according to the perfect obedience of Christ.95 He further stated, “All our gifts and graces of God, are the consequence of our Savior’s death, resurrection, and ascension. Our sin pardoned in his death, our consciences cleansed from guilt in his blood.”96 Again the focus was on the sacrifice of Christ’s death, with nothing mentioned about Christ’s perfect life f under the Law. Moreover Henry More concurred with Whichcote in giving a similar definition in his comments on Romans 4:18. More presented two benefits that the Gospel provided, the forgiveness of sins based upon the “satisfaction of Christ’s death,” and

91

“That the more we believe this righteousness of Faith in Christ, the more reason we have to perform works of service and obedience unto God, then if we believed it not. For if our works would not be acceptable with God, unless they were compleat in every point as the Law required; if there were no reward to be looked for at the hands of God, unless we could merit it by the worthiness of our deeds; who that considers his own weakness and insufficiency would not sooner despair, then go about to please God by works? He would think it better to doe nothing at all, then to endeavour what he could never hope to attain, and so lose his labour. But we, who believe that those who serve God in Christ have their failings and wants covered with his righteousness, and so their works accepted as if they were in every point as they should be; why should not we of all men fail to work, being sure by Christ’s means and merit we shall not lose our labour?” Ibid. 215-216. 92 John Tulloch, Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the Seventeenth Century, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1872), pp. 10-11. 93 Holley, Divines, p. 238. 94 “Eight Letters of Dr. Anthony Tuckney and Benjamin Whichcote”, published in one volume with Benjamin Whichcote, Moral and Religious Aphorisms (London, 1753). 95 Benjamin Whichcote, The Works of the Learned Benjamin Whichcote, D.D. Rector of St. Lawrence Jewry, London, vols. 1-4 (Aberdeen, 1751), p. 81. 96 Ibid. 291-292.


57

justification “through a sound Faith in him that raised Jesus from the dead.”97 The gift of imputed perfect obedience and eternal life based upon the meritorious works of Christ was not included. Still, the Cambridge Platonists did have a place for righteousness and good works that would merit heaven and eternal life. The solution was similar to Mede’s: sanctification was incorporated into justification so that the individual’s good works would have redemptive value. Describing the theology of the Restoration Church, John Spurr writes, “the gospel enables man to fulfil the external righteousness of the law by a sincere obedience.”98 More compared the state of the regenerate to the first man and woman, “as it were to begin the World again;” so that through faith in Jesus Christ, the regenerate may “aspire after that Righteousness of their own.”99 That inherent righteousness would eradicate the regenerate’s inward corruption r and wickedness and thereby gain approval to be considered children of God, and seed of the promise.100 Reaffirming the point, John Smith broadened the doctrine of justification, from a single declarative act, to “include the state of Gospel-dispensation, which includes not onely Pardon of sins, but an inward spirit of Love, Power, and of a sound Mind.”101 Smith explicitly stated that justification begets the hope of a “happy immortality.”102 Immortality was not securely confirmed by Christ’s work, but justification provided the hope of such a reward based upon the work of sanctification.103 Consistent with Mede, the Cambridge Platonists conflated justification and sanctification by defining the work of sanctification as merit towards the reward of eternal life. Therefore, regarding the doctrine of justification, the theological similarity between Mede and the Cambridge Platonists would set them against the formulation found in the Westminster Confession.

97

More, Theological Works, p. 269. John Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1646-1689 (New Haven & London, 1991), p. 304. 99 More, Theological Works, p. 269. 100 “I say, if there be encouraged to this holy Enterprize by Faith in Christ for the Remission of Sins, and through the Power of his Spirit to utterly eradicate and extirpate all inward Corruption and Wickedness, this Faith is presently imputed to them for Righteousness, that is, they both are, and are approved by God as dear Children, and as good Men, and are the Seed of the Promise.” Ibid. 270. 101 John Smith, Select Discourses (Cambridge, 1673), pp. 308-309. 102 Ibid. 323. 103 “God’s justifying of sinners in pardoning and remitting their sins carries in it a necessary reference to the sanctifying of their Natures withoutt which Justification would rather be a glorious name then a real priviledge to the Souls of men.” Ibid. 321. 98


4.vi THEOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS: THEOLOGIA NATURALIS Richard Muller defines the Protestant Scholastic understanding of Theologia Naturalis or natural theology as the knowledge of God that is available a to reason through the light of nature…,[and natural theology] can know God as the highest good,…and it can know of the end of man in God on the basis of perfect obedience to the natural law. It is therefore insufficient to save man but sufficient to leave him without excuse in his sins.104 This was the standard definition for natural u theology among Protestant theologians in the latter sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. u Because of the Fall, natural theology which included man’s unaided abilities to reason, was not able to gain the knowledge of God unto salvation. Instead man required the aid of theologia supernaturalis (supernatural theology). Supernatural theology was established upon divine revelation and provided the truths necessary for salvation.105 This was unattainable through unaided reason or effort. Within a theological system that singularly emphasized the grace of God and the depravity and inability of man, it is no surprise to observe that the “Protestant orthodox include virtually no natural theology in their systems and never view natural theology, human reason, or the light of nature as a foundation upon which revealed theology can build.”106 Yet natural theology still maintained a place within the prolegomena of Protestant scholastic theology. While natural theology was almost completely eradicated by the noetic effects of sin, it still remained in “seed” form, much the same way the image of God - although shattered, still remained in fallen men.107 Therefore within the theology of the viatorr (sanctified Christian traveling on the way to heaven and theologia beatorum), natural theology was subsumed under the category of revealed theology, because it was the regenerate individual who was capable of understanding natural theology in its right sense.108 Both natural and supernatural

104

Richard A. Muller, r Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1985), p. 302. 105 Ibid. 298. 106 Ibid. 302. 107 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 1, Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids, 1987), p. 168. 108 Ibid. 168-169. Referring back to Franciscus Junius (1545-1602), van Asselt adds; “[i]t is important to note here that natural theology is seen by Junius and his Reformed colleagues as belonging to the category of revealed theology and that it is not used as a separate and independent source of knowledge,” Willem J. van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought”, Westminster Theological Journal, 64 (2002), p. 333.


59

theologies have their proper roles for the regenerate; natural theology encouraged man to seek a clearer revelation and warned against any abuse of this knowledge; while supernatural theology demonstrated the goodness of God to provide the knowledge for salvation.109 Likewise God granted both for the purposes of his glory.110 Within this theological context, Mede’s understanding of natural theology agreed with the Protestant consensus. In a discourse on Jeremiah 10:11, Mede articulated his definition “That the true God may be known by the Principles of Nature, and the Creation of the Heaven aand Earth…This is that which some call Naturall Theologie.”111 He continued by outlining three points for further explanation. First, all men understood God as some person with a “living and [r]easonable essence.” Second, all men granted that God is the “most excellent of all Persons or Living Essences.” Third, the perfections of God were three-fold: in the understanding, in the will, and in the faculties of working. By understanding, Mede referred to the wisdom of God, by the will, God’s goodness, and by the m the three-fold faculties, God’s power.112 These three attributes composed sovereignty of God because “He alone is Almighty, He alone is All-good, He alone is All-wise.”113 It is no coincidence that Muller points to Peter Martyr Vermigli, Mede’s theological predecessor by over twenty years, as establishing the same three points. Muller points to Vermigli’s section on natural theology in his Loci communes, ‘[i]n other words, “the workmanship of this world” manifests both the almighty power of God and also the fact that this power is both wise and good in its creative exercise and providential care.’114 The consistency between Mede and one of the early Reformers suggests that Mede was following the tradition on this point. Subsequently another aspect of Mede’s view must be more carefully examined to demonstrate his consistency with a broader Reformed understanding of natural theology. Mede followed the orthodox definition by recognizing that natural theology only provided the knowledge off God which rendered man without an excuse. Mede stated that “[f]or God, in that he hath given them a Law, hath as it were stamped in them the character of his Will, which is the Law and Rule they observe in working.”115 As a result one function of the Law was to “admonish us of our duties.”116 Natural theology taught that there was a God and it was man’s duty

109

Muller, Post-Reformation, Volume II, p. 169. Ibid. 169. 111 Mede, Works, p. 191. 112 Ibid. 191. 113 Ibid. 191. 114 Muller, Post-Reformation, Volume I, pp. 170-171. Also see Peter Martyr Vermigli, Loci Communes (London, 1583), I.ii.1. 115 Mede, Works, p. 192. 116 Ibid. 192. 110


to worship him; yet because of man’s rebellion through sin, this knowledge of God now stood only to condemn him. At this point the orthodox Reformed theologians argued for the necessity of supernatural theology to provide the knowledge of God unto salvation whereby man may be regenerated and thus given the ability to respond correctly to both the Law of God and the gospel. Mede even posed the question in a manner that displayed the woeful condition of man: and tell me, from the circumference above unto the centre below, what one creature, what worst creature of God’s making, what silly worm doth so transgress the Law of his creation as Man doth? And yet Man hath Reason given him, whereby he knoweth the Law and Rule he is to follow; Man hath also a liberty of Will: But what doeth he with them? His Reason he abuseth to make unreasonable actions; his Will, to most licencious and abominable liberty. It is a wonder the Earth can endure to bear him so vile a burthen, or the Sun to shine upon him the most unworthy creature in the world.117 For the Cambridge Platonists the categories of “reason” and “nature” were the most distinguishing and controversial. The Platonists’ view of the “light of nature” became their hallmark doctrine. Rivers comments that they “were more interested in showing the essential congruity between natural and revealed religion and in interpreting the latter in the light of the former.”118 The most famous slogan for the Platonists was the “Candle of the Lord,” coined by Whichcote, which demarcated the relation between natural and supernatural revelation. Whichcote remarked, “God hath set up Two Lights; to enlighten us in n our Way; the Light of Reason, which is the Light of his Creation; and the Light of Scripture, which is After-Revelation from him. Let us make use of these two Lights; and suffer neither to be put out.”119 Likewise, for Whichcote, revealed truth t was superimposed upon natural truth and simply added more of the same thing.120 Thus, within the theology of the Cambridge Platonists, reason and nature were given greater prominence than ever before.

117

Ibid. 193. It is important to note that Mede recognized that post-Fall humans still retained the faculties of the will and mind, but those faculties, due to sin, were always used inappropriately, consequently sinful humans are unable to meet the standards of God’s law. Mede did not follow the Socinians in asserting that “God cannot a require human beings something that he does not provide: if all God has given to human beings are vague remnants…of the Law, he cannot require of them some higher standard,” Muller, Post-Reformation, Volume II, pp. 279-280. 118 Rivers, Reason, Grace and Sentiment, p. 67. 119 Benjamin Whichcote, Aphorisms, ed. Samuel Salter (London, 1753), p. 109. 120 Roberts, Puritanism to Platonism, p. 116.


61

Awareness of this began in a series of correspondences between Whichcote and his former tutor Anthony Tuckney.121 On 7 September 1651, Whichcote delivered a Sunday sermon in Cambridge shocking many a of his listeners by expressing non122 puritan views. This sermon sparked an immediate response from Tuckney who admitted that it “hath very much grieved me.”123 Tuckney was concerned that Whichcote had placed, within man’s reason, too much of an ability to gain salvation. “[Yet] to say, that the ground of God’s reconciliation is from any thing in Us; and not from His free grace, freely justifying the ungodly; is to deny one of the fundamental truths of the Gospel, that derives from Heaven, which, I bless God, lyeth neer to my heart; it is dearer to me than my life,” wrote Tuckney.124 The fear, for Tuckney, was that Whichcote was laying too much stress on natural theology (specifically, the strength of man’s reason), and exalting it over supernatural theology.125 This was an unacceptable inversion of the theology set forth in the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Confession.126 Consequently Tuckney’s deductions lead him to insinuate thatt Whichcote was capitulating towards two infamous heresies. Tuckney wrote, “Sir, those, whose footsteepes I observed, were the Socinians and Arminians; the latter wherof, I conceeve, you have bin everie where reading in their workes;…and those very things, which You hint, They dilate.”127 While Whichcote flatly denied any n such accusations, his understanding of natural theology did deviate from the traditional Reformed formulation.128 Roberts comments that in “Whichcote we are closer to the credo ut intelligam of Augustine than the neat division of theologia naturalis and theologia revelata characteristic of Scholasticism.”129 Whichcote replaced the “neat division” with a common

121 “Eight Letters of Dr. Anthony Tuckney and Benjamin Whichcote”, published in one volume with Benjamin Whichcote, Moral and Religious Aphorisms (London, 1753). 122 Ibid. 1-2. 123 Ibid. 2. 124 Ibid. 4. 125 Roberts, Puritanism to Platonism, p. 54; Roberts’ also added, “Just as natural truths are the first emanation from God, even so truths of after-revelation, saving truths are the second emanation from God and the proper supplement to the former.” Ibid. 118. 126 Tuckney alluded to Whichcote’s violation of the Confession, “In the Assemblie, I gave my vote with others; that the Confession of Faith, putt-outt by Authoritie, shoulde not bee required to bee eyther sworne or subscribed too; wee having bin burnt r in the hand in that kind before: but so as not to be publickly preached or written against.” Ibid. 76. 127 “Eight Letters”, p. 27. 128 Whichcote wrote, “trulie I have more read Calvine, and Perkins, and Beza; than all the bookes authors, or names you mention.” Ibid. 54. Apparently Tuckney was convinced with Whichcote’s defense and rescinded his previous accusation, “For that of Socinians and Arminians; seeing I ingenouslie cleared you, from those imputations; both in my own thoughts, and against other misprisions.” Ibid. 78. 129 Roberts, Puritanism to Platonism, p. 116.


foundation on which to build both natural and revealed theology; that common foundation was Jesus Christ. Responding to Tuckney, he wrote, I am verie free to acknowledge Christ, the onlie foundation; since the apostasie and sinne of man: Hee alone gave the stoppe to God’s just displeasure; His interposing prevayled with God, not to take the forfeiture; or, if taken, Hee procured the restauration u and recoverie. Upon this accounte I acknowledge Christ, in parts of nature, a reason and understanding; as well as in gifts of grace: for that Christ is not by mee anie where leftout, nor faith neglected; no, nor not advanced to a superiorite and supereminencie everiewhere: for I beleeve, that I hold and enjoy my reason and understanding, by and under Christ.130 This emphasis on reason was to motivate men to exercise that Christ given ability. However Whichcote was careful to attribute any lack of exercise, not to some deficiency in Christ, but solely within the individual.131 For Whichcote, natural and supernatural theologies served the same purpose and thus could be regarded as complimentary. Likewise the positive benefits of natural theology far exceeded any previous formulations from Reformed theologians. Whichcote insisted upon the value of reason and its worthy place even within a sermon, I find that some men take offence, to hear reason spoke of out of pulpit, or to hear those great words of natural light, of principles of reason, and conscience. They are doubtless in a mighty mistake, for these two things are very consistent, as I shall shew you by and by, and there is no inconsistency between the grace of God, and the calling upon me carefully to use, improve and employ the principles of God’s creation…And indeed this is a very profitable work to call upon me to answer the principles of their creation, to fulfil natural light, to answer natural conscience, to be throughout rational in what they do; for these things have a divine foundation. The spirit in man is the candle of the Lord lighted by God, and lighting men to God.132 The “candle of the Lord” signified the definite shift within the thought of Whichcote and the other Cambridge Platonists towards a greater degree of ability within man, especially as he interacted with the natural world around him. After examining the consistencies between Mede and the Cambridge Platonists on the doctrines of predestination and justification, it is interesting to 130

“Eight Letters”, p. 126. Ibid. 126. 132 Whichcote, Works, pp. 370-371. 131


63

notice how they differed over natural theology. Mede’s view remained within the Reformed orthodox tradition. With Whichcote, as representative of the Cambridge Platonist position, it is obvious that his formulation was not consistent according to the same standards. What would account for this difference in what would otherwise seem to be two coordinate theological systems? In actuality the theological systems advocated by Mede and the Platonists are not that different. Both asserted a greater degree of ability within man, coupled with a less deterministic view of God’s sovereignty. By denying double-predestination a and imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience, man’s input in salvation was increased. Categories of elect and reprobate took on a different meaning, and the Reformation slogan sola fidee was no longer subscribed to in the strictest sense. The only point of difference was their interpretation of natural theology. Therefore f the theological connections were not identical, but they did carry the same sentiment which at times did stray beyond the latitude of the orthodox Reformed tradition.

4.vii CONCLUSION Returning to the original question, was Joseph Mede the founder of the Cambridge Platonist movement, and did his assumed Platonism influence his millenarianism? This cannot be confirmed in the strictest sense. Cambridge Platonism, as a philosophical movement based upon a revival of platonic thought, cannot be traced back to Mede. Platonic philosophy had little detectable effect on Mede’s overall writings, and no clear positive impact on his millenarianism. While Platonism saturated the books and treatises of Whichcote, More, Cudworth and Smith, in Mede they only served to help explain the rise of the great apostasy prophesied in a specific biblical text. Philosophical studies were not the priority for Mede, instead he devoted his scholarly pursuits to the careful f exegesis of the Holy Scriptures. On these grounds Mede was not the originator of the Cambridge Platonists. Likewise any supposed platonic sympathies did not contribute towards the construction of Mede’s millenarian eschatology. Nothing inn Mede’s millenarian writings suggested a positive platonic influence. Platonism was not the philosophical womb out of which Mede’s millenarianism was born. However connections can be deduced based upon other factors. Theologically, rather than philosophically, the Cambridge Platonists did bear a number of similarities with Mede. On some of the most controversial doctrines of the seventeenth-century, Mede and the Platonists were nearly in unanimous agreement. Did Mede’s doctrinal formulations have a detectable effect on the Platonists, or at the very least some commonality? The possibilities do suggest some connection. Henry More most certainly had the most contact with Mede at Christ’s and would have had ample opportunity to be exposed to Mede’s insights. Likewise d his views on justification and natural Mede’s sermons, in which he articulated theology, were delivered in St. Mary’s Church at the University. Two of his


three sermons on justification were delivered between 1624-1628, the period that Whichcote began his studies at Emmanuel.133 Mede’s sermon on natural theology was delivered some time earlier between 1615-1624, but again that was the doctrine upon which the Cambridge Platonists were not as consistent. Additionally, once John Worthington began his editorial project of Mede’s collective works, surely Whichcote, Cudworth and More would have taken a great interest.134 Thus, it can be suggested that the seeds of Cambridge Platonist theology – not philosophy - were sown in part by Mede. A distinct line can n be sketched from Mede to the Cambridge Platonists only within a theological trajectory.135

133

“General Preface” in Mede, Works, p. XV. Smith died 12 years prior to the publication of the first edition of Mede’s works, although that does not necessarily preclude a familiarity with h Mede’s works already separately published. 135 It should be noted that another point of connection between Mede and the Cambridge Platonists was their similar views on ecumenism and irenicism. However Mede influence on this point was not exclusive to the Platonists, nor was he the only individual espousing these views. Still Mede’s particular perspective on irenicism is better understood within the context of his interactions with John Dury and Samuel Hartlib. 134

CHAPTER FIVE

Protestant Irenicism and the Millennium: Mede and the Hartlib Circle

5.i PROTESTANT IRENICISM AND THE MILLENNIUM The caution displayed by Joseph Mede in handling controversial issues during the treacherous political and ecclesiastical climate of seventeenth-century England, again, revises previous historiographical assumptions. However Mede’s caution was not limited to debates exclusive to Great Britain. His nonactivist outlook extended to other theological concerns highly relevant to Protestants on the continent. Mede was well informed of the tense situation across the channel.1 If there was any historical context ideal for ascribing apocalyptic significance, war-torn Europe in the seventeenth century represented such an environment.2 Yet, consistent with his interactions within England, Mede’s interactions with the most fervent and active continental ecclesiastical leaders revealed no radical or activist inclinations. Instead he continued to demonstrate a proclivity for deliberate dialogue and cautious involvement. The volatile situation on the continent was not an opportunity for Mede to push a millenarian agenda; in fact, no agenda existed within his mind. Nevertheless, Mede’s millenarianism attracted interest on the continent for other reasons. The attractive promise of a future millennial peace became the hope for those living in desperate times.

1

See Daphne M. Wedgbury, An edition of the letters; David Cockburn, A critical edition. Other millenarians like Johann Heinrich Alsted did view events like the Thirty Years War as having significance apocalyptic meaning. See: Hotson, Paradise Postponed, pp. 97-108. 2

65

66

Protestant Irenicism and the Millennium

By 1630 Europe was divided, not simply along political and national lines, but also along rigid confessional boundaries. From 1630 to 1635 central Europe experienced the most devastating and catastrophic period of the Thirty Years War.3 In order to protect their borders, either from Spanish-Imperial or proSwedish forces, many princes attempted to forge strategic political and military alliances. While political allegiances could be more easily shifted, confessional commitments were entangled in the minutia of detailed theological precision. Specifically, Lutherans and Calvinists represented the two confessional camps that divided most of Protestant Europe. At the root of the division lay a number of doctrines that were debated ardently throughout the post-Reformation period: the doctrine of the Eucharist – specifically regarding the real presence of Christ in the elements, and predestination. Positioning Rome as a common political and theological foe, pacification between the Lutheran and Calvinist churches and princes was of the highest priority and necessity. With so much at stake many historians have reiterated that no two individuals championed the work of unification among the Protestant churches more than John Dury and Samuel Hartilib.4 Likewise it has been commonly assumed that the motivation for their irenicism stemmed from the catastrophic context of the seventeenth century. Scott Mandelbrote contends that Dury “was shaped by two critical events that had occurred in 1618…[t]he first was the outbreak of the Thirty Years War…the second was the meeting of the Synod of Dort,” and as a result of these two events Dury “spent his life trying to heal the

3

General summaries of the Thirty Years War can be found in, Geoffrey Parker (ed.), The Thirty Years Warr (London, 1997); Klaus Bussman and Hans Schilling (eds.), 1648:War and Peace in Europe, vols. I-III (Münster and Osnabrück, r 1998); C. V. Wedgwood, The Thirty Years War (Gloucester, Mass., 1968). I wish to thank Dr. David Worthington for his helpful comments with regards to the history of the Thirty Years War. 4 There have been numerous studies of the careers of Dury and Hartlib: J. M. Batten, John Dury, advocate of Christian reunion (Chicago, 1944); Mark Greengrass, Samuel Hartlib and International Calvinism (London, 1993); Anthony Milton, “The Unchanged Peacemaker? John Dury and the politics of irenicism in England 1630-1643”, in Greengrass, et. al. (eds.), Samuel Hartlib and Universal Reformation, pp. 95-117; Scott Mandelbrote, “John Dury and the Practice of Irenicism”, in Nigel Aston (ed.), Religious Change in Europe 1650-1914, Essays for John McManners (Oxford, 1997), pp. 41-58; Richard H. Popkin, “The End of the Career of a Great 17th Century Millenarian: John Dury”, in Brecht, et. al (eds.), Pietismus und Neuzeit, pp. 203-220; idem, “The Third Force in Seventh-Century Thought: Scepticism, Science and Millenarianism”, in R. H. Popkin (ed.), The Third Force in Seventeenth-Century Thoughtt (Leiden, 1992), pp. 90-119; Thomas H. H. Rae, John Dury and the Royal Road to Piety (Frankfurt am Main, 1998); Hugh Trevor-Roper, “Three Foreigners: The Philosophers of the Puritan Revolution”, in Trevor-Roper, Religion, the Reformation and Social Change, pp. 237-293; George Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury, and Comenius: Gleanings from Hartlib’s papers (Liverpool, 1947); Charles Webster, Samuel Hartlib and the advancement of learning g (Cambridge, 1970); Charles Webster, The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform, 1626-1660 (London, 1975); Tom Webster, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England: The Caroline Puritan Movement, c.1620-1643 (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 255-267; Gunnar Westin, Negotiations about Christian Unity 1628-1634 (Uppsala, 1932).


67

wounds of the years 1618-19.”5 Similarly, “[d]ifferent interpretations of irenicism could have direct political implications, making the rhetoric of Christian unity an important tool in the political conflicts of the period,” writes Anthony Milton.6 Mandelbrote and Milton rightly point out the importance of the political context in which irenicism operated, but more can be said beyond the political context. It is important to recognize that the political context had grave consequences, and that that context served as the necessary medium in which to implement Dury and Hartlib’s plan; but were their intentions simply limited by short-term political settlements? Did Dury and Hartlib only seek the protection and security of Protestantism from the immediate threat posed by the armies of the Imperial and Catholic League? If this were the case it would not explain their continual efforts towards unification after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Unquestionably, at some point Dury and Hartlib became convinced that their irenical labors contributed towards something greater, a project that contemplated Divine prophecy and providence with a specific teleological purpose that incorporated the movement of all of human history.

5.ii DURY, HARTLIB AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND Dury and Hartlib first met sometime during 1627 when Dury was serving as the Presbyterian minister in Hartlib’s hometown of Elbing.7 From that initial contact the two embarked on a concerted, life-long project to unite Protestantism, spanning 35 years. In that time Dury traveled throughout most of central and northern Europe to promote his plan for unification; likewise both he and Hartlib maintained regular contact with many of the political and ecclesiastical elite. In 1629 Hartlib moved to England as a refugee. Hartlib then paved the way for Dury to visit England in 1630, in hopes of soliciting support from the heads of the English Church.8 The Church of England was already embroiled in her own ecclesiastical and theological controversies. Adding a continental dimension only magnified the complexity of the debates within the Stuart Church. Dury and Hartlib’s contact with political and ecclesiastical leaders proved to be a complicated lesson in navigating the internal theological map of the British Isles.9 While the Church of England’s Eucharistic doctrine was well established, the doctrine of

5

Mandelbrote, “John Dury”, p. 42. Milton, “The Unchanged Peacemaker”, p. 96. 7 Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury, and Comenius, p. 128. 8 Westin, Negotiations, pp. 20-21. 9 The most helpful study of Dury’s interactions with different English factions is found in: Milton, “The Unchanged Peacemaker”, pp. 95-117. 6

68 Protestant Irenicism and the Millennium

predestination continued to dominate the polemics.10 Depending on one’s view of predestination, this could potentially influence any further relations with the Lutheran churches. Initial interest in Dury and Hartlib’s efforts came from the stricter puritans. Anti-papal sentiment was at in all-time high, so Protestant unification was used as another weapon against the legions of the Antichrist.11 Unification was ideologically attractive, yet pragmatically untenable. Within the polemics of the English Church those who supported unification with the Lutherans (who maintained a single-predestination position) were exposing themselves to the accusation that they were compromising with Arminians. Milton writes, “[t]he fear was constantly voiced to Dury that a reconciliation with Lutheranism implied a similar truce with the Arminians.”12 Others, like many of the conforming Calvinist bishops, were more flexible and willing to embrace the similarities between themselves and the Lutherans. Foundational Reformation principles like sola fide, or justification by faith alone, were the theological heritage of both the Lutherans and the Reformed.13 From these less rigid bishops Dury and Hartlib received the most support. Finally, the third group which Hartlib and Dury attempted to contact were the Laudians. Those close to the Archbishop showed very little interest in Dury and Hartlib’s efforts.14 For Laud and his followers, the apocalyptic anti-papal charge was not acceptable. The Roman Catholic Church was still a part of the universal catholic church, and thus, not completely excluded from the benefits of God.15 As a result, as we have seen, Laud banned all further publications that identified the pope as the Antichrist. Subsequently, for Dury and Hartlib, promoting their project of unification required the utmost skill and discernment. Different emphases were needed when aapproaching the various feuding parties. Still, one thing was absolutely certain: Britain’s involvement in the unification efforts was imperative if any substantial progress was to be achieved.16 10

See Fincham (ed.), The Early Stuart Church; Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp. 418-447. 11 Ibid. 100. 12 Ibid. 391. Tom Webster likewise supports this understanding, “While the destruction of the Papacy would appeal to a broad range of English Protestants, the godly ministers would be less willing to work with those they saw as Arminians.” Webster, Godly Clergy, p. 262. 13 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p. 389. 14 Milton, “The Unchanged Peacemaker”, p. 106. 15 Ibid. 107; for more on Laud’s position on the Church of England with respect to the Roman Catholic Church see Milton, Catholic and Reformed, chs. 8-9. 16 It is important to realize the substantial influence Britain would have for both Hartlib and Dury. England was Hartlib’s adopted home. His closest affiliates and contacts were found there. Likewise much of Dury’s travels were financially supported by Sir Thomas Roe, and Dury’s Scottish ties opened a number of doors for him in Sweden. See Allan Macinnes, “John Durie and Confessional Confederation: The Declaration of the Polish-Lithuanian magnates on 6 March 1637”, paper delivered at the Polish-Scots Relations XV-XVIII centuries conference, Warsaw, Poland, 20-23


69

5.iii THE LEIPZIG COLLOQUY: THE STANDARD FOR IRENICISM In 1631, with mounting pressure from the Emperor and his allies in the Catholic League, the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg met in Leipzig to explore an alliance to protect the religious and political interests of their two respective regions.17 Bodo Nischan describes this as an “eleventh-hour” attempt between the Lutheran and Calvinist princes, along with their professors and pastors, to provide a “neutral third force” between the Emperor and the approaching armies from the north lead by the King of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus.18 While the princes and their counselors met to negotiate the political details, the ecclesiastical leaders assembled to discuss the differing points of theology. The irenicist, Johannes Bergius, played a decisive role in the discussions.19 Nischan comments, “As an irenicist, Bergius was convinced that Lutheranism and Calvinism had far more in common than not…In his view, existing differences on doctrines of the Lord’s Supper, Christ, and predestination had been exaggerated and need not keep the two churches apart.”20 Using the Augsburg Confession as the basis for comparison the six ecclesiastical representatives of the main Lutheran and Reformed powers in Germany agreed on twenty-six of the twenty-eight articles. The two remaining articles, the doctrines of the Eucharist and predestination, were tabled for a later meeting. With a final promise to show Christian charity towards each other in the future, the Leipzig Articles were drawn up - along with the Leipzig Manifesto, describing the military alliance with the endorsement of both Electors.21 For Dury and Hartlib, the Leipzig Colloquy illustrated the greatest moment for any irenical attempt during the seventeenth century. This colloquy became the archetypal example for any future attempts at unification. Dury regularly solicited responses and opinions regarding the Articles of Leipzig, and Hartlib translated this document into German and reproduced it for distribution.22 To no September 2000, and Steve Murdoch “Kith and Kin: John Durie and the Scottish Community in Scandinavia and the Baltic, 1624-1634”, in Patrick Salmon (ed.), Britain and the Baltic: Studies in Commercial, Political and Cultural Relations (Sunderland, 2003), pp. 21-46. 17 Bodo Nischan, “Reformed Irenicism and the Leipzig Colloquy of 1631”, Central European History, vol. 9 (1976), pp. 3-26; idem, “Brandenburg’s Reformed Räte and Leipzig Manifesto of 1631”, The Journal of Religious History, vol. 10 (1979), pp. 365-377. 18 Nischan, “Brandenburg’s Reformed Räte”, p. 365. 19 Bodo Nischan, “John Bergius: Irenicism and the Beginnings of Official Religious Toleration in Brandenburg-Prussia”, Church History, vol. 51 (1982), pp. 389-404. 20 Ibid. 395. 21 Nischan, “Brandenburg’s Reformed Räte”, pp. 378-380. 22 In a letter to Hartlib dated 13 August, 1636, Dury writes, “Procure the printing of the Conference of Leipsic in high-dutch, with some short discourse shewing that after so faire an agreement there is no just cause of contention any more because the points remaining are not necessary for to bee determined and not very useful to bee further debated. As soone as the Sentences are printed let me have some copies of them for I will have good use of them here in due time.” HP 9/1/34a. Two latin editions can be found in the Hartlib Papers, along with a German translation, HP 17/14/2/1A-


one’s surprise, on his second visit to England in 1634, Dury was eager to receive the response of the English Divines to the Leipzig conference. Dury solicited written responses from Bishops Thomas Morton, Joseph Hall and John Davenant in England, Archbishop James Ussherr and Bishops William Bedell and John Richardson in Ireland, Samuel Ward from Cambridge University, and Christopher Potter from Oxford University.23 Apart from these high ecclesiastical officials and university heads, Dury also sought the opinions of some of the most noted English scholars. In particular, through Hartlib’s introduction, Dury wrote to Joseph Mede.24 From this brief introduction to this Cambridge don, and in six letters exchanged from 1634 to 1635, Dury began a discussion over the particulars of Leipzig and his other efforts, as well as some of Mede’s distinct scholarly interests.25

5.iv DURY, HARTLIB, AND MEDE ON PROTESTANT UNIFICATION John Dury’s first letter to Mede was dated 4 March 1634/5: this may be considered a fairly early stage in Dury’s irenical career.26 Similarly to Dury’s other correspondence with English divines, he was interested in Mede’s opinion on the project of pacification. In his common self-effacing manner, Mede admitted that he was not fit, or unwilling, to converse with Dury on these matters.27 Of course, this was not altogether accurate. Mede was all too aware of the political setting within Cambridge University and the larger Church. His careful and cautious attitude had insured his survival in an ever more polarizing ecclesiastical context.28 He was especially cautious about the implications of anyone responding to Dury’s proposals. Even as late as 1636, in a letter to Hartlib dated 6 February, Mede described an account of one doctor in Cambridge who, after seeing Dury’s plans, responded “It is a thing simply

20B. Additionally the significance of Leipzig can be seen in Dury’s continual references as late as 1662, see John Dury, Irenicorum Tractatuum Prodromus (Amsterdam, 1662), pp. 538-548. 23 Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury and Comenius, p. 156. Letters from Bishop Davenant and Hall, stating that they received Dury initial inquiries are found in HP 5/2/1A-2B and 5/24/1A-2B. 24 The significance of Dury’s solicitation of Mede can be seen in a pamphlet entitled, “The Effect of Master Dury’s Negotiations for the Uniting of Protestants”, published in 1657. It states, “In the first period, from the year 1628 till 1641 he dealt with the chief leading men of both parties … In England with godly learned non-conformist Ministers, such as were Mr. Cotton, Mr. White, Mr. Davenport, Mr. Nye and others; with the best off Bishops, such as were Dr. Davenant, Dr. Hall, Dr. Morton, and others; with the best of Prelacticall men, such as were Mr. Mede, Dr. Featly, and others.” HP 14/2/1/1A-6B. 25 All the letters exchanged between Mede and Dury can be found in, Mede, Works, pp. 804, 805, 863, 864, 866, 867. 26 Ibid. 804. 27 Ibid. 804-805. 28 See chapter 3.


71

impossible, and never can or will be.”29 This Doctor, being a good Calvinist, feared to “give advantage to the Arminian party,” by showing support for any unification interest with the Lutherans (who were accused of being Arminians based on their doctrine of single-predestination).30 With such obvious cause for silence, Mede repeatedly deflected Dury and Hartlib’s pleas for support. However, Dury persisted by once again requesting Mede’s comments on a specific “Address and Treaties” regarding the Batavian churches in a letter dated 9 April 1635.31 At this point Mede chose not to respond to Dury’s letter, instead he wrote to Hartlib, asking him to inform Dury of the reason for his silence.32 Mede was convinced that Dury was not well acquainted with the degree of political suspicion in the University. He wrote to Hartlib, But I am afraid you have made Mr. Dury take me for another man than I am…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 transgress this rule, and offer to meddle in oughtt that concerns the publick, before the State and those in place declare themselves, he is taken for Factious and a Busie-body; and if he be once thus branded, all the water of the Thames will not wash him clean.33 Nevertheless Mede did agree to share his thoughts on the Leipzig Articles if certain conditions were met: “To Mr. Dury’s request I answer, That if Mr. Dr. Ward here, or Mr. Dr. Potter at Oxford think fit [to] declare themselves concerning the Acta Lipsiaca [Leipzig Articles],…I shall not be unwilling to give my general suffrage with reference to theirs.”34 Turnbull reports that Dr. Potter did respond although no letters are found in the collection of the Hartlib Papers.35 In addition, Bishops Davenant, Hall, and Morton also responded to Dury. Their views on unification were published collectively in 1638.36 Now that

29

Mede, Works, p. 868. Ibid. 868. 31 “Vidisti jam ex narratiuncula a Domino Hartlibio r missa quid apud Ecclesias Batavicas transactum fit.” Ibid. 864. 32 Ibid. 864-865. 33 Ibid. 865. 34 Ibid. 866. 35 Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury, and Comenius, p. 156. The Hartlib Papers do contain some correspondences between Samuel Ward and Hartlib. In a letter dated September 1639, Ward comments that Dury and Jan Amos Comenius attempts are “improbable,” yet “not impossible to faith.” This ambivalence is probably characteristic of Ward even before 1639. HP 34/6/4A-5B. 36 Thomas Morton, John Davenant, and Joseph Hall, De pace inter evangelicos procuranda sententiae quatuorr (London, 1638). 30


the “Superior Orbs” had given their judgments, Mede felt freer to divulge his opinions to Dury and Hartlib.37 Before closely examining Mede’s response, the wider history and context of irenicism should be discussed. Protestant irenicism did not begin with Dury and Hartlib. In 1614 the distinguished professor of theology at Heidelberg, David Pareus, published his significant book, k Irenicum sive de unione et synodo evangelicorum concilianda liber vitivus. The Irenicum signified an earlier attempt to reconcile issues central to the project of unification. Pareus called for an evangelical synod that would discuss points of contention, and he offered his own solutions for dealings between the Reformed, Lutheran, and the Roman Catholics.38 Hotson comments: “[w]hat distinguished Pareus’ Irenicum is not its irenicism per se but rather the thoroughness with which his proposed solution to the problem is worked out.”39 Subsequently, from Pareus, a method developed for reconciling ecclesiastical differences. Emphasis was placed on doctrines that all Protestants agreed upon, while points of disagreement were either marginalized or postponed for later discussions.40 This was an attempt by the irenicists to point out the overwhelming compatibility between Lutherans and Calvinists, and thereby argue for unification based upon these similarities without necessarily resolving the issues of contention. From Pareus’ attempt other irenicists, including Dury and Hartlib, continued to employ this methodology of accentuating common doctrines. The influence of Pareus’ irenicism on Dury and Hartlib is easily traced in their interaction with other ecclesiastical leaders. Throughout their discussions, like many other irenicists Dury and Hartlib were constantly attempting to define the “Fundamental Articles of Faith” which all Protestants could agree upon. This became a recurring theme within their ongoing dialogue. In England, beginning with the single volume response of Bishops Davenant, Hall and Morton to Dury, Davenant presented what he believed were articles fundamental to the Christian faith. He included, creation ex nihilo, the Trinity, Christ’s incarnation, suffering,

37 Mede’s biographer writes, “forr though he first declin’d upon some prudential considerations to express himself otherwise then in general upon this argument; yet after his Superiours had declar’d themselves, he was pleas’d to communicate also his particular instructions about this affair.” Likewise the biographer specifically mentions the response of Davenant, Hall, and Morton. Mede, Works, p. XVII. 38 Howard Hotson, “Irenicism and Dogmatics in the Confessional Age: Pareus and Comenius in Heidelberg, 1614”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 46 (1995), pp. 432-456. 39 Ibid. 451. 40 Pareus followed this course of actions when comparing the Lutherans and Reformed. He compared the doctrines of the two groups in order to demonstrate that Lutherans and Calvinists have much more in common than the Roman Catholics. “Ex hisce satis evidenter liquere arbitror, Lutheranos cum Papistis circa articulos notatos nequaquam consentire, vel in errore consentire: vel denique a doctrina orthodoxorum, nisi maligne depravata, non dissentire.” Pareus, Irenicum, p. 148.


73

resurrection and glorification, the redemption of man, which included the remission of sins, sanctification, bodily resurrection and glorification.41 In another work, published in 1640, Davenant articulated this further by defining the “Fundamentals” as those things which are necessary to know and believe for salvation.42 Not surprisingly, Davenant does not include the question of Christ’s real presence in the host as a fundamental article.43 Unquestionably, the issue of “Fundamentals” was a primary concern for Dury and Hartlib when they aapproached Mede for his comments.44 In 1635 Mede felt it was not prudent to give Dury and Hartlib a full response since others had not made their opinions public. However, complete silence was not the case as Mede began to share some of his thoughts covertly. From the outset it was apparent that Mede lamented the present situation on the continent. He wrote to Hartlib in April, “But, Lord! Is there any hope of a Pacification, whilest each party studies to maintain an advantage against the other entire? A Joyner cannot set two pieces of Timber together without paring something from either.”45 Clearly Mede agreed with the possibility of what Dury and Hartlib were initiating, “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.”46 With his distinct caution, in 1635, Mede was slowly introducing Hartlib to what he would share in toto, by 1636. 41

“Communis haec fides Symbolo Apostolico comprehensa, omnibus Christianis credenda proponit Admirandum creaturarum omnium ex nihilo opificium, Adorandae Trinitatis impervestigabile mysterium, Christi Incarnati, Passi, Resurgentis, Glorificati miseris peccatoribus impensum beneficium, quaeque inde diminant, Redemptionem humani generis, Sanctificationem peculiaris populi, Communionem horum Sanctorum inter se, Remissionem peccatorum, Resurrectionem corporum, Glorificationem fidelium.” Davenant, Hall and Morton, De pace inter evangelicos, pp. 61-62. 42 “Imprimis igitur Fundmentalem articulum habendum sentio, qui ex voluntate Dei revelantis ad salutem & aeternam beatitudinem consequendam est adeo scitu & creditu necessarius ut ex illius ignoratione, ac multo magis oppugnatione, aeternae vitae amittendae manifestum periculum incurratur.” John Davenant, Ad fraternam communionem inter Evangelicas Ecclesias restaurandam Adhortatio (Canterbury, 1640), p. 9. 43 “Videamus igitur an Evangelicatenus conveniant, atque exempla capiamus solummodo ab illis tribus controversiis, De Praesentia corporis & sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia, De Idiomatum communicatione in Christi…Persona; De Divina Electione & Praeteritione pro beneplacito Divinae voluntatis. Nam si in hisce quaestionibus, quarum occasione ingentes contentionum fluctus inter Ecclesias Saxonicas & Helveticas sunt excitati, in confesso fit apud utrasque quantum scire necesse est ad salutem; possunt reliqua omnia in medio relinqui aut pacificis animis disceptari inter eruditos minime disrupta aut dilaniata fraterna Ecclesiarum communione.” Davenant, Ad fraternam communionem, pp. 131-132. 44 In a book of collective treatises published by Dury in 1662, he includes an anonymous work reaffirming the fundamentals by which all Christians can agree on. “Anonymi Propositiones Aliquot de Fundamentalibus Christianismi dogmatibus quae Salutem omnibus ea recipientibus affereunt,” in Dury, Irenicorum Tractatuum Prodromus, pp. 415-427. 45 Mede, Works, p. 864. 46 Letter from Mede to Hartlib dated 9 April 1635. Ibid. 865.


In a letter to Hartlib dated 6 February 1636, Mede’s much anticipated thoughts were finally communicated. Mede wrote, “[y]ou long, you say, to here my Answer to the particulars of your Letter…I suppose chiefly that of Fundamental Articles.”47 Mede’s solution was to pursue a ratio or a rule for determining these articles; however on this very point, Dury had met with some resistance from other prelates and doctors of the Church. Apparently, there was concern that if they were “left by thatt means they might either declare some darling opinion of their own not be Fundamental…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 favouring some condemned Heresie.”48 Moreover Mede empathized with Dury’s predicament. Consequently, Mede attempted to construct in more detail what he perceived as the ratio for Fundamental Articles of faith. He wrote, by “Fundamental Articles in this inquiry we mean such [things] as are necessarii cognitu & creditu ad Salutem [necessary to know and believe for Salvation]: that is…Fundamental to Salvation.”49 These articles are of absolute necessity that “no Christian soul…shall be saved [who is] uncapable to understand them.”50 Yet, what then do these articles specifically encompass? Mede believed it would include the Apostles Creed, and the answers to two off the Socinian errors concerning the Divine nature and the satisfaction of Christ. Essentially this covered the doctrine of the Trinity and the redemptive work of Christ.51 These articles Mede proceeded to distinguish from what he called the Fundamentals of Ecclesiastical Communion, and the Fundamental Truths of Theology.52 The Fundamentals of Ecclesiastical Communion were much broader and focused on the maintenance of the Christian Life, as an individual participates in the church – which included ecclesiastical discipline. Profession of these fundamentals identified a person with a certain ecclesiastical communion, but they were not required necessarily for salvation. As such, these particular fundamentals were not “needful to be understood of every one distinctly and explicitly…but implicitly only and as far as they shall be capable or have means to come to the knowledge thereof.”53 Likewise the Fundamental Truths of Theology consisted of a much more comprehensive theological corpus.

47

Ibid. 868. Ibid. 869. 49 Ibid. 872. 50 Ibid. 869. 51 Ibid. 869. 52 “By Fundamental Articles in this 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.” Ibid. 872. 53 Ibid. 869. 48


75

These were “principles whence theological verities are deduced.”54 Potentially this could include the entire loci of systematic theology. At this point Mede found great similarity between his and Dury’s thoughts. After reading one of Dury’s discourses, Mede wrote to Hartlib convinced that Dury “aimed at the selfsame ground for the discovery and discerning of Fundamental Verities from nonFundamental…though in differing way of expression, as men that conceive apart are wont to do.”55 The only difference between Mede and Dury’s approaches was that Mede defined fundamentals as necessary for participating in a Christian life, while Dury emphasized its necessity for inclusion in the covenant between God and man.56 Therefore, by distinguishing the fundamental articles of faith in this way, Mede and Dury attempted to offer a solution that all Protestants could agree upon. Nevertheless further details were required of Mede by Dury and Hartlib regarding these “Fundamentals.” By July of 1637 Mede finally received a copy of the Leipzig Articles. Again he reiterated his lament, “When I had read it over, Lord! Me thought, what little differences are these to break communion for?”57 With Leipzig as a blue print, Dury and Hartlib’s next project was to construct a confession that included the Fundamental Articles of Faith whereby both Lutherans and Reformed could agree. Mede warned Hartlib that the confession “must be made very short, easie and evident; or it will breed as many controversies as are about the Points themselves in question.”58 Furthermore, Hartlib was encouraged to consult the rich theological heritage inherited from the patristic era. Mede regarded this particular patristic acuity as distinctive to the English Church, “[b]ut 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 endeavour to bring our own as near as we can to that Pattern.”59 That “pattern” was found in 54

Ibid. 872. Ibid. 873. This letter was written 14 August 1637, where Mede wrote that he was reading “Mr. Dury’s Consultation.” He was probably referring either to Dury’s Consultatio Theologica de Via qua pacis ecclesiasticae studia atque deliberationes inter Ecclesias evangelicas ad optatum produci queant eventum; submissa judiciis…Dni. Laurentii Paulini… Episcopi Strengnesis, et Capitularium Ecclesiae Cathedralis Strengnesis…a t Johanne Duraeo. Strengensiae, 7 Oct. 1636, or Consultatio Theologica de tollendis in negotio pacis ecclesiasticae tractando difficultatibus quas Rev. Dom. Johann Rudbeckius…et in Diaecesi Arrosiensi Episcopus ejusdem loci Capitulares proposuerunt. Proposita…a Johanne Duraeo. Holmiae, Nov 1636. Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury and Comenius, p. 180. 56 Mede, Works, pp. 873-874. 57 Ibid. 871. 58 Ibid. 871. 59 Ibid. 865. This of course was Mede’s observation, and not the general consensus within the English Church. In his discourses defending the ceremonial practices of the Church of England Mede regularly attempted to establish precedence from the early church. See, “The Second Book 55


the creeds of the early church, which included the Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian Creeds. For Mede, these creeds followed a progression as each one built and expanded upon the previous one. He wrote, But for the framing or composing such a Fundamental Confession as is sought for, let me discover my Opinion, Fancy, or whatsover it be. I observe, That the Confessions or Creeds of the Ancient Church…were always the former Creeds or Confessions enlarged with such further additions or explanations subjoyned to the former Articles respectively as the Heresies of the Times made requisite for the distinction of Orthodox Believers.60 Mede understood that the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) expanded the Apostles Creed by including the relation between the Father and the Son, affirming the divine nature of Christ. The Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) revised the Nicene Creed to include the filioque clause, whereby the Holy Spirit is confessed as proceeding from the Father and the Son, and this pattern of enlargement continued through successive councils and creeds up until the sixth century.61 For Mede a confession should not be entirely “new”, but simply incorporate the former creeds and adapt them for their present context. This then would testify to their “communion and agreement” with the ancient catholic church and distinguish themselves from the “Sects, Heresies and Apostasies of the Times.”62 Lastly, Mede’s anti-Roman Catholic bias emerged in this discussion. It was imperative for Mede to distance his comments on confessions from the actions of the Council of Trent. Mede pointed out the Tridentine error of adding twelve articles to the original creeds which were “inconsistent with the former Articles” according to their “true and original meaning.”63 Instead he maintained that any additional material should be subordinate to the original Articles.64 Therefore, even with some initial caution, Mede was not opposed to Hartlib and Dury’s suggestion to construct a new confession for the purposes of pacification. This was a worthwhile project, but must be proceeded upon with great wisdom and sensibility.

of the Works…containing several discourses and treatises of Churches and the Worship of God therein.” Ibid. 319-408. 60 Ibid. 874. 61 “So the Nicene Creed was the Creed of the Apostles enlarged in the Articles of the Father and Son, and one or two other. The Creed of Constantinople added to the Article of the Holy Ghost in that of Nicea…That of Athanasius yet more enlarges that of Nicea, as doth that of Chalcedon also the Article of the Son against Eutyches.” Ibid. 874. 62 Ibid. 874. 63 Ibid. 874. 64 Ibid. 874.


77

5.v IRENICISM AND MILLENARIANISM At first glance, the link between irenicism and millenarianism is not plainly obvious. Prophetic speculations and end of the world convulsions are not characteristic of ecclesiastical unity and pacification. However within a highly theologically conversant society, saturated d with apocalyptic expectation, nearly any ecclesiastical event could be situated d within a historical and eschatological narrative. Dury and Hartlib placed their irenical efforts within such an apocalyptic, and more specifically millenarian, timeline. Yet not simply their irenical project, but their complementary work in reforming education, science, government, and other aspects of society would be given millenarian significance.65 But what did their millenarianism look like, and what distinct interpretation did they adopt? One source for their ongoing interest in millenarianism was Mede’s substantial work on the Apocalypse. The introduction of Hartlib to Mede was probably a result of Mede’s fame through the publication of his Clavis Apocalyptica. The earliest extant letter from Hartlib to Mede was dated 6 March 1634. In this letter Hartlib relayed the response of a certain scholar in Leiden, to whom he had sent a copy of Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptica.66 It is obvious from the letter that this was not Hartlib’s first contact with Mede, but nonetheless it demonstrated that Hartlib was aware by 1634 of Mede’s most notable work, presumably in its greatly expanded second edition of 1632.67 Apparently Dury and Hartlib were serving as intermediaries between Mede and Ludovicus de Dieu, professor of theology at the University of Leiden. De Dieu was impressed with Mede’s interpretations and was eager to receive more of his writings.68 From Mede’s response to this first letter it is clear that, unlike his attitude towards Protestant unification, he had no reservations about expressing his millenarian ideas to Hartlib. Immediately Mede confessed that he was “of the same opinion that Piscator and some others… who avouch a Millennium Regni…but not ȐȡȤȐȚȤȦȢ [the ancients referring to the patristic chiliasts].”69 Likewise in another letter dated 13 March 1634, Hartlib wrote how Dury was having difficulties obtaining a copy of the Clavis Apocalyptica. Within five days Mede responded to Hartlib and enclosed a copy of his book for Dury.70

65

Trevor-Roper, “Three Foreigners”, pp. 269-270; C. Webster, The Great Instauration, ch.1. Mede, Works, pp. 802-803. 67 In his letter Hartlib apologies for not writing Mede more often, and Mede responds with the same, “For your excusing your seldom saluting me with your Letter, it needs not; I am sensible of the trouble myself, and therefore most ready to hold others excused.” Ibid. 803-804. 68 More details of de Dieu will follow in chapter 10. 69 Mede, Works, p. 803. 70 Ibid. 862. 66


In addition to forwarding his most popular book, Mede introduced Hartlib to a number of his distinctive millenarian interpretations. In October of 1637 Hartlib wrote to Mede requesting the same comments on the future reign of the holy ones and Christ on earth, the first resurrection, and other millenarian doctrines, that he had written previously to Twisse.71 Twisse was already discussing the contents of Mede’s letters with Hartlib and he encouraged Hartlib to write directly to Mede. Mede’s letters to Twisse were in response to some queries and revealed with greater detail some of Mede’s conclusions.72 Responding to Twisse, Mede expounded upon the chief millenarian tenets that set him apart from other non-millenarian interpreters. The first, most obviously, was Mede’s understanding of a future literal one thousand year reign of Christ with his saints. “For the Thousand years Regnum Christi, it was time for it to be silent under the Regnum Antichristi,” wrote Mede.73 Having marked the beginning of the “Apostasy of the Latter Times” in the fourth century A.D., and the rise of Antichrist following, this determination precluded any period in the past of being the millennium; subsequently the millennial reign of Christ must await a future fulfillment.74 Mede reiterated his position in a letter to Hartlib dated 16 April 1638: I hold but one Millennium [as opposed to Brightman’s two], and that to begin at the destruction of the Beast…I deny that Satan was ever yet tied up, much less at the time of Constantine. Tis one thing to be dethroned and thrown down from Heaven, (that was at the time of Constantine), another thing to be bound and close prisoner, and not so much as peep out of his dungeon.75 Likewise the first resurrection depicted in verse 5 of chapter 20 was also interpreted literally. Previous Protestant exegetes in the sixteenth century understood the first resurrection as symbolic of either the believer’s regeneration or the death of the martyrs who are now reigning in heaven.76 Mede adopted a

71

Ibid. 875. Mede’s letters to Twisse are found in his Works, Epistles XIV, p. 759; Epistle XVII, p. 765; Epistle XLI, p. 795; Epistle XLIII, p. 799; Epistle LI, p. 811. 73 Ibid. 759. 74 Mede identified the “Apostasy of the Latter Times” prophesied in 1 Timothy 4:1 with the rise of the cult of saints introduced by the early popes. See Mede, The Apostasy, p. 83. 75 Mede, Works, p. 880. 76 For studies in sixteenth-century Protestant apocalyptic thought see: Irena Backus, Les Sept Visions et la Fin des temps: Les Commentaires Genevois de l’Apocalypse entre 1539 et 1584 (Geneva, 1997); idem, “Apocalypse “ 20, 2-4 et le Millenium Protestant”, Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, Tome 79, no. 1 (1999), pp. 101-117; idem, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse (Oxford, 2001); Robin B. Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis: Apocalypticism l in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation (Stanford, 1988); Richard Bauckham, “Heinrich Bullinger, 72


79

literal reading that placed the first resurrection as an event inaugurating the millennium. Those who would take part in the first resurrection are the slain martyrs who will be brought back to life in order to reign.77 In an answer to another of Twisse’s queries, Mede wrote, “it is not needful that the Resurrection of those which died in Christ should be all at once or altogether; but the Martyrs first, in the First resurrection; then (afterr an appointed time) the rest of the dead in the Last resurrection.”78 What will separate the “first” and “last” resurrections will be the millennium. Again in 1638 Mede plainly stated, “I take the Resurrection, both of them, First and Second, to be proper and real.”79 Thus, through Mede’s letters to Twisse, Hartlib was exposed in greater detail to Mede’s primary millenarian teachings. Another point of Mede’s interpretation caught the attention of Hartlib. In the late 1630s an unpublished manuscript of Francis Potter’s, An Interpretation of the Number 6666 was circulated amongst interested individuals.80 Potter applied a unique mathematical method for interpreting the number of the beast found in chapter thirteen of the Apocalypse.81 By comparing the visions in chapter fourteen with thirteen, Potter drew a parallel between the 144,000 who had the Lamb’s and the Father’s name written on their foreheads with those in chapter thirteen who had received the mark of the beast, 666.82 David Brady writes, [t]he essence of Potter’s thesis was to show that the key to understanding the number of the beast was to contrast it with the Church’s number (given by him as 144, rather than the more strictly correct number 144,000). 144 was the square of 12, the number of the Church Militant as described in Rev.21, and 666 was similarly an approximate square of 25. Potter then set himself to show from the evidence of ancient writers

l’Apocalypse et Les Anglais”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses, 74 année, no.3 (1999), pp. 351377; E. A. de Boer, “The Book of Revelation in Calvin’s Geneva”, in W.H. Neuser, H.J. Selderhuis and W. van’t Spijker (eds.), Calvin’s Books: Festschrift dedicated to Peter de Klerk on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (Heerenveen, 1997), pp. 23-62. 77 Mede, Works, p. 775. 78 Ibid. 775. 79 Ibid. 880. 80 Potter’s book was eventually published in 1642, however Mede was aware of it in 1636 and later wrote the foreward to the 1642 edition. Mede, Works, pp. 845-852. Mede, of course, died in 1638 so Potter’s book was written a number of years before its actual publication date. See Brady, The Contribution of British Writers between 1560 and 1830 to the Interpretation of Revelation 13.1618 (Tübingen, 1983), p. 112. 81 “This calls for wisdom, If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is a man’s number. His number is 666”, Apocalypse 13:18 NIV. 82 “Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads”, Apocalypse 14:1 NIV.


that the number 25 had long been regarded as “a fatall and unfortunate number.”83 Upon receiving Potter’s conjectures, Mede was skeptical at first. He wrote to Twisse that “I confess I came to the reading thereof with as much prejudice as might be, having been cloyed with so many vain and fanciful Speculations about that mystical Number, that I had no stomach to any more of them.”84 Yet Mede was convinced quickly that Potter’s interpretation deserved merit, “[t]hat if it be not a Truth,…it is the most considerable Probability that ever I read in that kind.”85 From that point on Mede continued to promote Potter’s conclusions whenever he received questions regarding the number of the beast. In January of 1637 Mede sent Hartlib a number of books and treatises, including Potter’s work. Hartlib requested Mede’s opinion on this work and he responded with an enthusiastic endorsement: “[t]hat Discourse or Tract of the Number of the Beast is the happiest that ever yet came into the world…I read the book at first with much prejudice…but by the time I had done, it left me as much possessed with admiration as I came to it with prejudice.”86 Through these letters and Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptica, by the end of the 1630s, Hartlib and Dury were familiar with Mede’s millenarian interpretations. But did they actually adopt the same eschatological position? In a letter written to Hartlib in 1640, Dury commends the translation of Mede’s Apostasy of the Latter Times, I am gladde to heare that Mr Mede his Doctrina Daemonum is to bee translated into Latin, & I think they judge right that say that the best way to overthrow popery is not to meddle so much with particular questions as to strike a[t] the roote & fundamentall characters of the whole Antichristian state therof which me thinkes may bee yet discovered by another & more eminent straine of discoverye then any which I have seene.87 Mede’s discovery of the cult of saints, as a Christian modification of the gentile doctrine of demons in the fourth century, negated any possibility of the millennium being in the past or the present. Thus, Dury’s strong endorsement implicitly suggests his adherence to Mede’s millenarian conclusion.

83

Brady, The Contribution of British Writers, p. 113. Mede, Works, p. 851. 85 Ibid. 851. 86 Ibid. 877-878. 87 Presumably Mede’s work was to be translated into Latin in order to reach a non-English speaking audience. HP 2/2/33A-34B. 84


81

Additionally, Hartlib published a collection of treatises written by a “German D[octor/ivine]” in 1655. Included in this publication was a preface written by Dury. From this preface Dury’s reception of Mede can be detected. Dury gave high praise to the author for how similar his conclusions were to Mede’s: I finde that it is an abridgment of our friend Mr Mede (now with God) his interpretation of the Revelation, with some additions confirming the truth thereof, and applying the same to the present state of affairs in Europe and in Asia,…hee hath grounded all upon the Synchronisms which God directed Mr Mede to observ, which certainly are demonstrable, and a true keie to the opening of the Mysterie;…that which he hath concurrent with Mr Mede ought to bee look’t upon as the fruit of God’s grace sprung up elsewhere, whereat wee should rejoice, as at a seal of approbation set unto the truth.88 It is obvious that Dury viewed the latter author as simply building upon “his [Mede’s] grounds.”89 Dury’s description of Mede’s interpretations as “demonstrable” and “set unto the truth” should not be under-emphasized. These are incontrovertible words indicating Dury’s endorsement of Mede’s millenarianism as the right and proper aapproach to understanding the visions of the Apocalypse. Moreover Dury employed the Synchronisms that Mede had so carefully constructed. Dury asserted that, the keie of the Historical Mysterie of the visions is the discoverie of Paralel events by Syncronisms, and the understanding of the Symbolical speeches of the Scripture, wherein the harmonie between the great and little world is expressed: So the keie of the spiritual Mysterie of the visions must bee the discoverie of paralel perfections.90 This was nothing more than a reiteration of Mede’s own definition: By a Synchronisme of prophecies I meane, when the things therein designed run along in the same time; as if thou shouldest call it an

88

John Dury, “An Epistolical Discours, from Mr John Durie to Mr Sam. Hartlib, concerning this Exposition of the Revelation by waie of Preface f thereunto”, in Samuel Hartlib (ed.), Clavis Apocalyptica (London, 1655), p. 11-12. 89 Ibid. 13. 90 Ibid. 18.


agreement in time or age: because prophecies of things falling out in the same time run on in time together, or Synchronize.91 Dury also proceeded to apply Mede’s method of harmonization. For example, Mede synchronized the opening of the seventh seal in Revelation 8:1 with all the events leading up to the beginning of the millennium. “But now the seaventh seale or (which is all one) the six first trumpets, the company of the sealed, and the Beast, are contemporaries,” [the seventh trumpet marked the beginning of the millennium].92 This synchronism set the tone for Mede’s structure since a strict chronological reading of the Apocalypse could no longer be maintained. Consistent with this move, Dury also incorporated the same synchronism in his observations of the seventh seal: “the destruction which is at the opening of the seventh seal is brought upon the world: and what the glorie and settlement is, which is brought unto the Church of Saints therein: for the seven seal doth contein, and produce all what ever doth follow till the end of the Revelation.”93 Methodologically, Mede’s synchronisms shaped Dury’s own attempt to structure the Apocalypse. Finally, did Dury and Hartlib’s millenarianism coincide with their irenical project? First, Dury and Hartlib were no longer impeded by a historical myopia. Their vision was corrected to see a divine plan and solution for the turmoil and tragedy that had befallen seventeenth-century Europe. The future millennium would offer the blessed peace and protection that they could not find in their present war-ravaged world. Dury and Hartlib, like Mede, no longer located the millennium in the past or their present. By 1655 Dury was explicit: “The state of the Church during her Reign with Christ on earth, is before the last Judgment, a thousand years; and after the universal Resurrection, both in Heaven and earth, for ever and ever.”94 Therefore, like many who were influenced by Mede, Dury and Hartlib attempted to prepare the Church for the coming of her Lord and the inauguration of the millennial reign. They saw themselves as sitting on the cusp of this grand event, and they hoped that their efforts towards unification would precipitate the arrival of the millennium. In his interpretation of the eleventh chapter, containing the vision of the Two Witnesses prophesying, Mede identified the Two Witnesses as the “Interpreters” and “Defenders” of the truth.95 However, he did

91

Mede, The Key, Part I, p. 1. Ibid. 17. 93 Dury, “An Epistolical Discours…”, p. 38. 94 Ibid. 45. 95 “And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” Apocalypse 11:3 NIV; “These are the Interpreters and Defenders of the Divine Truth, which should bewaile with continual complaints, that filthy and lamentable pollution of the Church of Christ; and whom God would stirre up continually, to be monitors to the Christian world 92


83

not limit the fulfillment of this vision to two specific individuals, but applied it to a number of historic figures with the possibility of more being added.96 Likewise the slaying of these Two Witnesses (11:7) had yet to occur.97 Again, following Mede’s interpretation of chapter 11, Dury projected Hartlib and his efforts as a manifestation of the witnesses testifying to the coming reality. He wrote to Hartlib in 1638 expressing his lack of discouragement over the reluctance of the Lutherans since “God’s intention will nott bee stopped”, because the work of God “is never truly accepted & acknowledged till it bee first rejected by the builders & countenanced in the face of this world. [F]or this cause also the two witnesses must bee killed and & their carkasses must lye dead in the streets of the great Citie.”98 After which, “the Sound of the Seventh Angel’s trumpet is heard,” marking the beginning of the millennium.99 For Dury and Hartlib the work of unification served to usher in the period off Christ’s reign and subjugation of his enemies. In the same letter he continued: I am encouraged in mine endevours by the contemplation of the Prophecies, which reveale unto us the approaching tyme of the killing of the witnesses: because I know that immediately after that tyme the Kingdomes of the world are to bee Christs; & that therefore the preparatives wherby all soules are to bee brought unto the obedience of his Kingdome in the unitie of the spirit & the bond of Peace; are to bee advanced according to the Principles off the everlasting covenant. So the neerer the tyme of their killing is the more I am obliged to bee diligent in this businesse of reconcilement which is grounded upon fundamentall & universall truths.100 Dury believed categorically that their continual work for the unification of Protestantism would produce everlasting fruit in the coming kingdom of Christ.

idolizing with the Gentiles; and guides to his Saints keeping the faith.” Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 7. See also, Rodney L. Petersen, Preaching in the Last Days: The Theme of the ‘Two Witnesses’ in the 16th & 17th Centuries (Oxford, 1993), pp. 200-226. 96 Mede understood the description of “Two” individuals to be a type, patterned after the Old Testament prophets, i.e. Moses and Aaron, Elijah and Elisha, etc. Therefore the Two Witnesses are not limited two individuals. Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 8. 97 In a letter to Twisse dated 2 December 1629, Mede described the slaying of the Two Witnesses as first, the persecution of the Waldenses and Albigenses, and second, the killing of the Reformed Pastors which had yet to be fully fulfilled. “These differences I thought good to propound to your consideration, to intimate that the scantling of this last War cannot be well taken from that against the Waldenses and Albigenses, &c. as being to be another kind; namely, an extermination of the Reformed Pastors out of their places and Churches.” Mede, Works, p. 766. 98 HP 2/6/12A-15B. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid.


Therefore, for Dury and Hartlib, their efforts were no longer limited to short-term and temporal goals, but instead they understood that their labors contributed towards a divine plan that would conclude with a blessed millennial age. Dury and Hartlib believed that they were participating in an apocalyptic drama that would have eternal benefits and consequences. They were participants in the rebirth of millenarianism in the seventeenth-century, demonstrating this doctrine’s applicability in a variety off ways, specifically its usefulness in continuing the work of reunification. Like many other subsequent apocalyptic interpreters, Dury and Hartlib were attracted to a millenarian eschatology.

5.vi CONCLUSION In a letter cited earlier from Mede to Hartlib, Mede wrote, “I am a private man.”101 This succinct statement captured Mede’s attitude towards the various issues of contention tearing apart both Britain and continental Europe. Whether it was theological, philosophical, ecclesiastical or political, Mede chose to keep his thoughts and opinions to himself in the face of polarizing debates, avoiding controversy as much as possible. When he did speak his mind reluctantly, it was usually following intense persuasion, and never before his superiors had spoken first. Mede was a man unwilling to engage in polemics that he viewed as both unfortunate and avoidable. As stated before, such depictions of the patriarch of seventeenth-century millenarianism are not consistent with the common assumption that millenarianism necessarily promoted radical activism. Mede’s interaction with Dury and Hartlib suggests a different conception of millenarianism, since his attitudes and actions reveal no connection between his millenarianism and any activist agenda. In fact, he promoted no such agenda, except to avoid taking a public stance on divisive issues. Both Samuel Hartlib and John Dury experienced how difficult it was to solicit Mede’s opinion, even when he agreed with their general principles. Opinions on Hartlib and Dury’s plans for reunification mirrored the previously discussed Calvinism/Arminian debates in the Church of England. Many of the Laudians were skeptical since the goal was to form a united Protestant front against the Roman Catholic Church and all states which supported her. On the other hand puritans were likewise suspicious. Unification with Lutherans, and their Arminian like single-predestination position, compromised the Calvinistic understanding off the sovereignty of God in election. Once again Mede found himself, although this time not alone, caught between the two dominant ecclesiastical factions within England. Thus, Mede was reluctant to comment on an issue that had yet to be determined by his own English superiors. It was only after others had spoken first, that Mede provided a few thoughts which affirmed Dury’s original intent. 101

Cf. fn. 37.


85

Although Mede was careful about commenting on issues like predestination and irenicism, he was more than willing to share his interpretations of biblical prophesies, especially from the Apocalypse. In contrast to Mede’s guarded nature with regard to other topics, he was openly circulating both his published and unpublished writings on the millennium and other eschatological topics. Millenarianism was not yet an issue of controversy nor was it deemed entirely heterodox. Mede felt no need to hide his views on the millennium. Instead he readily shared his insights and he contributed to a growing sober interest in interpreting prophetic texts in Scripture. Subsequently, many like Hartlib and Dury depended on the millenarian ffoundation that Mede laid and they appropriated it for their own purposes in light of their contemporary context.

CHAPTER SIX

The Origins of the Clavis Apocalyptica: A Millenarian Conversion

6.i THE ORIGINS OF THE CLAVIS APOCALYPTICA Prior to the publication of Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptic in England, and Johann Heinrich Alsted’s Diatribe de mille annos on the continent in 1627, millenarianism was still a minority position amongst apocalyptic exegetes.1 Even Mede did not begin his study of the Apocalypse with the intent to produce a millenarian reading. In fact, when he began he was no millenarian at all. Mede’s biographer recounts, That the Authour had not the least found inclination to this or any other Hypothesis, as those have that affect to be talk’d of for some new or uncommon Theory: (This humble Soul was far from any such design of Vain-glory.) Nay, when he first applied himself to the study of the Apocalyps, he came (as he told a Friend of his) with a mind rather possest against it: and (being desirous to differ as little as might be from the sense of others) he tried all ways imaginable to place the Millennium elsewhere, and if it were possible, to begin the 1000 years at the Reign of Constantine,

1 Howard B. Hotson, “The Historiographical Origins of Calvinist Millenarianism”, in Bruce Gordon (ed.), Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth Century Europe, vol. 2 (Aldershot, 1996), pp. 159-181.

89

90 The Origins of the Clavis Apocalyptica

(for whom he had a great veneration;) which was the commonly-received opinion of those that wrote before him or after him.2 Initially Mede approached his study of the Apocalypse with a mind set against a millenarian interpretation. He attempted to conform his understanding to his predecessors in the sixteenth century, as well as his current contemporaries. According to his biographer Mede’s eschatological reorientation was a reluctant theological shift. If Mede’s conversion to millenarianism was a reluctant shift, what accounted for this decision? Something significant must have compelled Mede to abandon the established conclusions and embrace a position that was historically suspect; millenarianism in the sixteenth century u was commonly associated with the Anabaptists and other heretical sects.3 Paul Christianson suggested that Mede’s millenarianism was influenced by his keen observations of current events, specifically the travesty of the Thirty Years War, which he “zealously watched.”4 Andrew Cunningham and Ole Peter Grell build on Christianson’s suggestion by adding that the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the Gunpowder Plot equally influenced Mede’s millenarian conclusions.5 Yet, the evidence in Mede’s writings does not substantiate any of these claims. The Clavis Apocalyptica was originally published without any commentary in 1627. It simply addressed the structure of the 2 Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. X. Mede expressed the same sentiment in a letter dated 4 June 1634, to Ludovicus de Dieu, “Plura non addo, nisi hoc solum; Una cum libello meo ad te venire exemplar Epistolar ad Amicum, qua sententiam meam de Millenario paulo plenius aperio: in quam me nulla animi levitate aut studio praepostero delapsum credas velim; sed postquam alia omnia frustra tentassem, tandem rei ipsius claritudine perstrictum paradoxo sucubuisse.” Ibid. 571. 3 Studies on sixteenth-century Anabaptist and other fringe millenarians include: Klaus Deppermann, Melchoir Hoffman: social unrest and apocalyptic visions in the age of Reformation (Edinburgh, 1987); G.H. Williams, The Radical Reformation, (Kirksville, 1992); W. Klaasen, Living at the End of the Ages: Apocalyptic Expectation in the Radical Reformation (New York and London, 1992); Hans-Jurgen Goertz, Thomas Muntzer: Apocalyptic Mystic and Revolutionary (Edinburgh, 1993); E.M.V.M. Honée, “The Radical German Reformer Thomas Müntzer (c.14891525): The Impact of Mystical and Apocalyptical Traditions on his Theological Thought”, Wilks (ed.), Prophecy and Eschatology, pp. 65-74; Howard Hotson, “Arianism and Millenarianism: The Link between two Heresies from Servetus to Socinus”, in Popkin and Laursen (eds.), Millenarianism and Messianism, Volume IV, V pp. 9-35. 4 Christianson, Reformers and Babylon, p. 124. 5 “A couple of generations of English Puritans brought up on stories about the Spanish Armada and the Gunpowder Plot considered England’s role as an elect nation absolutely central for success in the forthcoming apocalyptic battle against Antichrist. It influenced Puritan writers such as Alexander Leighton, Joseph Mede and William Prynne, just to mention a few of the most prominent, who claimed that it was only true godliness which had preserved England when confronted by the ‘powers of Hell’ and Antichrist in the form of the Armada and the Gunpowder Plot.” Andrew Cunningham and Ole Peter Grell, The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine and Death in Reformation Europe (Cambridge, 2000), p. 60. It is quite telling that one of the two citations by Cunningham and Grell for this comment is Christianson’s work. Ibid. 328, fn. 97.

The Origins of the Clavis Apocalyptica 91 Apocalypse, which resulted in a millenarian n interpretation of chapter 20. With the structure in place, his specific comments on the text followed in 1632. This suggests that understanding the structure of the Apocalypse was Mede’s first task before moving on to the applications (both for the past and present) of the various visions. Moreover, if Christianson is correct then n any influence from current events, which would have effected Mede’s millenarianism, should be detected in his voluminous correspondence with individuals on the continent during the period before the Clavis Apocalyptica was published.6 As mentioned before, these letters were written with the intent of passing on political, ecclesiastical and even military news from the continent. However, as David Cockburn has pointed out, what was conspicuously absent from these letters was any reference to his apocalyptic or millenarian interpretations. Cockburn writes, Mead’s work in prophetic literature, then, led him (whether he made it clear in print or not) to believe that the millennium had yet to occur and probably lay in the near future; events foretold in Revelations [sic] were, even as he compiled his newsletters, possibly taking place on the Continent. How is this reflected in his letters? The short answer is that Mead’s studies in prophetic literature are hardly reflected in his correspondence…very few of his apocalyptic speculations appear to have impinged in his newsgathering.7 A close reading of Mede’s letters confirms Cockburn’s conclusion.8 The speculation that Mede’s millenarianism was a response to political events finds no corroboration whatsoever in the sources where we would expect to find such comments. Therefore the shift in his eschatological position must be attributed to something else.

6.ii THE NON-MILLENARIAN MEDE In order to understand the details and significance of Mede’s conversion to millenarianism it is important to examine Mede’s original eschatological position. Admittedly the evidence is sparse for determining Mede’s view before he reached his millenarian interpretation of the Apocalypse. Yet there is some evidence in which to draw certain conclusions. Again his biographer states, “he tried all ways imaginable to place the Millennium elsewhere, and if it were possible to begin the 1000 years at the Reign of Constantine.”9 Originally Mede seemed to sympathize 6

These letters were written from 1619 to 1631 to Sir Martin Stuteville. See “A Biography.” Cockburn, A Critical Edition of the letters, p. 80. 8 “The letters of the Reverend Joseph Mead”, BL Harleian Manuscripts 389, 390. 9 Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. X. 7


with the view expounded by John Bale, Francis Junius, Heinrich Bullinger, John Napier, David Pareus and others, t who placed the millennium in the past beginning with the reign of Constantine.10 As his biographer adds, this “was the commonlyreceived opinion of those that wrote before him and after him.”11 Judging from these comments Mede shared the popular view inherited from the sixteenth century. In addition to the evidence found in his biography, a most revealing statement is found in a letter dated 23 March 1634/5, written by Mede to William Twisse: For my full interpretation of that part of 11. of Daniel, I have it in a Treatise upon I Tim 4. Which I preached in certain Sermons at S. Marie’s before I was so well versed in the Apocalypse or understood the Mystery of the Millennium; and therefore it hath some things in it not so consentaneous to my present opinion in that or some other things there discoursed. Notwithstanding these defects I could be willing to let you have a sight of it, if I could send it by a certain hand.12 The treatise that Mede was referring to was published posthumously in 1641 under the title: The Apostasy of the Latter Times, with a preface written by Twisse.13 The Clavis Apocalyptica was the culmination of his apocalyptic studies that contained his most cogent and mature thoughts on the structure of the Apocalypse, which had the most significant influence on his millennial position. Yet, by his own hand, Mede noted that his Apostasyy predated the Clavis and contained material inconsistent with his fully developed millenarian position. Therefore at some point between the time he wrote The Apostasyy and the Clavis, Mede shifted his interpretation which resulted in a consistent and more developed millenarian position.

10

John Bale, The Image of bothe churches (Wittreich, 1548) in The selected works of John Bale, ed. Henry Christmas (Cambridge, 1849), p. 560; Heinrich Bullinger, A Hundred Sermons on the Apocalips (London, 1561), p. 594; Franciscus Junius, The Apocalyps or Revelation of S. John he Apostle and evangelist of our Lord Jesus Christt (Cambridge, 1596), p. 257; John Napier, A Plaine Discovery of the whole Revelation of Saint John (Edinburgh, 1593), pp. 232-233; David Pareus, In divinam Apocalypsin commentaries (Heidelberg, 1618), translated and republished as: A Commentary upon the Divine Revelation of the Apostle and Evangelist John, trans. Elias Arnold (Amsterdam, 1644), pp. 518-524. 11 Ibid. X. 12 Ibid. 802. 13 Apparently the draft that Mede promised to send to Twisse in this letter (which is the edition that was published in 1641, see Twisse’s preface, p. i), was an early manuscript which Mede later revised. Worthington noted that there were three drafts found amongst Mede’s papers and the third was “several places enriched with considerable additions,” see “General Preface”, p. xii. The third edition was included in Mede’s collective works. I have compared both the Twisse and Worthington editions and found no alterations in the sections that revealed Mede’s pre-millenarian thoughts.

The Origins of the Clavis Apocalyptica 93

The Apostasy of the Latter Times contains one reference to the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse. This reference suggests a non-millenarian interpretation of the millennium in chapter 20. Mede seemed to allow for the possibility of the millennium extending longer than a literal one thousand years. “[W]e shall finde in his Apocalypticall vision, besides other times more obscurely intimated, an expresse prophecy of no lesse than a thousand yeers, which whatever it meane, cannot be a small time, and must be fulfilled in this world, and not the world to come.”14 This statement is strikingly different from his unambiguous statements regarding the duration of the millennium in his later writings, and likewise slightly different from the previous tradition established by JJunius, Bale, Bullinger and others. This statement is clear that the millennium cannot a be less than a thousand years because it “cannot be a small time”; thus it must be an extended period of time, perhaps even extending beyond one thousand years, suggesting a more symbolic or spiritualized interpretation of the duration aand nature of the millennium. Likewise the fulfillment of the millennium would not be in “the world to come,” whether that be a second interadventual period or the consummated new heavens and new earth, but in “this world” (Mede’s present world). One could argue that in the statement “this world” Mede was referring to the terrestrial character of the millennium propounded by the millenarians, versus the heavenly estate - “the world to come” - following the last judgment and the universal resurrection. Consequently Mede would be arguing that the millennial kingdom will not be the eternal heavenly kingdom, but a finite earthly one. Yet this makes no sense in light of the exegetical tradition of interpreting the Apocalypse.15 No previous exegetes ever placed the millennium within the future eternal state. Such an interpretation would have great difficulty reconciling the eternal heavenly state with Satan’s release after the thousand years were completed (Revelation 20:3). Why would Mede be distinguishing his view of the millennium from a position that no one holds? This cannot be what Mede intended in this statement. The common distinction was not whether the millennium would occur in the church age or in the eschaton, but when within the church age would or did it occur (past, present or future)? Why then was Mede so explicit regarding the millennium being in “this world” and not “the world to come”? The most consistent answer suggests that Mede was actually refuting a millenarian position in these early statements on chapter 20. In the phrase “this world,” Mede was referring to the present Church age, just as Tyconius and Augustine defined it, where the millennium will be fulfilled, and not in the “world to come” – some finite earthly millenarian kingdom which will precede the final new heavens and new earth.16 14

Mede, The Apostasy, p. 91. Cf. fn. 10. 16 St. Augustine, City of God, trans. Henry Bettensem (Harmondsworth, 1972), p. 908. Tyconius writings on the Apocalypse did not survive, however they can be deduced from citations from Primasius and Augustine. See: Paula Fredriksen, “Tyconius and Augustine on the Apocalypse”, in R. K. Emmerson and B. McGinn (eds.), The Apocalypse in the Middle Ages (Ithaca and London, 15


Further evidence for this refutation was found in Mede’s description of the nature of Christ’s reign, and the order of succeeding events. Mede wrote, Christ should reigne in his Church on earth so long, till hee had put downe all rule, all authority and power, and subjected all his enemies under his feet, [finally] he should subdue the last enemy, which is death, and surrender his kingdome into the hands of his Father.17 On this point Mede described a progressive advancement of Christ’s kingdom through his church. Although not entirely consistent with Augustine, this language of “Christ reigning in his church” emphasized a present reign of Christ.18 Likewise Mede’s description of the reign of Christ implied a more spiritual reign through the Gospel ministry entrusted to the church. Itt was decisively inconsistent with a reign manifested in political terms. Clearly this was not a description of a millenarian theocratic reign of Christ. Even more, this interpretation of a spiritual reign allowed the millennium to be co-terminus with any period in history where evil and unrighteousness still existed, even during the period of the great apostasy. If the character of the millennial reign of Christ was spiritual, then it could just as well extend within an era where corrupt earthly y powers were still active. Mede gave no exact dates for when this millennium would occur, but the comment of his biographer opened the possibility that the terminus a quo was some time during the rule of Constantine.19 The terminus ad quem would then be one thousand years or more later when Christ hands over the kingdom to his Father and ultimately conquers his last enemy, death. Clearly this was not a depiction of a millennium

1992), pp. 20-37; E. Ann Matter, “The Apocalypse in Early Medieval Exegesis”, in R.K. Emmerson and B. McGinn (eds.), The Apocalypse in the Middle Ages (Ithaca and London, 1992), pp. 38-50; Brain E. Daley, “Apocalypticism in Early Christian Theology”, in Bernard McGinn (ed.), Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, vol. 2 (New York, 1998), pp. 3-47. 17 Mede, The Apostasy, p. 91. 18 For Augustine, and those who followed the Augustinian tradition, the reign of Christ was seen as thoroughly spiritual reign, with no geo-political manifestation (cf. fn. 16). Mede was advocating a progressive nature in which the enemies of Christ would be defeated. A fair representation of the Augustinian tradition in the early modern period can be found in the Genevan exegetes like Antoine du Pinet and Nicholas Colladon. See: Antoine Du Pinet, Exposition sur l’Apocalypse de Sainct Iehan, l’Apostre extricte de plusieurs docteurs tant anciens que modernes…(Geneva, 1545); Nicholas Colladon, Methodus facilima ad explicationem sacrasanctae Apocalypsews Ioannis Theologi ex ipso libro desumpta. Authore N. Colladone l Biturige, sacrarum literarum professore in Schola Lausannensi. Tertia editio multis partibus auctior prosus quam praecedens […], (Morgis, 1584). For more details on du Pinet and Colladon see: Backus, Reformation Readings, pp. 37-59, 66-85. 19 Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. X. Also, Mede was familiar with other apocalyptic exegetes like Franciscus Junius and Thomas Brightman who dated the start of the millennium with Constantine. Ibid. 742, 880.


where Satan will be bound, evil will be restrained t absolutely, and where the geopolitical kingdom of Christ will be present.20 True to Mede’s own words, The Apostasy of the Latter Times contained “things in it not so constentaneous to [his] present opinion.”21 6.iii DATING THE APOSTASY OF THE LATTER TIMESS AND MEDE’S CONVERSION The precise date when Mede delivered the series of sermons that comprised The Apostasyy remains uncertain.22 Mede, as we have seen, was appointed fellow at the end of 1613 and published the first edition of his fully millenarian Clavis Apocalyptica in 1627.23 Some time during those fourteen intervening years he delivered his sermons on I Timothy chapter 4, and afterwards devoted himself to a concentrated study of the Apocalypse, resulting in his millenarianism. That fourteen year period can be narrowed further by comparing The Apostasyy and the Clavis with Mede’s other works written between 1613 aand 1627, in order to determine precisely when Mede made the decisive shift in his interpretation of the millennium. Included in Mede’s collective works was a short sermon on the second chapter of 2 Peter. One particular issue addressed in this sermon was the Protestant historiographical dilemma that sought to provide an answer to the common Roman Catholic accusation, “where was your church before Luther?” In the on-going polemic, Rome attempted to justify her authority by claiming an unbroken theological line of succession from the Apostles to the early Church Fathers, on through the medieval Church, and finally to the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Protestants were confronted with the difficulty of explaining the whereabouts of the true visible church during the extensive period where the visible church was the Roman church which the Protestants asserted was corrupt. The second chapter of 2 Peter warned against false prophets and teachers who would come to introduce destructive heresies (2:1). Mede argued that these heresies were manifested in the Roman Catholic Church through her practice of worshipping and adoring saints and angels.24 This apostasy, taking the form of idolatry, began shortly after the Patristic period and accounted for the true visible church being “buried under the Apostate body of Christendome,” unseen until the dawning of the Reformation.25

20

In a letter to Samuel Meddus dated 18 April 1635, Mede described the bliss of the believer during the millennial age because of the presence of Christ during his reign on earth and heaven for a 1000 years. This description does not match Mede’s statement in the Apostasy of Christ reigning in the church and progressively subduing his enemies, Mede, Works, p. 776. 21 Ibid. 802. 22 I have found no records in the Cambridge University Library detailing the dates of the sermons given at St. Mary’s during the early seventeenth century. 23 Peile, Biographical Register, pp. 245-246. 24 Mede, Works, p. 244. 25 Ibid. 243.


This was the exegetical germ of the thesis extensively developed in Mede’s Apostasy of the Latter Times. In the Apostasyy he restated the Roman Catholic position that “the true Catholick Church must not only never have beene interrupted or extinguished, but it must have beene a society visibly knowne unto the world.”26 Mede responded by claiming that during the fulfillment of the great Apostasy which was prophesied in I Timothy 4 the face of the true visible church was eclipsed and overclouded.27 Likewise he maintained that from the beginning of this corruption some had separated from the visible church, but others stayed who acknowledged the “common principles of the Christian faith…in that corrupt body of Christendome.”28 This condition where true believers and apostates are both within the corrupt visible church continued until the period of refinement where the true church was once again visible. The ideas that Mede first introduced in his sermon on 2 Peter were developed in greater detail in The Apostasy. Subsequently it is no surprise to see 2 Peter 2:1 cited in The Apostasyy as an additional proof-text.29 The editor of Mede’s works dates the sermon on 2 Peter some time between 1615-1624, and states that it was given a few years before Mede delivered his sermons on I Timothy. Therefore because of the similarity of their exegetical conclusions, it would suggest that the earliest Mede would have written The Apostasyy was some time during the years 1617-1618, a few years after he delivered his sermon on 2 Peter.30

26

Mede, The Apostasy, p. 57. “We must take notice therefore that the Apostasie and corruption of faith so much prophesied of, was another manner of one, than that which was to frequent in those first times; such a kind of one as should not be disclaimed by the visible body of the Church, but should surprise, eclipse, and overcloud the beautiful face thereof: which manner of defection never had been before, nor should there be the like after it.” Ibid. 55. 28 Responding to the Roman Catholics, Mede answered: “My answer is, Thatt for the first ages it was so not only thus visible, but easily discernable from all other societies of men whatsoever; but afterwards when the great Apostasie we spake off surprized and deformed the bountifull Spouse of Christ, then was not that virgin company of Saints, our Mother, a distinct externall society from the rest of Christendome, but a part, yea and the only found part of that externall and visible body whereof our adversaries boast their predecessors to have beene members: for however this our Virgin-mother, for the internall and invisible communion of here sincere and unstained faith, were a distinct and severed company from the rest with whom she lived, yet, for the common principles of the Christian faith still acknowledged in thatt corrupt body of Christiendome, she retained communion with them; and for the most part of thatt time of darknesse continued an externall part of the same visible body with the rest in grosse call’d Christians, as being begotten by the same Sacrament of Baptisme.” Ibid. 59-60. 29 Ibid. 61. 30 The editor only recorded that the sermon on 2 Peter was written “many years before” the Apostasy. “General Preface”, Ibid. vii, xv. He likewise gave a window from 1615-1624 as the years when the discourse on 2 Peter was delivered. Thus, taking the earliest possible date of 1615 for the sermon on 2 Peter, and giving two to three years for the Apostasy to be written, that would suggest the earliest date for the sermons on I Timothy to be some time between 1617-1618. 27


Moreover Mede wrote another short discourse on the second chapter of Isaiah which revealed a further development in his interpretation from The Apostasyy of the vision in the second chapter of Daniel. In The Apostasyy Mede interpreted the rock not made by human hands which destroyed the statue, and the mountain which formed from the rock, as the kingdom of Christ. He wrote, “the stone that smote the image upon the feet became a great mountaine, and filled the whole earth: the meaning of all which is, that in the last times, or under the times of the last kingdome, (the Romane) should the kingdome of Christ appeare in the world, as we see it hath done.”31 This prophecy was fulfilled following the first advent of Christ, who was looked for, and accordingly came, and reigned; whose kingdome shall at length abolish the brittle remainder of the Romane state, according to the other part of the prophesie, when the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in, and our Lord subdue all his enemies under his feet, and at the ast death it selfe.32 According to Mede, the stone and the mountain represented the kingdom of Christ, where Christ would exercise his reign through the church. The period of this kingdom would also encompass the millennium. Again, in Mede’s non-millenarian interpretation the millennium need not be a period of total peace because the reign of Christ was spiritual and not physical. During this spiritual reign all of Christ’s enemies would be defeated and he would turn over the kingdom to his Father. What would follow next would be the eternal state, and not a temporary millennial state. Similarly in his sermon on the second chapter of Isaiah, h Mede returned to the prophecy found in the second chapter of Daniel, but this time his interpretation included a further elaboration. Instead of the stone and mountain sharing the same generic referent – the kingdom of Christ, Mede distinguished two phases as fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. The first phase, symbolized by the stone, represented the “First State of the Kingdom of Christ,” where there would be a gospel call to the world.33 Moreover the mountain manifested the second phase, which would “smite the brittle feet of the last Remainder of the Roman State now subsisting in the Popedom.”34 Mede maintained this two-fold state in another discourse on the first chapter of Mark. He wrote, I must add one thing more for the understanding of this Kingdom, namely, That this Kingdom of Christ which I have hitherto described hath at Two31

Mede, The Apostasy, p. 70. Ibid. 70. 33 Mede, Works, p. 140. 34 Ibid. 40. 32


fold state; That one Militant…begun at Christ’s First coming…The Second state is a Triumphant state; which shall be at his Second appearing in glory in the clouds of heaven.35 This more nuance exegesis allowed Mede to interpret the prophesy from Daniel 2 in more detail, but he still maintained a non-millenarian reading consistent with The Apostasy. The Kingdom of God in its two phases did not represent an earthly millennial kingdom as depicted in Revelation 20. Instead the incarnation and the work of the gospel marked the first phase, while the second phase would occur at Christ’s Second Advent. Mede explained this second phase in more detail: u power and rule, and subdue all at which time he shall put down all authority, his enemies under his feet, even death it self…and [he] shall render everlasting vengeance to his enemies, and those who believed not his Gospel; and give rewards of glory to his servants, who have kept their faith and allegeance to him.And that once done, and so his Conquest finished, he shall surrender up his Kingdom into the hands of his Father; that being subject to him who put all things under his feet, God may be all in all, as S. Paul tell us.36 Mede was describing the Last Judgment and the consummated kingdom of Christ where all his enemies will be defeated – even death itself. There is no mention of a millennium in this outline of the kingdom. Moreover the description does not match any of the details that Mede would later assign to the millennial kingdom of Christ. Furthermore, Mede’s editor dated the discourse on Isaiah between 1624 and 1628. Since the Clavis was published in 1627, that would now narrow the interval during which The Apostasy must have been written to six or seven years, between 1617/1618 and 1624 (a conservative estimate since it is a few years before the Clavis was published), when Mede began to devote greater study to the Apocalypse and ultimately reject his previous position. It is possible to locate the year of Mede’s shift more accurately by comparing another set of Mede’s writings. Mede’s editor recounts that the tract entitled Remains on some Passages in the Apocalypsee was written before the Clavis Apocalyptica, since the Clavis was his “Last labours upon that mysterious Book.”37 The Remains are unquestionably millenarian. Mede stated, “That these 1000 years are yet to come,” firmly projecting the millennium into the future.38 Likewise many of the distinctive characteristics of Mede’s millenarianism are contained in the 35

Ibid. 104. Ibid. 104. 37 Mede, Works, “The General Preface”, p. xviii. The Remains are found in Mede, Works, pp. 581605. All but chapter 9 was written before the Clavis. Ibid. 603. 38 Ibid. 603. 36


Remains. In it he advocated a literal earthly millennium, a corporeal first resurrection, the place of Christ in Heaven during the millennium, and the coordination of the Great Day of Judgment with the entire span of the millennium.39 The Remains are a collection of personal letters addressed to a certain Mr. Wood. The best estimate for the date of these letters is sometime from 1624 to 1625 (except for the ninth letter which the editor states was written after 1627). The first eight letters were written in 1624 with the eighth being in December 1624. Although no exact date was given for the three remaining letters (tenth through twelfth), they were probably written in early 1625. Thus, by 1625 Mede had converted to a millenarian position and was probably well involved in preparing the first edition of the Clavis, which would be published two years later. If Mede’s shift was complete by 1625 there still remains a discrepancy between the Remains and some of his other writings. In the Isaiah sermon (given between 1624 and 1628) Mede was still maintaining a non-millenarian position, similar to what he held in The Apostasy. This sermon reveals in inconsistency in Mede’s progress towards millenarianism. If this non-millenarian sermon on Isaiah was written in 1624, or a few years after, it would have been the same period in which he began sharing his millenarian conclusions in the Remains. Moreover the sermon on Mark, which contains the same non-millenarian interpretation of Daniel 2, was written between 1628 and 1638 according to Mede’s editor.40 In light of this evidence it would seem that Mede’s conversion in 1625 was not entirely complete. This is partially accurate. Mede’s comments in the Remains are focused on the Apocalypse exclusively. His millenarian conversion was a result of his new interpretation of the Apocalypse alone. After studying the Apocalypse, he would then programmatically reinterpret other biblical prophesies in light of his new millenarian discoveries – and this was exactly what he did. By 1632, when Mede’s full commentary on the Apocalypse was attached to the original Clavis and published, he revisited Daniel 2. This time he equated the second phase of the Kingdom, symbolized by the mountain, with the millennial kingdom of Christ. In his comments on the millennial reign depicted in chapter 20, he adds his reinterpretation of Daniel 2: Lastly, that I may conclude; this is that most ample kingdom, which by Daniel’s interpretation, was foreshewed to Nebuchadnezzar in that Propheticall Statue of the foure kingdoms: not that of a Stone cut out of a Hill whiles yet the Series of Monarchies remained (for this is the present state of the kingdome of Christ) but of the Stone when they were utterly broken and defaced, to become a Mountaine and to fill the whole world.41

39

Ibid. 603-604. Ibid. “The General Preface”, p. xvii. 41 Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 125. 40


For Mede, the mountain no longer represented the eternal kingdom, but the temporal millennial kingdom portrayed in n Revelation 20. Mede was still in the process of consistently applying his millenarianism before the second publication of the Clavis, but by 1632 he had consistently n worked out a millenarian interpretation of other prophetic passages beyond the Apocalypse. Thus, 1625 marked the year of Mede’s initial conversion to a millenarian reading of the Apocalypse, but the subsequent years until 1632 saw a thorough-going programmatic application of his millenarianism to other pertinent biblical passages.42

6.iv SYNCHRONIZING THE APOCALYPSE: THE SOURCE FOR MEDE’S CONVERSION Detecting an exegetical shift is significant, but it still does not explain the reason that compelled Mede to make such a drastic interpretive modification. Why did Mede abandon his previous view of the millennium and thereby break from the consensus of other apocalyptic writers? What was the “key” which unlocked these divine mysteries of history and prophecy? In his studies Mede must have discovered something that convinced him to re-evaluate his earlier interpretations and completely restructure his entire eschatology. Something convinced him that others, for nearly fourteen hundred years, had erred in their attempts to understand the Apocalypse.43 In retracing Mede’s theological shift, the place to begin is with a specific interpretation concerning the duration of the great apostasy prophesied in I Timothy. In the first verse the Apostle Paul a writes that the apostasy would occur during the “latter times.” Mede equated the “latter times” with the final period of the fourth kingdom found in the second chapter of Daniel. For “if the last times in generall are all the times of the fourth kingdome, then must our latter times as a part thereof needs be the latter times of that kingdome.”44 After establishing this point, Mede then set about to determine the duration of the “latter times” which would extend until the destruction of the fourth h kingdom. The seventh chapter of Daniel recorded the duration of the reign of the little horn on the fourth beast as for a “time, times and a half a time” (7:25). Mede following a well-established tradition interpreted this as one year, two years, aand one half a year, totaling three and one half years, or 42 months, or 1260 days. However Mede further argued that duration would not be so brief, but instead each day a should be taken for a prophetic year. He

42

In summary, Mede’s major apocalyptic works were written in this order: The Apostasy of the latter times (1617-1624), Remains on some Passages in the Apocalypse (1624-1625), Clavis Apocalyptica (1627, 1632, 2ndd edition with commentary). 43 “Doctor Twiss’s Praeface”, Mede, The Key, p. ii. 44 Mede, The Apostasy, p. 71.

The Origins of the Clavis Apocalyptica 101 proposed, “it should not be taken historically, it must be taken prophetically, every day for a yeer & so 1260 dayes counted so many yeers shewes the extent…to be 1260 yeers.”45 Consequently the “latter times” would extend for just over a millennium. Of course the seventh chapter of Daniel was not the only place that the reference to 1260 prophetic years, or a variation thereof, occurred in the Bible. As further evidence for his argument in The Apostasy, Mede pointed to a similar description in the seventeenth chapter of the Apocalypse. The vision in chapter 17 described a woman sitting on a beast with an inscription on her forehead, “Babylon the Great The Mother of Harlots and of the Abomination of the Earth” (17:3-6). The beast had seven heads and ten horns and would receive authority for a “short space” (17:10). Mede understood this beast to be the same beast with ten horns from Daniel, and the “short space” to be equal with the “time, times, and half a time.”46 This correlation between the images of the seventeenth chapter of the Apocalypse and the seventh chapter of Daniel was the first attempt by Mede to synchronize two prophetic visions. Now, by comparing similar descriptions found in the different visions, Mede constructed an apocalyptic chronology that would unlock the proper sequence of events prophesied in the apocalyptic writings of Daniel and Saint John. Mede could no longer read the Apocalypse as a strict chronology, but the individual symbols must be matched with like symbols, which would correspond to the same temporal referent. Obviously this first synchronism was a significant discovery for Mede, but why did he find this particular method so compelling? By the mid-seventeenth century there were multiple interpretations of the Apocalypse, and even variances amongst millenarians.47 How did one go about making any sense of these strange visions with so many opinions circulating? For Mede, the structure of the book must govern the interpretation and not the other way around. If the Order, Method and Connexion off the Visions be framed and grounded upon supposed Interpretations; then must all Proofs out of that Book needs be founded upon begged principles and humane conjectures: But on the contrary, if the Order be first fixed and settled out of the indubitate Characters of the letter of the Text, and afterward the Interpretation guided, framed and directed by the Order; then will the variety of Expositions be drawn into a very narrow compass, and Proofs taken from this Book be evident and infallible, and able to convince the Gain-sayers.48

45

Ibid. 73. Ibid. 72-73. 47 Backus, Les Sept Visions, pp. 7-16. Mede noted his own differences with fellow millenarians Piscator and Alsted. Mede, Works, p. 772. See the discussion of the Day of Judgment in chapter 7. 48 Mede, Works, p. 581. 46


Mede believed the structure would produce an “evident and infallible” understanding. Mede’s use of the word “infallible” points to the Protestant notion of the analogia fidei, which “attempts to understand the meaning of Scripture from the clear or unambiguous texts as the basis for interpreting unclear or ambiguous texts.”49 Within the Apocalypse, this principle was applied to visions that contained the same symbols; thus, by matching the symbols, a consistent structure could be produced.50 This analogia fideii was the norm for nearly all of the Reformers, including Calvin, Bullinger and Vermigli.51 Following his predecessors, Mede was attempting to maintain the consistency of the text by demonstrating an internal coherent structure, which would serve as the foundation for interpreting the various visions.52 It seems possible that Mede’s desire to synchronize I Timothy, Daniel and the Apocalypse, was an attempt to apply the principle of the analogia fideii to his study of prophesy. This discovery of the first synchronism in The Apostasyy for Mede served as an exegetical blueprint for applying the same hermeneutical principle to the entire Apocalypse. Chapter 17 was the centerpiece for structuring the entire book and unlocking the proper sequence of the visions.53 Taking the image of the beast with ten horns and the duration of 1260 years, Mede then embarked on matching chapter 17 with similar descriptions in other chapters. Beginning with chapter 18, Mede carried the vision of the great harlot to her destruction in verse 2, “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!” (18:2).54 This vision was then synchronized with chapter 14, the vision of the Lamb and the 144,000 who stood with him and conquered the wicked harlot. Verse 8 of chapter 14 described an angel who 49

Muller, Dictionary of Latin, p. 33. Mede’s biographer writes, “His accurate and judicious comparing of Scripture with Scripture, and observing the proper and genuine use of the like Words and Phrases in several passages of Scripture, as they are either in the Original Languages, or in the ancient Versions thereof, especially the Chaldee, Greek and Syriack. For he found by good experience that some Scriptures do excellently illustrate others where the like Expressions are to be found, and consequently that the Word of God is a Lamp unto our feet and a Light unto our path, not only as to the guiding of our life and practice, but also as to the directing our progress in the safest and clearest method of interpreting it self.” Mede, Works, “The General Preface”, p. xx. 51 Muller, After Calvin, p. 151. 52 It is interesting to note that beginning in the seventeenth century (contemporaneous with Mede) some theologians were departing from the principle of the analogia fidei. Muller notes: “The critical method of [Louis] Cappel, by contrast, in its emphasis on the minutiae of the text and the freedom of the exegete, ultimately lost contact with the orthodox standard of the material integrity of Scripture, the sense of continuity both in text and translation quoad res, as witnessed by the orthodox stress on the analogia Scripturae and analogia fidei in interpretation.” Ibid. 155. Mede, however, stressed integrity and continuity in his study of the structure and resulting interpretation of prophetic texts. 53 Michael Murrin, “Revelation and two seventeenth century commentators”, in Patrides, et. al. (eds.), The Apocalypse in English Renaissance thought, p. 126. 54 Mede, The Key, Part I, p. 8. 50

The Origins of the Clavis Apocalyptica 103 proclaimed the identical condemnation on Babylon. Finally, Mede harmonized this with chapter 7 which likewise spoke of 144,000 sealed “from all the tribes of Israel” (7:4). All of these visions described the fall of the Beast and his minions under the authority of the Lamb, Jesus Christ, and all his saints.55 Moreover, chapter 17 – interpreted through the lens of Daniel – synchronized with chapters 11, 12, and 13. Chapter 11 recounted the coming of the Two Witnesses, whom Mede interpreted as all persecuted ministers who preached the gospel,56 who would prophesy in sackcloth for 1260 days (11:3). In chapter 12 the woman, who represented the early church,57 gave birth to a son and fled from the dragon into the desert for 1260 days. Likewise in chapter 13 the beast from the sea with seven heads and ten horns was given authority to blaspheme for forty-two months, the equivalent of 1260 days. Because of the same specific duration of 1260 days, Mede viewed all these events as contemporaneous: Ch. 17 = Beast with 10 horns reigning 1260 years

Ch. 18 = Fall of the Whore of Babylon

Ch. 14 = Lamb & 144,000 who conquer the harlot

Ch.7 144,000 Sealed from the tribes of Israel

Ch. 17 = Beast with 10 horns reigning 1260 years

Ch. 11 = Two Witnesses prophesying for 1260 days

Ch. 12 = Woman giving birth and fleeing for 1260 days

Ch. 13 Beast from the sea blaspheming for 42 months

With slightly different perspectives, each vision spoke of the same events during the same period of history. Moreover these events were also synchronized with the second and seventh chapters of Daniel and the apostasy of I Timothy 4 (the original synchronism), to construct one grand scene in the divine apocalyptic narrative. After the period of the early church a great apostasy arose in the form of idolatry (I Timothy 4). Also,

55

Mede wrote, “But these things suffice not to make the contemporation of a full and entire contemporation, for they may all consist even with a contemporation in part. I thus therefore demonstrate the company of the sealed of the Lambe wholly and exactly to contemporize with the Beast. That company of the sealed being an opposite with the Beast, or of the whole company of the followers of the Beast, is of the same time with them; to wit, the bands of the holy souldiers, even then persevering in their alleagiance tot he Lambe, when other inhabitants of the world as revolters and Apostates had taken the marke of the Beast.” Ibid. Part I, 8-9. 56 Ibid. Part II, 7. 57 Mede commented, “Truly a most beautifull image and representation of the Primitive childebearing Church; to wit, shining around about by the faith of Christ the Sunne of righteousness treading under feet the rudiments of the world (whether Legall shadowes, or darkenesse of Gentile superstition) and to conclude glorious with the ensignes of the Apostolique off-spring.” Ibid. Part II, 33.


the institution of the papacy was established and the true church was visibly undetectable. The visions of the rise of the beast with ten horns all refer to this event (Revelation 13, 17, 18 and Daniel 7); and the vision of woman fleeing into the desert represents the suppression of the true church h (Revelation 12). Still, God would raise witnesses who would proclaim the truth (Revelation 11), and in the end Christ, represented by the mountain, the Ancient of Days, and the Lamb, with all his saints would destroy the beast (Revelation 7, 14, 18 and Daniel 2, 7). Mede’s method of synchronisms demonstrated the structure and sequential chronology of the visions found in the Apocalypse and the prophecies of Daniel. Finally Mede’s placement of the vision containing the destruction of the beast provided the final step for moving the millennium into the future. Mede argued that the vision of the 144,000 remnant of Israel in chapter 7, which he synchronized with the fall of the Beast from chapters 14, 17 and 18, followed the first six seals (Revelation 6) and would fall within the seventh seal (Revelation 8).58 Likewise the seventh seal was synchronized with the first six trumpets (Revelation 8). Mede reasoned that the prophesying of the Two Witnesses in chapter 11, which was to continue for 1260 days, would be followed by the seventh trumpet (11:15); and since this was already shown to be contemporaneous with the destruction of the Beast, all of these events would be complete by the conclusion of the sixth trumpet. Mede wrote, For since the 1260 dayes of the witnesses mourning in sackcloth are ended at the going out of the sixth trumpet, or the beginning of the seventh; it must needes to that the 42. moneths of the beast end there also, and by consequence that the tyrannie of the beast is contained within the compasse of the six first trumpets.59 Mede synchronized the end of beast with the end of the sixth trumpet. All the images of destruction and disaster, which followed the sounding of each trumpet, would be realized in the era of the beast; and his fall would mark the beginning of the seventh trumpet. Additionally in The Apostasy, without considering the full implications of his observation at that time, Mede recognized d the similarity between the vision in the ninth chapter of the Apocalypse and I Timothy.

58

Mede wrote, “Therefore it must needs bee that the companie of the 144,000 sealed, which followes the seale being over, do begin with the seaventh [sic] seale which immediately succeedeth the first sixt seals. And so the Holy Spirit by the marke of this sealing (as I judge) hath in his marvelous councell taken order that wee might know the connexion of the beast beginning with the beginning of the seventh seale.” Ibid. Part I, 14-15. 59 Ibid. Part I, 15.

The Origins of the Clavis Apocalyptica 105 In Revel. 9.13. & c. The sixth Trumpet from Euphrates brings an huge army upon the Christian world, which destroyeth a third part of men; and yet those who remained repented not of those sinnes (vers. 20.) for which these plagues came upon the earth,…that they should not worship [demons], and Idols of gold, silver, and brasse, and stone, and of wood which can neither see, nor heare, nor walke. Is not this a Comment upon the Apostles prophesie in my Text?60 Once the vision of the sixth trumpet was synchronized with the rest of the visions depicting the end of the fourth kingdom, the beast, and the great apostasy, the next step was to locate the specific historical identification and fulfillment of these visions. For Mede, some of the events contained within these visions were already manifested, while other still awaited their fulfillment. First, both the apostasy and the beast with the little horn were present in the Roman Catholic Church. Likewise the prophesying of the witnesses had begun in the “Interpreters and Defenders of the Divine Truth…[who were] monitors to the Christian world idolizing with the Gentiles; and guides to his Saints keeping the faith.”61 But the slaying of two witnesses (11.7) had yet to occur, There are two things which perswade me that this last destruction is yet to be feared. The first that those lamentable times of the Gentiles trampling under foot the holy Citie, or Christian Religion, of the times of the forty two moneths, cannot be said to have fulfilled their period so long as the Beast shall reign: and therefore neither the Dayes of the Witnesses mourning in sackcloth, being of the same time and of the same age with them. Another because the destruction of the Witnesses is to be the next antecedent…to the destruction and ruine of the great Citie, that is Rome.62 With the slaying of the Two Witnesses aand the destruction of the Beast still to occur, the consistent application of the synchronisms demonstrate that the events of the sixth trumpet had yet to be completed. These prophecies were still unfolding within Mede’s immediate history. Furthermore if the events of the sixth trumpet had not yet come to an end, then chronologically the vision of the seventh trumpet still awaited a future realization as well.63 By consistently applying the method of 60

Mede, The Apostasy, p. 28. Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 7. 62 Ibid. Part II, 13-14. 63 Mede kept all the visions with chronological numbers in their original order. So each seal in the vision of the seven seals followed consecutively, as well as the three woes, seven vials, and seven trumpets. Mede’s chart provided a pictographic representation of these chronological symbols. Ibid. Part II, inserted between pages 26 and 27. In addition, see figure 1. 61


synchronisms, Mede now committed himself to a millenarian interpretation of the Apocalypse, because he synchronized the vision of the seventh trumpet with the millennium of chapter 20. The event that tied these two visions together was the destruction of the beast. Apocalypse 20: 4-5 depicted the souls of those beheaded who had not worshipped the beast or his image and they reigned with Christ. Mede compared this with Apocalypse 11:16 which described twenty-four elders seated on their thrones and worshipping God. Thus, Mede concluded that those who had not worshiped the beast would participate after the beast’s destruction in the final triumph by worshipping God.64 Since the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church still held ecclesiastical and political power, the destruction of the beast was not yet accomplished. Even more, Mede reconciled this interpretation with his previous exegetical labors by marking the end of the beast at the conclusion of the time, times, and half a time period cited in chapter 11 of the Apocalypse and chapter 7 of Daniel, l with this event still awaiting a future fulfillment.65 Finally, according to Mede, “the 1000 yeeres of Satan being bound, that he should not deceive the people any more, can have no place, neither under the six first seales, nor under the six first trumpets: therefore they are of the place of the seventh trumpet.”66 With that final synchronism Mede concluded that the Apocalypse, along with the book of Daniel, taught that the millennial kingdom was still to come; and consequently his millenarian conversion was complete.

6.v CONCLUSION Recalling once again the statement of Mede’s biographer, he wrote, But after all his striving he was forced (as he ingenuously confess’d) to yield to the light and evidence of this Hypothesis in a sober and qualified sense. He was forced to it by the unresistable Law of Synchronisms, according to which the Millennium could not possibly be placed otherwhere then it is by him.67 The consistency of interpreting the structure of the Apocalypse through synchronisms, or corresponding visions, was Mede’s unique, creative and 64

Ibid. Part II, 22-23. “This is that finishing of the mysterie of God, declared by the Prophets, which the Angel had foretold before the tenth Chap. ver.7. should come to passe about the time of the sounding of the seventh trumpet: when neither the moneths of the Beast, nor the dayes of the witnesses mourning, not any thing at all concerning the period of time, times, and halfe time, shall be any more remaining, verse 6.7. plainely according to that which was foretold to Daniel, chap.7. vers. 25,26,27. and before concerning the Universall dominion of Christ, or kingdome of the Saints to come after the same time, and altogether the same session of judgement.” Ibid. Part II, 23-24. 66 Ibid. Part II, 20. 67 Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. X. 65

The Origins of the Clavis Apocalyptica 107 ingenious discovery published in 1627. The first publication of the Clavis Apocalyptica only contained a description of the synchronisms. The synchronisms served as the key for unlocking the chronological sequence of the visions, which ultimately placed the millennium of chapter 20 in the future. This was the first step on the road to a mature millenarian system that began as early as 1625 and would be applied thoroughly by 1632 with the publication of Mede’s commentary. The origin of Mede’s millenarianism was not found in an extra-biblical agenda. Nor did Mede suffer from some form of social disenchantment or marginalization. Neither the context of Europe (both Great Britain aand the continent) in the 1620s nor Mede’s own disposition supported the previous assumption that millenarianism was the product of some revolutionary ideology. Instead, Hugh Trevor-Roper writes, “Mede had worked out his ‘synchronisms’, as he called them, by rigorous intellectual method, uninfluenced by external events. But u when applied to external events, they fitted (as it seemed at the time) marvellously.”68 The origin of Mede’s millenarianism was not found in the current events of the early seventeenth century, but it was derived from a rigorous exegetical method thatt sought to provide the most consistent interpretation for the prophetic visions of the Apocalypse. Mede acquiesced to what he observed as the internal uniformity of the Bible. His “law of synchronisms” served as the key to unlock the order and meaning of biblical prophesies. Once consistently applied, Mede was convinced d that a series of synchronisms, which would precede the millennium, had yet to occur. The biblical evidence, and not some external influence, was too overwhelming and Mede could no longer maintain his previous conclusions. Therefore the only cogent exegetical option was to place the millennium in the future.

68

Trevor-Roper, Religion, the Reformation and Social Change, p. 247.

CHAPTER SEVEN

Millenarians, The Church Fathers and Jewish Rabbis

7.i MILLENARIANS AND THE CHURCH FATHERS Joseph Mede’s conversion to millenarianism was a result of his initial rigorous study of the Apocalypse which produced the chronological sequence for the various visions, as well as interpreting consistently y the specific visions and other prophetic passages accordingly. The primary source for this eschatological program was the text of the Bible. However, Mede’s scholarly abilities extended beyond the immediate field of biblical studies. His biographer records, “He was an acute Logician, an accurate Philosopher, a skilfull Mathematician, an excellent Anatomist,…a great Philologer, a master of many Languages, and a good proficient in the studies of History and Chronology.”1 Significantly, this breadth of intellect and scholarship was brought to bear on Mede’s apocalyptic studies, and likewise distinguished him from other commentators. He was no impulsive amateur, but a careful scholar who drew from his knowledgee of philosophy, language and history to substantiate his millenarian interpretations, and at times provide greater insight into the text. One specific area of knowledge, which was highly relevant to Mede’s millenarianism, was his mastery of the Patristic writings. Worthington records a comment by Mede’s colleague at Christ’s College, William Chappell: His writings best speak his eminent skill in History; yet it may not be amiss to superadde, upon this occasion, the Testimony of a very judicious

1

Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. II.

109

110 Millenarians, The Church Fathers and Jewish Rabbis

person, and one of long and inward acquaintance with Mr. Mede and his studies, (we mean that forementioned ancient Collegue and Consocious of his, Mr. W. Chappell,) That Mr. Mede was as judicious a man in Ecclesiastical Antiquities, and as accurately y skilled in the first Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin, as any man living.2 Mede was not unique in his interest in the Fathers. Others in the sixteenth century shared this same interest. Anthony Lane writes, “Calvin followed the tradition, common to humanists and Reformers alike, of viewing the Early Church as a golden classical period.”3 For Protestants, the period of the Church Fathers was regarded as a time of greater clarity and purity. It was during this pristine period that Roman Catholic doctrines had yet to be solidified. Likewise any similarity between Protestant teachings and the Church Fathers would substantiate both the authenticity and the authority of Protestantism over against Rome. Mede’s reputation as a student of the Church Fathers was well deserved, yet it was his unique use of the Patristics that set him apart from all other scholars of the Early Church.

7.ii THE CANONICITY OF THE APOCALYPSE AND PATRISTIC AUTHORITY Mede observed a similarity between Patristic chiliasm and his own millenarianism, especially the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. However in the early sixteenth century any appeal to the Ante-Nicene Fathers’ views on the Apocalypse was discouraged for fear of encouraging their chiliasm.4 Nevertheless the testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers proved helpful in n a debate over the canonicity of the Apocalypse, which would ultimately influence the development of seventeenthcentury millenarianism in a particular fashion. Many Protestants and Roman Catholics alike questioned the canonicity of the Apocalypse during the sixteenth century. Martin a Luther initially doubted its place in the canon.5 Likewise Ulrich Zwingli, because of Jerome’s influence, also 2

Ibid. VI. Anthony Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Grand Rapids, 2000), p. 40. 4 It should be noted that the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers were consulted in regards to other theological and biblical topics, but their chiliasm was highly denounced. See David C. Steinmetz, “Calvin and the Patristic Exegesis of Paul,” in D. C. Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham, N.C. and London, 1990), pp. 100-118; Irena Backus, “Irenaeus, Calvin and Calvinistic Orthodoxy: The Patristic Manuel of Abraham Scultetus (1598)”, Reformation and Renaissance Review, 1 (1999), pp. 41-53. 5 Luther wrote in the preface to the 1522 edition to the Revelation of Saint John, “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgement; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither Apostolic nor prophetic.” Of course once Luther discovered the polemic value of the Apocalypse for discrediting the papacy, he quickly y abandoned his early skepticism. Further details on Luther’s prefaces can be found in Marc Vial, “Luther et l’Apocalypsee d’Après les Préfaces de 1522 et 1530”, Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 131 (1999), pp. 25-37. 3


111

regarded the book as non-apostolic.6 Irena Backus observes that Erasmus proceeded covertly to discredit the apostolic authority of the Apocalypse, although not entirely excluding it from the biblical canon. Backus writes, The Dutch humanist took a step back, asserting that regardless of all textual and historical evidence the consensus orbis et ecclesiaee was to be the final authority, and that he himself did not intend to violate the consensus by tampering with the biblical canon.7 Significantly, one of the reasons for Erasmus’ prejudice was the Ante-Nicene Fathers’ distinctively chiliastic interpretation of the Apocalypse.8 The problematic chiliastic interpretation of a number off Early Church Fathers was convincing evidence of the unprofitable and unintelligible content contained in the last book of the Bible.9 In response, Theodore Beza sought to refute Erasmus’ conclusions in his Annotations of 1556-57. Backus points out that his objective was “not to establish a consensus ecclesiaee but to select the most reliable testimonies.”10 Specifically, Beza included Justin Martyr’s Dialogus contra Tryphonem and Irenaeus’ Contra haereses, both of these works contained their obvious chiliastic reading of the Apocalypse.11 Beza saw the testimony of these chiliastic Church Fathers as positive evidence and non-detrimental to defending the canonicity of the Apocalypse. Nevertheless Beza, like all of the early Reformers, had no chiliastic sympathies. Beza would have been aware of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus’ eschatological positions, yet he refused to comment on these details.12 The use of these Church Fathers was simply to serve a specific purpose without capitulating towards their controversial conclusions. Still, Backus admits that in “privileging their testimony[,] [Beza] was tacitly opening the door to Ante-Nicene millenarianism without supporting it himself.”13 Essentially Beza established a precedent for later exegetes likewise to invoke the witness of the Ante-Nicene 6

Backus, Reformation Readings, p. 29, and W. P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford, 1986), p. 56. 7 Irena Backus, “The Church Fathers and the Canonicity of the Apocalypse in the Sixteenth Century: Erasmus, Frans Titelmans, and Theodore Beza”, Sixteenth Century Journal, XXIX/3 (1998), p. 653. 8 Ibid. 654. 9 Backus, Reformation Readings, pp. 5-6. 10 Backus, “The Church Fathers and the Canonicity”, p. 662. 11 Ibid. 662. Also see, Theodore Beza, Iesu Christi domini nostri Nouum Testamentum siue Nouum Foedus, cuius Graeco contextui respondent interpretationes duae: una vetus, altera Theodori Bezae…(Cambridge, 1642), p. 744, col. A. 12 Backus, Reformation Readings, pp. 26-27. 13 Backus, “The Church Fathers and the Canonicity”, p. 664.


Fathers, yet no longer in regard to the issue of canonicity, but instead on the actual interpretation of the Apocalypse. The sixteenth-century apocalyptic apologists provided the seventeenth-century millenarians with a legitimate theological heritage, dating just after the era of the Apostles, to justify their eschatological position. Reflecting on the history of biblical canonicity, Mede recognized that many who opposed the canonicity of the Apocalypse did so because they rejected the chiliasm of the Early Church. He wrote, “those who opposed the ancient Chiliasts found so necessary, as forced them (having no other way to avoid their Adversaries) directly to deny the Apocalypse to be Scripture.”14 Mede was pointing to the long history of those, following the Ante-Nicene Fathers, who denied the canonicity of the Apocalypse because of their aversion toward chiliasm. Yet, according to Mede, “the Apocalypse hath more Humane (not to speak of Divine) authority than any other Book off the New Testament … even from the time it was first delivered.”15 Mede was convinced that when it was “first delivered” it was understood to be millenarian, since the early chiliasts were the only interpreters who denied neither its canonicity, a nor its value for the church. For, “if the Apocalypse be Canonical Scripture, it must need be granted there is such a time to come [referring to a future millennium]; or we must deny either Rome, which now is, to be Babylon, or the Beast to be Antichrist or Antichristendom,” wrote Mede.16 A non-millenarian interpretation denies the obvious fulfillment of prophetic events. Consequently, the anti-chiliastic interpretation was not the oldest exegetical tradition, but Mede declared that this, Dogma of the 1000 years Regnum was the General opinion of all Orthodox Christians in the Age immediately following the Apostles, if Justin Martyr say true, and none known to deny it then but Hereticks, which denied the Resurrection, and held that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was why Irenaeus maintained it in his book Contra Hereses [sic], and Tertullian against the Marcionites.17 For Mede, chiliasm or millenarianism predated all other methods of interpretation. Again, Mede responded to the criticisms of Thomas Hayne in another letter in 1629: That besides all these, you forsake that Exposition and Application of these Kingdoms which the Church hath universally followed from her infancy. And who can easily be perswaded that the Doctors of the Church 14

Mede, Works, p. 602. Ibid. 602. 16 Ibid. 602. 17 Ibid. 602. 15


113

immediately following the Apostles, and while some of the Apostles disciples were yet living, should be ignorant of the meaning of so main a Prophecy, whereupon depended the demonstration of the verity of Christ’s coming; and that too whilst those disputes were still hot between the Jews and Christians? The Fathers are to be considered here not in respect of greater learning or infallibility of Spirit than ours, but as Testes & Custodes doctrina primitus acceptae: because it cannot be presumed they could be ignorant of it, being so near, or would change it, being so pious and good.18 Mede was convinced that the ancient “Doctors of the Church” had a greater understanding of the Apocalypse because they lived in closer proximity to the Apostolic period. Presumably this would minimize the possibility of theological corruption. Furthermore the early Church h Fathers stood as an ancient authority giving considerable precedence for Mede’s own millenarian conclusions; conclusions - according to Mede - which provided the only logical understanding of this difficult book. For Mede, the reintroduction of the chiliastic Church Fathers as testimony for answering the question of canonicity subsequently confirmed their authority in the interpretation of the Apocalypse as well. The doctrines of the Church Fathers were the oldest and most pure, therefore their witness should supercede all evidence except from the Apostles themselves. The door that Beza had left ajar, Mede flung wide open. It is important to make clear that Mede’s conversion to millenarianism was not the result of his reading of the Church Fathers. He did not read the works of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Lactantius and become persuaded by their chiliastic conclusions. Mede’s discovery of the synchronisms produced a coherent structure of the Apocalypse that resulted in millenarianism. In the 1627 edition of the Clavis Apocalyptica there are no citations of the Fathers. The method of synchronisms was Mede’s original and innovative contribution to the rebirth of millenarianism. Subsequently, the testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers provided Mede with an ancient authoritative tradition with which to confirm his interpretation of the specific vision. Mede’s knowledge of the Church Fathers a provided a wealth of material to cite in support of his new millenarian discoveries.

7.iii THE FIRST RESURRECTION What then were those aspects of Mede’s millenarian interpretation that he attempted to support by invoking the testimony of the Church Fathers? Chapter 20: 4, 5 of the Apocalypse reads,

18

Letter from Mede to Thomas Hayne dated 21 October 1629. Mede, Works, p. 756.


I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years…This is the first resurrection. The vision in chapter 20 describes a first resurrection for those who are martyred for their faith in Jesus Christ. This vision poses a difficult exegetical choice: whether to interpret the resurrection as symbolic or literal. All Christians who subscribe to the Apostle’s Creed confess that there will be a universal resurrection at the end of history, but there remain various interpretations on the character of the first resurrection. Symbolic interpreters understood it to be either the spiritual act of regeneration, or the rising of the spiritually y dead Church, or even the translation of the disembodied spirit to heaven.19 In contrast, most literal interpreters viewed this event as a bodily resurrection which would occur at Christ’s second advent, marking the beginning of his millennial reign. Centuries of Christian martyrs would be resurrected in order to participate in the blessing of the millennium. Of course this literal interpretation was common amongst chiliastic interpreters. Many of the most prominent Ante-Nicene Fathers, chose to follow a literal interpretation of the first resurrection. Irenaeus wrote, For it is just that in that very creation a in which they [deceased saints] toiled or were afflicted, being proved in every way by suffering, they should receive the reward of their suffering; aand that in the creation in which they were slain because of their love to God, in that they should be revived again; and that in the creation in which they endured servitude, that they should reign.20 Irenaeus understood that a literal reading of the first resurrection was necessary in order for these martyred saints to receive their inheritance, a reward that included participation in the earthly reign of Christ. Tertullian concurred with Irenaeus’ position in his work against Marcion, we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be

19

Backus, “Apocalypse “ 20, 2-4 et le Millenium Protestant”, pp. 101-117. Irenaeus, The Writings of Irenaeus, vol. II, trans. A. Roberts and W. H. Rambaut (Edinburgh, 1868-1869), p. 141. 20


115

after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem.21 Marcion advocated a form of Christian Gnosticism that denied the value or goodness of the material body. Consequently Marcion repudiated any doctrines that advocated a bodily resurrection.22 Tertullian responded to this heresy by defending the dignity and worth of the physical body, using Christ’s death and bodily resurrection as an archetypal pattern.23 Furthermore Justin Martyr also defended a corporeal first resurrection against the Gnostics. He added, The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died. For the spirit dies not; the soul is in the body, and without a soul it cannot live. The body, when the soul forsakes it, is not. For the body is the house of the soul; and the soul the house of the spirit. These three, in all those who cherish a sincere hope and unquestioning faith in God, will be saved.24 Justin also regarded the first resurrection as one of the events which would inaugurate the millennium. He continued, [b]ut I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and … those who believe in Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and in short, the eternal resurrection.25 For many of the Ante-Nicene Fathers the first resurrection was clearly a bodily resurrection because the reward for martyrdom will be the privilege of reigning with Christ on earth during the millennium. Similar to his struggle regarding the historical place of the millennium, Mede was converted reluctantly to a literal reading of the first resurrection. “I yet admit the First Resurrection to be Corporeal as well as the Second, though I confess I have much striven against it; and if the Text would admit another sense less free of Paradox, I had yet rather listen unto it; but I find it not.”26 Convinced that the first resurrection should be literal, Mede proceeded to explain that this interpretation 21

Tertullian, The Five Books of Quintus Sept. Flor. Tertullianus Against Marcion, trans. Peter Holmes, (Edinburgh, 1868), p. 170. 22 Bengt Hägglund, History of Theology, trans. Gene J. Lund (Saint Louis, 1968), pp. 39-42. 23 Brian E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge, 1991), p. 35. 24 “Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection”, trans. M. Dods, in A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations off The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Edinburgh, 1989), p. 298. 25 Ibid. 239-240. 26 Mede, Works, p. 604.


violated no fundamental articles of faith. “Howsover [sic], to grant a Particular Resurrection before the General, is against no Article of Faith,” wrote Mede.27 Again, when Mede was asked to give his definition of the Articles of Faith by Samuel Hartlib, he summarized his Christian beliefs with the Early Church Creeds applied to his present ecclesiastical and theological situations.28 By prejudicing the Ancient Creeds as the standard for orthodoxy, Mede was appealing to the Early Church’s doctrinal position which did not exclude a literal interpretation of the first resurrection. Yet, not only did this interpretation not conflict with any early Creeds, in fact it was advocated by many in the Early Church. Mede could give even greater support for his exegesis. In a letter to Samuel Meddus dated 18 August 1629, Mede questioned those who denied what he perceived as the proper understanding of the first resurrection: “[h]ow can a man then in so plain and simple a narration take a passage of so plain and ordinarily expressed word (as those about the First Resurrection are) in any other sence [sic] than the usual and Literal?”29 Similar to the Ante-Nicene Fathers, a literal first resurrection was the reward for the slain saints who would rise at Christ’s second coming and enjoy the blessings of the millennium. Mede stated, these Saints of the First Resurrection should reign here on earth in the New Jerusalem in a state of beatitude and glory, partaking of Divine presence and Vision of Christ their King; as it were in an [sic] Heaven upon earth, or a new Paradise immutable [and] unchangeable[;]30 and again, [t]he Rising of the Martyrs is that which is called the First resurrection,being as it seems, a prerogative to their sufferings above the rest of the Dead; who as they suffered with Christ in the time of his patience, so should they by glorified with him in the Reign of his Victory before the Universal Resurrection of all.31 Clearly Mede’s conclusions on the first resurrection were nearly identical to the Early Church chiliasts. Furthermore Mede recognized that the literal view of the 27

Ibid. 604. “Mr. Mede’s Letter to Mr. Hartlib, 14 August 1637”, Ibid. 873-874. 29 Ibid. 770. Mede admitted attempting in vain to interpret the first resurrection in a non-literal way, “[b]ut howsoever when at first I perceived that Millennium to be a State of the Church consequent to the times of the Beast, I was averse from the proper acception of that Resurrection, taking it for a rising of the Church from a dead estate; as being loth to admit too many Paradoxes at once: yet afterward more seriously considering and weighing all things, I found no ground or footing for any sence [sic] but the Literal.” Ibid. 770. 30 Ibid. 771-772. 31 Ibid. 604. 28


117

first resurrection was not only taught in chapter 20, but chapters 11 and 14 as well. According to his method of synchronisms, both Apocalypse 11:18 and 14:13 supported chapter 20’s vision of a first resurrection. u The reward for God’s servants (10:18) and the blessing for the dead who die in the Lord (14:13), both are realized in the first resurrection.32 Moreover, Mede specifically cited Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr in order to support his interpretations. In an epistle to an anonymous friend he argued the same point regarding the reward for the martyrs, citing Book V, chapter 32 of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, which stated, it behoves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that judgment should take place afterwards.33 Additionally, Mede appealed to the patristic consensus by recalling Tertullian’s words in his work, Against Marcion; “After its thousand years are over, within which period is completed the resurrection of the saints, who rise sooner or later according to their deserts, there will ensue the … judgment.”34 Mede also used Tertullian to affirm that the first resurrection will be limited to those who died for the sake of Christ, and not a general resurrection for all believers.35 By demonstrating the consistency between his own position and that of the Church Fathers, Mede attempted to establish the antiquity n of his interpretation: since “This was the Opinion of the whole Orthodox Christian Church in the Age immediately following the death of S. John (when yet Polycarp and may of the Apostles Disciples were living) as Justin Martyr expressly affirmeth.”36 Such ancient testimony was difficult to refute.

32

Mede writes, “Nunquam mihi in mentem venisse, ut sentientiam meam de Resurrectione prima, aut loco isti Cap.11.v.18. aut Cap.14.v.13. a superstruerem, aut inde probari posse existimarem. Fundamentum sententiae meae de duabus Resurrectionibus in unico & solo capite 20. repositum habere: cui duo illa loca cap.11 & cap. 14. Interpretando conformia reddidisse aut quomodo faltem conformari possint, uno & altero verbo indicisse; neque quid amplius ibi propositum mihi habuisse.” Ibid. 571-572. 33 Irenaeus, The Writings, p. 141; Mede, Works, p. 572. 34 Tertullian, Tertullianus Against Marcion, p. 171. Mede writes, “Lib. 3. Adversus Marcionem, cap. 24. Post cuius (scil. Regni) Mille annos intra quam aetatem concluditur Sanctorum Resurrectio, pro meritu maturius vel tardius resurgentium, & c.” Mede, Works, p. 572. 35 Mede points out, “having part in the Resurrectione prima was not to be common to all, but to be a priviledge of some, namely, of Martyrs, and Confessors equipollent to them, if God so would accept them. Moreover, the belief of this Prerogative of Martyrs in resurrectione prima was that which made the Christians of those times so joyously desirous of Martyrdom. These things will perhaps seem strange, but they will be found true, if duly examined.” Ibid. 771. 36 Ibid. 771.


However, by privileging the testimony of the early Church Fathers, Mede found himself having to defend some of their dubious doctrines, like prayers for the dead and their materialistic interpretation of the millennium. This was a similar dilemma to that which Beza encountered in dealing with the question of canonicity, which inadvertently reintroduced the legitimacy of a chiliastic reading of the Apocalypse. Mede’s first predicament involved the peculiar practice of praying for the dead. Protestants rejected this practice because it was perceived as being consistent with the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Prayers for the dead were petitions and supplications for the souls locked d in purgatory in order to provide them with a form of spiritual benefit. Likewise some of the Church Fathers, like Irenaeus and Tertullian, taught that the dead are confined f to an intermediate state and do not 37 enter immediately into the presence of God. Opposing the Gnostics, Irenaeus asserted the goodness of the physical body and that the dead (disembodied souls) were not complete until they were reunited with their bodies in the ultimate final state of glorification.38 Moreover this belief in an intermediate state was linked with chiliasm because the millennium would serve r as the arena where these disembodied souls, kept in “sub-earthly vaults,” would be returned to their physical bodies.39 The movement of the dead would be from below the earth, to the earthly millennium, and then finally to the eternal heavenly realm; Irenaeus considered it illogical to move directly into the presence of God in heaven and then back to earth. In his mind this was an anticlimactic digression in salvation history.40 Thus prayers for the dead, held in this intermediate state, were encouraged during the Early Church period because these souls had not yet reached the heavenly presence of God, and therefore were in need of prayers. Commenting on an ancient gothic liturgy in a letter dated 15 November 1636 to Nicholas Estwick, a colleague of Mede’s at Christ’s College, Mede pointed out that the liturgy contained “passages of Praying for the Dead to have part in Resurrectione Prima.”41 Mede understood that the practice of praying for the dead was simply one tangible result of a belief in a literal first resurrection. Although cautious not to endorse this practice fully, Mede sought to uncover the motivation for these prayers. Marcion denied any resurrection, first or second. Instead he argued that the soul went immediately to heaven. Consequently an antithesis emerged that set the belief in a resurrection against any doctrine that taught that souls were taken directly to heaven. Justin Martyr writing to Trypho said, “For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but … who say there is no

37

Irenaeus, The Writings, pp. 137-139. Tertullian described this as “Abraham’s bosom,” Tertullian, Tertullianus Against Marcion, b.3.c.24, p. 169. 38 Charles E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope in Early Christianity (Oxford, 1992), pp. 187-188. 39 Ibid. 17. 40 Ibid. 17. 41 Mede, Works, p. 842.


119

resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do imagine that they are Christians.”42 Mede recognized that the Fathers were attempting to defend the doctrine of the resurrection, and because that doctrine was so crucial, they believed that an intermediate state and prayers for the dead provided more evidence to substantiate their position. While Mede was not explicitly advocating these added doctrines, he used this evidence to reaffirm the Church Father’s interpretation of a literal first resurrection which was inextricably tied to a chiliastic eschatology. Mede noted that once the practice of praying for the dead diminished, likewise “Chiliasm was cried down, and then expunged.”43 Referring to a later revision of the ancient liturgy: 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 [referring to the silence of a literal interpretation of the first resurrection].44 Mede directly associated the removal of this practice with the decline of chiliasm in the Early Church. The Early Church practice of praying for the dead potentially placed Mede in a compromising theological predicament, but Mede used the patristic interpretation of the first resurrection to support his own exegetical conclusion as well as demonstrating that chiliasm was the consensus view in the Early Church.

7.iv THE NATURE OF THE MILLENNIUM Commenting on the chiliasm of the Early Church, St. Augustine wrote: This notion would be in some degree tolerable if it were believed that in that Sabbath some delights of a spiritual character were available for the saints because of the presence of the Lord. I also entertained this notion at one time. But in fact those people assert that those who have risen again will spend their rest in the most unrestrained d material feasts, in which there will be so much to eat and drink that not only will those supplies keep within no bounds of moderation but will also exceed the limits even of incredibility. But this can only be believed by materialists; and those with spiritual interests give the name ‘Chiliasts’.45

42

“Dialogue of Justin with Trypho” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, p. 239. Mede, Works, pp. 842-843. 44 Ibid. 843. 45 St. Augustine, The City of God, p. 907. 43


The most common criticisms of Early Church chiliasm focused on the perceived nature of the millennium. St. Augustine described this chiliasm as over-indulgent materialism. This view was often attributed to Cerinthus, an early second century figure.46 Cerinthus described the millennium, not only in terms of material abundance and wealth, but also unrestrained participation in sensual pleasures.47 Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Historyy records Caius as stating, But Cerinthus … falsely pretended to wonderful things, as if they were showed him by angels, asserting, that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that the flesh, i.e. men, again inhabiting Jerusalem, would be subject to desires and pleasures…[and] that there would be a space of a thousand years for celebrating nuptial festivals.48 Although others, like Irenaeus, were falsely accused of espousing the same position, there was little evidence to support this.49 Regardless the damage was done; chiliasm continued to be associated with an over-emphasis on the indulgence of the flesh and the material world. Even in the late seventeenth century Francis Turretin commented, “[m]any of the fathers – Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Apollinarius, Lactantius, and others – adopted this opinion…[and] seem to have retained something of the leaven of the Cerinthians as to earthly and corporeal felicity.”50 Thus, the Cerinthian view of the nature of the millennium posed another problem that later millenarians would have to address. Regarding the Church Fathers’ view off the nature of the millennium, Mede was compelled to distinguish carefully between the teachings of various Fathers. Mede’s comments were set forth in two letters responding to the queries of Mr. Wood and Nicholas Estwick. In an undated letter to a certain Mr. Wood, Mede attempted to correct Wood’s exposition of the Apocalypse 20. He distinguished his opinion from any Cerinthian characteristics, advising him to, “beware of gross and carnal conceits of an Epicurean happiness misbeseeming the Spiritual purity of Saints. If we conceit any Deliciae, let them be Spirituales.”51 Distancing himself

46 Brian E. Daley, “Apocalypticism in Early Christian Theology”, in McGinn, The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, Volume 2, p. 7. 47 Martin Erdmann, “The Chiliastic Controversy in the Patristic Literature” (University of Aberdeen, M.Th. Thesis, 1993), pp. 155-158. 48 Eusebius, An Ecclesiastical History to the twentieth year of the reign of Constantine, being the 324th of the Christian Aera [sic], translated by C. F. Cruse (London, 1843), pp. 138-139. 49 Erdmann, “The Chiliastic Controversy”, pp. 157-158. 50 Still, Turretin exercised careful precision separating the Fathers from the particular Cerinthian heresy of “spiritual delights.” Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology by Francis Turretin, vol. 3, edited by J. T. Dennison Jr., translated by G. M. Giger (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1997), p. 575. 51 Undated letter from Mede to Mr. Wood. Mede, Works, p. 603.


121

from Cerinthus, Mede preferred St. Augustine’s emphasis on the spiritual rather than physical benefits enjoyed during the millennium.52 Likewise in a letter to Nicholas Estwick dated 16 November 1635, Mede attempted to vindicate the Church Father, Lactantius, from the heterodoxy of Cerinthus. Lactantius, in his Divine Institutes, did describe the millennium as a time of material abundance.53 However, Mede questioned the assumption that Lactantius’ interpretation was identical to that of Cerinthus.54 He understood Lactantius as distinguishing between those who will participate in the first resurrection, and those who remain alive on earth at the beginning of the millennium.55 Mede stated, “You see he [Lactantius] puts a difference between n those who shall be then living and those who shall rise from the dead.”56 Mede believed Estwick had confused Lactantius’ writings which stated that “[t]hen they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be holy, and beloved by God.”57 This statement was taken to describe the same sexual indulgence that Cerinthus had proposed. Mede categorically disagreed. Instead he understood Lactantius as describing the characteristics of two types of people that would participate in the millennium. The first were those resurrected martyrs who will live a heavenly or angelic life, “even on earth, without marrying or giving in marriage.”58 The second are those who will be still living at the beginning of the millennium, and will continue simply to have the ability to procreate.59 Mede did not accept a reading that confused Lactantius’ description with Cerinthus’ heresy. Additionally, Mede perceived that Estwick misconstrued Lactantius’ depiction of physical abundance. According to Mede, Lactantius’ abundance was nothing more than “taking away the curse of the creature, and the restitution thereof to the perfection it lost through man’s sin.”60 The millennium placed man once again in an Edenic state. Mede wrote,

52

Ibid. 603. Lactantius, Divine Institutes, in ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, trans. W. Fletcher, Ante – Nicene Christian Library: Translations of The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325., vol. XXI, The Works of Lactantius Vol. I (Edinburgh, 1871), p. 480. 54 Mede writes, “Yea but I cannot deny that Lactantius was for ciborum abundantia, gulaque ac ventris ingluvies, & ea quae sub ventre sunt. But what if I can? The word of Lactantius are only these, Lib.7.cap.24. Tunc, inquit, qui erunt in corporibus vivi (he speaks, of those who shall be living at Christ’s coming) non morientur, sed per eosdem mille annos infinitam multitudem generabunt, & erit soboles eorum sancta & Deo chara.” Mede, Works, p. 836. 55 Ibid. 836. 56 Ibid. 836. 57 Lactantius, Divine Institutes, p. 478. 58 Mede, Works, p. 836. 59 Ibid. 846. 60 Ibid. 836. 53


For Lactantius means no more, but thatt such as then lived should live the life that Adam should have done in Paradise, had he not sinned…[as opposed] to those that should then rise from the dead should live in a far more Heavenly and Angelic condition, even the life of the Blessed Spirits in Heaven.61 In response to Estwick, Mede did not consider any of Lactantius’ chiliastic conclusions to be heretical.62 Instead, in Mede’s mind, Estwick had not read Lactantius carefully.

7.v THE CONFLAGRATION AND THE RENOVATION OF THE WORLD In the Early Church period the Gnostics were associated with a view that taught that the world would end in a fiery conclusion. Irenaeus identified the Valentinian Gnostics as teaching “that fire which lies hidden in the world will blaze forth and burn,” until all matter will be consumed.63 Still further, several of the Nag Hammadi documents also depict a cataclysmic event accompanied by thunder and earthquakes that would mark the end of the world.64 Gnostic eschatology taught that the telos of every human will be when the soul transcends the material realm, purging itself from the corrupt physical world, and permanently resting in a spiritual state.65 In the seventeenth century Mede also anticipated a conflagration of the world. However, Mede’s teaching on this topic must be qualified with respect to the Gnostics. For Mede, the conflagration would signal not simply the end of the world, but more specifically the Last Judgment. While their initial understanding was similar, Mede differed from the Gnostics regarding the purpose r and object of this great consuming fire. The source for Mede’s view was chapter 3 of the Second Epistle of Peter. Mede wrote a brief paraphrase and exposition of Peter’s prophecy.66 In this treatise he focused his attention particularly on verse 10, which he paraphrased as follows:

61

Ibid. 836. In a letter to William Twisse, dated 18 April 1635, Mede reiterated the same points regarding Lactantius and other Patristic chiliasts. “In that passage of Lactantius you mention, you may please to observe how wrongfully the ancient Chiliasts, and Lactantius by name, are charged to hold. That the Saints which rise from the dead shall marry and get children; whereas he expresly [sic] affirms it of those only qui erunt in corporibus vivi when Christ cometh. Nor did any of the rest, I mean of the Fathers, Justin, Irenaeus, & c. think otherwise.” Ibid. 812-813. 63 Irenaues, The Writings, p. 171. 64 Brian E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church, p. 26. 65 Alastair H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh, 1996), pp. 301-320. 66 Titled, “A Paraphrase and Exposition of the Prophecie of S. Peter, concerning The Day of Christ’s Second Coming; described In the Third Chapter of the Second Epistle.” Mede, Works, pp. 609-619. 62


123

But as for the manner of the coming of this great Day of the Lord, it shall be suddenly and unaware, as a thief in the night, in which the Heavens with a crackling noise of fire shall pass away, and the [Stoiceia] or host of them shall melt with fervent heat; the Earth also and the works therein shall be burned.67 Mede’s exposition of this passage began with a comparison between the end of the antediluvian or Old World, and the end of the New World as depicted by Peter. Genesis 6-9 depicted the destruction of the Old World by water. Mede believed Peter’s prophecy was describing the end of the present World in similar terms; however the instrument of destruction will not be water, but fire. “The Heavens and the Earth which then were, perished by water; a as the World that now is shall by 68 fire.” Thus, the Noahic episode of the Old Testament served as a type for the impending end of the present world order. Then what exactly would this fire consume? Mede looked to verse 10 and its description of the στοιχεια (elements) of Heaven, and the εργα (works) of the Earth to answer this question. The works of the Earth, t he interpreted this as the “buildings and whole furniture of the Creatures belonging to Terra.”69 The elements of Heaven, however, were more difficult to distinguish. First, Mede delineated three biblical definitions of heaven: “[n]ow we know the Scriptures make three heavens: 1. The Air, or Sublunary heaven; 2. The Ethereal, or Starry heaven; 3. The heaven of Glory, or Empyreal heaven.”70 Out of these three heavens, only the Sublunary heaven would be consumed by fire. The “Empyreal” heaven would not be touched, since that was the dwelling place of God; nor would the “Ethereal” heaven be touched, because the curse of man’s sin was not so far reaching.71 That leaves only the Sublunary heaven. Second, amongst Greek philosophers, στοιχεια or the elements, referred to the four “philosophical” elements: earth, water, air and fire. Yet, for Mede this made no exegetical sense, because many of these elements were not assigned to the Sublunary heaven – especially the element of earth. Likewise fire was the element assigned to be the instrument of destruction; Mede concluded that if fire is to burn fire, then nothing will be consumed.72 The elements must then be interpreted, not in philosophical, but biblical terms. 67

Ibid. 612. Ibid. 613. 69 Ibid. 613. 70 Ibid. 614. 71 Mede wrote, “And for the Ethereal Heaven, he that considereth both the super eminent nature and immensity thereof, and of those innumerable bodies therein, in regard of which the whole Sublunary world is but a point or centre; and that it no way can be proved that ever those bodies received any curse for man’s sin, …or that any enemies of God dwell in them to pollute them; he that considereth this, will not easily be induced to believe that the Fire of the day of Judgment should burn them.” Ibid. 614-615. 72 Ibid. 613. 68

124


Precisely on this point of exegesis Mede ran into some difficulty. He attempted to draw a comparable interpretation from Genesis 2:1, which Mede translated, “The heavens and the earth were finished…and all the host of them.”73 Mede recognized that the Septuagint rendered the Hebrew word “host” in Genesis 2 as παρατατζοµαι νοτ στοιχεια as found in II Peter. This posed a certain interpretive dilemma. Since the words are not identical in Genesis and II Peter, Mede’s detractors could argue that he had no biblical basis for understanding στοιχεια in non-philosophical terms. In response, Mede asserted that στοιχεια and παρατατζοµαι were equivalent in meaning, and that the use of one word or the other was a matter of dialectal preferences. Moreover, instead of attempting to provide more biblical evidence, Mede conveniently moved on to define what Peter meant by heaven. At the end of this treatise he returned to defend this exegesis by attaching an appendix containing a list of passages from the writings of the Church Fathers showing that στοιχεια was properly interpreted as the “Host and Furniture of Heaven.”74 Mede cited Justin Martyr in his First Apology; Theodoritus in his interpretation of Galatians, Theophilus in Book 1 and 2 of his Antiochenum Luminaria & Astra, and chapter one of Cyprian’s Exhortation to the Martyrs. Additionally Mede included Eusebius’ account u of Polycratis found in Book 3, Chapter 31, which states, “For in Asia, also mighty luminaries [στοιχεια] have fallen asleep, which shall rise again at the last day.”75 By “luminaries” Polycratis was referring to certain hosts of heaven – particularly saints who had passed away. In this specific case, where the semantic range of the original Greek could produce various meanings, the Church Fathers became an alternate source for exegetical support. By referencing the conclusions of the Church Fathers, a less plausible interpretation was immediately given a degree of credibility, or at the very least it was placed within the realm of exegetical possibilities. Moreover if the works of the earth will be the buildings and furniture of the creatures then the elements will be the “furniture belonging to the Caelum.”76 Within this Mede included two categories, the visible and invisible hosts of heaven. The host of the Aereal or Sublunary heaven are either visible, as the Clouds of Heaven…and other Meteors, as also the rest of the creatures

73

Ibid. 613. “A Collection of some passages in the ancient Fathers, shewing [sic] that by Στοιχεια are meant the Host and Furniture of Heaven, & c.” Ibid. 617. 75 Eusebius, An Ecclesiastical History, p. 141. Mede was incorrect in citing this passage from chapter 25 of book 3, when in fact it is found in chapter 31 of book 3. Mede, Works, p. 617. 76 Ibid. 613. 74


125

mansioning therein, as the Fowls of heaven…or invisible,…the wicked Spirits and Devils, whose Prince, Satan is called the Prince of the Power of the Air.77 Therefore the fire of judgment will destroy the hosts of the sublunary Heaven and the Earth. With that said, Mede continued his exposition by specifically detailing what will be consumed, and for what purpose. Mede began by differentiating between two terms: Mundus continens and Mundus contentus. By Mundus continens he meant the “frame of the Physical Heaven and Earth wherein the rest of the creatures are contained”; and the Mundus contentus he defined as “the state or body of the inhabitants and Kingdoms of the earth.”78 In the deluge of the Old World, Mede asserted that it was just the Mundus contentus that was destroyed, while the Mundus continens (although tainted by the noetic effects of sin) was preserved. The physical space of the world was not destroyed by the flood waters, only “the world of wicked States and men, high ones and low ones, Princes and Peasants, man and beast.”79 However in the final fire, both the unrighteous inhabitants and the physical creation itself will be purged and refined. But whereas the universal Deluge, though only the Mundus contentus perished, yet nevertheless the Mundus continens was therewith corrupted and depraved; in the destruction by Fire it shall be otherwise; for the world of wicked ones being destroyed, the Heaven and Earth which contained them shall be purged and refined for the righteous to dwell therein.80 Nevertheless the fire would not bring complete desolation, but instead a refinement or purification of the created order.81 This fire will accompany Christ’s return to inaugurate the millennium and the refinement will extend to the martyrs (before the first resurrection) and those who are still alive at Christ’s Second Coming; the purification will purge them from their sin through their repentance.82 For Mede a complete renovation would occur, in order to refine the world for the righteous to inhabit.

77

Ibid. 614. Ibid. 615. 79 Ibid. 616. 80 Ibid. 616. 81 Mede understood St. Peter as employing a “Metaphor taken from the refining of metals…which are melted in order to their purifying and refining.” Ibid. 615. 82 Ibid. 618. 78


7.vi THE MILLENNIUM AND THE DAY OF JUDGMENT Joseph Mede’s understanding of the great Day of Judgment was arguably one of his most ingenious millenarian interpretations; and yet at the same time, in one sense, it was also his most offensive statement. By the middle of the sixteenth century all three of the major Protestant confessions had condemned millenarianism, according to Hotson, the “Lutherans in the Augsburg Confession of 1530, the English in the Forty-Two Articles of Religion of 1552, aand the Reformed in the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 – and for the remainder of the century little dissent from this was raised by serious Protestant Theologians.”83 Specifically the Augsburg and the Second Helvetic Confessions rejected millenarianism as the revival of Jewish doctrines inconsistent with Protestant Christianity. Article 17 of the Augsburg Confessions condemns those “who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, he ungodly being everywhere suppressed.” Likewise chapter 11 of the Second Helvetic Confession rejected any “Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth.” This was a common accusation levied against millenarians, since the doctrine of a future literal kingdom of Christ resembled the Messianic reign anticipated in Jewish Eschatology.84 Moreover the Early Church chiliasts were seen as the primary instigators of this Jewish infection. Charles Hill, writing about the about the commonalties between Judaism and chiliasm comments: We may say first that in Judaism the chiliastic scheme, when it arose, seems to have been wedded to this conception of the intermediate state, and second that Christian chiliasm retained both eschatological teachings side by side as it found them in its sources (and, perhaps, as some Jews themselves carried them from Judaism to Christianity).85 Hill argues that the doctrines of a post-mortem intermediate state and a future millennium both were borrowed from Jewish eschatology; consequently exposing

83

Hotson, “The Historiographical Origins of Calvinist Millenarianism”, p. 159. Studies on Jewish apocalyptic thought include: David Hellhom (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings d of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979, (Tübingen, 1989, 2ndd edition); D. S. Russell, The Method & Message of Jewish Apocalyptic 200 BC – AD 100 (London, 1964); idem, Divine Disclosure: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic (London, 1992); James C. VanderKam, “Messianism and Apocalypticism”, in J. J. Collins (ed.) Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism Volume I: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity (New York, 1998), pp. 193-229. 85 Hill, Regnum Caelorum, p. 246. 84

Millenarians, The Church Fathers and Jewish Rabbis 127 the link between the two doctrines in the chiliastic eschatology of the Church Fathers.86 Mede’s response to the Protestant condemnation of the Jewish character of millenarianism and Early Church chiliasm was uncharacteristically defiant. He responded specifically to Jerome’s charge that the early chiliasts were guilty of Judaism.87 Jerome’s insistence on this accusation convinced Mede that this was his “prime argument” for denying the chiliasts’ “erroneous opinion.”88 At this point, one would expect Mede to embark on a lengthy diatribe, explaining all the historical and theological differences (given his considerable knowledge of history), and consciously distancing the position of the early chiliasts from Judaism. Instead, Mede dismissed Jerome’s accusation, finding no fault in the similarities and consistencies between the two eschatological traditions. To “be of the same minde with the Jewes is not alwaies culpable.”89 Logically, Christianity shares numerous similarities with Judaism which are not subjected to criticism. Why then should chiliasm? Mede listed a few of the most salient common beliefs. First both Christians and Jews agree that there will be a paradise in the world to come. Mede asked, “Doe not we Christians consent with the Jewes in these things? Have not we names likewise (of the Kingdome of Heaven…) from the Jewish Rabbins?”90 Second, Christians and Jews both concur that there will be a day of judgement. In fact, Mede argued that the A Apostle Peter’s use of the term “day of judgement” was taken from the common Jewish expression – the “Vulgare form and manner of the Jewes” and not the more commonly assumed source, the book of Psalms.91 Mede’s intent was to demonstrate that mere similarities with Judaism

86

It is interesting to note that other critics of chiliasm observed this same link. John Calvin’s first book was an attack against the doctrine of “soul sleep” or the intermediate state, entitled Psychopannychia, first written in 1534. This book was aimed at various Anabaptists - like Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt- and Antitrinitarians –like Michael Servetus- who taught this doctrine, along with a chiliastic eschatology. Later, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin placed his criticism of chiliasm in the section immediately preceding his discussion of the nature of the resurrected body. Calvin argued that the resurrection was not a resurrection of the soul, but simply the body. The soul was already in the presence off God and not confined to some subterranean vault. It seems that Calvin observed the same connection between these two heterodox doctrines. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.XXV.6, pp. 994-997; Willem Balke, W. Heynen (trans.), Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals (Grand Rapids, 1981), pp. 25-33, 304-308; Timothy George, “Calvin’s Psychopannychia: Another Look”, in R. C. Gamble (ed.), Calvin’s Early Writings and Ministry (New York & London, 1992), pp. 87-119; Hans Scholl, “Karl Barth as Interpreter of Calvin’s Psychopannychia”, in W. H. Neuser & B. G. Armstrong (eds.), Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex: Calvin as Protector of the Purer Religion (Kirksville, MO, 1997), p. 299. For additional details on Servetus’ chiliasm see, Howard Hotson, “Arianism and Millenarianism”, pp. 9-35. 87 Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 134. 88 Ibid. 134. 89 Ibid. 134. 90 Ibid. 134. 91 Ibid. 134; Mede, Works, p. 611.


were no ground in itself for dismissing chiliasm as heretical or erroneous. Therefore dismissing chiliasm because it resembled doctrines found in Judaism was neither an adequate nor persuasive accusation. In all likelihood Mede’s understanding of Judaism and Rabbinic interpretations came from the increasing amount of literature written and published by Christian Hebraists.92 Stephen Burnett comments on the impact of these Christian Hebraists, Their importance for promoting Christian Hebraism in early modern Europe is profound, since they made Jewish learning possible without any assistance from Jews. When Reuchlin, Pico, Cardinal Viterbo and other prominent Christian Hebraists of the Renaissance wished to learn Hebrew they did so by finding Jews to tutor them; by the seventeenth century it was possible for John Lightfoot to teach himself not only Hebrew but also talmudic Aramaic by using textbooks.93 Clearly Mede reaped the benefits from the arduous labor of these early modern Hebrew scholars. Similar to Lightfoot, Mede taught himself Hebrew from a Christian textbook he purchased before he even began his studies at Cambridge.94 Mede’s library contained a volume of Johannes Buxtorf’s edited Hebrew and Chaldee Bible with a commentary on the Masora (textual apparatus) composed from the writings of prominent rabbis.95 Buxtorf devoted his entire academic career to making Jewish writings and language more accessible for non-Jews.96 His most 92

Studies on Christian Hebraism in the early modern period include, Stephen G. Burnett, From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf (1564-1628) and Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century (Leiden, 1996); Jerome Friedman, The Most Ancient Testimony: Christian Hebraica in the Age of the Renaissance Nostalgia (Athens, OH, 1983); Aaron L. Katchen, Christian Hebraists and Dutch Rabbis: Seventeenth Century Apologetics and the Study of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Harvard Judaic Texts and Studies, no. 3 (Cambridge, MA, 1984); Peter T. Van Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century: Constantijn L’Empereur (1591-1648) Professor of Hebrew and Theology at Leiden, trans. J. C. Grayson, Studies in the History of Leiden University, Vol. 6. (Leiden, 1989). 93 Stephen G. Burnett, Christian Hebraism, p. 5. 94 Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. I. 95 John Buxtorf (ed.), Biblia Sacra Hebraica & Chaldaica cum Masora, quae Critica Hebraeorum sacra est, Magna & Parva, ac selectissimis Hebraeorum interpretum Comentariis, Rabbi Salomonis Jarchi, R. Abrahami Aben Esrae, R. Davidis Kimchi, R. Levi Gerson, R. Saadie Gaon, R. Jeschaiae, & Notis ex authore, quem Baal Turim vocant, collectis, quibus textus Grammatice & historice illustratur. (Basel, 1619). This volume, along with the rest of Mede’s books were given to Christ’s College at his death. A list of the books Mede donated are found in John Alsop’s account of Mede’s estate, CCL Box M 72(g). I wish to acknowledge David Cockburn’s list of Mede’s books identifying the actual volumes still in Christ’s College Library’s holdings. 96 Burnett, Christian Hebraism, p. 2. Additionally Mede had access to Buxtorf’s other reference books including his Thesaurus Grammaticus Linguae Sanctae Hebraeae, first published in 1609. Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 42.

Millenarians, The Church Fathers and Jewish Rabbis 129 famous work – his Bibliotheca rabbinica - listed the titles of significant Jewish books, their authors, and the subjects.97 Additionally Mede consulted the works of the professor of Jewish controversies at the University of Leiden, Constantine L’Empereur. Peter van Rooden has remarked that L’Empereur “gained international recognition and fame by publishing translations of Mishnaic tractates and other tools of the study of rabbinical literature… [and in] the second quarter of the seventeenth century he was one of the most eminent Christian authorities on Jewish literature and m were found in Mede’s Judaism.”98 Three volumes published by L’Empereur library.99 Significantly for Mede’s purposes two of these volumes dealt with rabbinic interpretations of the Talmud, and the third was a commentary on the book of Daniel. Lastly, Michael Murrin concludes that Mede used an anthology written by the sixteenth-century Italian theologian, Petrus Galatinus.100 Perhaps this was Galatinus’ De arcanis catholicae veritatis, first published in 1518,101 an anti-Jewish book written in defense of Johann Reuchlin and containing numerous Jewish texts.102 While there is evidence that Mede consulted actual rabbinic writings, this expanding wealth of Christian Hebraic works provided convenient resources for his own millenarian studies.103 Subsequently, if commonalities between chiliasm and Judaism no longer carried a stigma of suspicion, then in fact, especially for seventeenth-century scholars like Mede, Jewish interpretations could be used as an additional source to substantiate millenarianism. For Mede, in addition to Scripture and the early Church Fathers, Judaic sources offered additional material for gaining greater insight into various aspects of eschatology. Specifically, these Jewish writings were useful for understanding the biblical teaching on the great Day of Judgment. The anti-millenarian David Pareus, professor of theology at Heidelberg, specifically attacked the millenarian interpretation of the Day of Judgment. In his commentary on the Apocalypse published in 1618, Pareus claimed that the millenarian sequence of events betrayed d a problematic inconsistency because it placed the Last Judgment prior to the final war with Gog and Magog. 97

Ibid. 155. Peter T. van Rooden, “Constantijn L’Empereur’s Contacts with the Amsterdam Jews and his Confutation of Judaism”, in J. van den Berg & E.G.E. van der Wall (eds.), Jewish-Christian Relations in the Seventeenth Century: Studies and Documents (Leiden, 1988), pp. 51. 99 The three books of L’Empereur included, Hoc est, Talmudis Babylonici Codex Middoth.(Leiden, 1630); Paraphrasis Dn. Josephi Jachiadae in Danielem (Amsterdam, 1633); Clavis Talmudica, Complectens Formulas, loca Dialectica & Rhetorica priscorum Judaeorum (Leiden, 1634). [an introduction to the Talmud by Joshua Levi]. 100 Michael Murrin, “Revelation and two seventeenth-century commentators” in Patrides et.al., The Apocalypse in English Renaissance thought, p. 145. 101 Mede cites Galatinus in Mede, The Key, Part I, p. 132. 102 “Galatinus, Pietro Columna (1460-1540)” in Charles G. Hebermann (ed.), The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1913), pp. 262-263. 103 Also found in Mede’s library was a copy off Rabbi Moses Bar Nacham’s commentary on the Pentateuch. Bar Nacham was cited frequently, Mede, The Key, Part I, p. 31; Part II, p. 41. 98


I know not how they can make their opinions hang together, for they say, that Christ shall come to Judgement a thousand yeers after the overthrow of Papacy: and that after those thousand yeer, Gog and Magog shall make warreagainst the Christians.104 It made no sense to Pareus how millenarians could place the return of Christ in judgment one thousand years after the destruction of the papal Antichrist.105 If the Antichrist will be completely destroyed at the beginning of a one thousand year period of absolute peace and tranquility on earth, which will end at Christ’s return in judgment, how then can the armies of the Antichrist be revived in the form of Gog and Magog after this millennial paradise? For Pareus, an additional millenarian absurdity is observed at the conclusion of the one thousand years. Revelation 20:7, 8 records the release of Satan from his bondage after the thousand years are completed and then he will deceive the nations and gather them for war – the battle of Gog and Magog. Following the chronological sequence of these two verses, Pareus concluded if, according to the millenarians, the Day off Judgment and Christ’s return will mark the end of the millennium, then it would place the battle of Gog and Magog after the Day of Judgment.106 Pareus could not accept this deduction since it completely redefined the absolute character of the Day of Judgment as the final defeat of all the enemies of Christ and his church. Johannes Piscator and Johann Heinrich Alsted attempted to respond to Pareus’ criticisms.107 Matthew 24:37-39 prophesied that the days before the coming of Christ to judge will be like the days of Noah before the flood – wicked and corrupt. For Alsted this would be possible because: With that State of the faithful, which shall last for a thousand years, the reliques and remainders of those conquered enemies of the Church shall be joyned, who about the end of this millenary shall recollect their strengths, and make warre against the faithful. And then the state of the world shall be such, as in the days of Noah. As in his dayes therefore the deluge came upon the wicked: so these thousand years being finished, the last judgement shall come in the time of the warre of Gog and Magog.108 104

Pareus, A Commentary upon the divine Revelation, p. 511. Hotson has carefully identified how Pareus’ commentary was a direct response to Johannes Piscator’s commentary published five years before. Hotson, Paradise Postponed, pp. 115-116. 106 Pareus wrote, “What? Shall this warre be taken in hand after Christs [sic] last coming to Judgement.” Pareus, A Commentary upon the divine Revelation, p. 511. 107 Piscator’s response is found in “Medidatio de millen annis quorum fit mention Apoc. 20.v.2 et seqq. Nec non de resurrectione prima cujus fit mention v.5. et. 6.” See Hotson, Paradise Postponed, p. 117. 108 Johann Heinrich Alsted, The Beloved City or, The Saints Reign on Earth a Thousand Yeares (London, 1643), p. 63. 105

Millenarians, The Church Fathers and Jewish Rabbis 131 Alsted claimed that the enemies of Christ would not be eradicated completely during the millennium. Even the Antichrist would co-exist during this period. The “reliques of Antichrist which at the end of the Millenary shall again gather together their strength…to make War against the Saints.”109 Subsequently the millennium would not mark the total defeat of the Antichrist. Additionally Alsted tried to avoid Pareus’ accusation of sequential absurdity by placing the Day of Judgment after the war of Gog and Magog, and not before it.110 Piscator and Alsted attempted to answer Pareus’s criticisms, yet neither of the two produced a satisfactory answer. Mede, however, circumvented the problem posed by Pareus by offering an alternative interpretation. In a letter to Dr. Meddus dated 18 August 1628, Mede explained, I differ from both [Piscator and Alsted], in that I make this State of the Church [the millennial kingdom] to belong to Secundus Aventus Christii or Dies Judicii Magni, when Christ shall appear in the clouds or Heaven to destroy all the professed enemies of his Church and Kingdom, and deliver the creature from that bondage of corruption brought upon it for the sin of man: Whereas, they make it to precede the Day of Judgment and the Second Coming.111 Departing from his fellow millenarians, Mede did equate the Second Coming of Christ and the Day of Judgment with the immediate destruction of Christ’s enemies. Mede’s solution was to expand the “Day” to encompass the entire millennial period, instead of placing it after the millennium. “That the thousand years begin with the Day of Judgment…that the Judgment is not consummate till they be ended: For Gog and Magog’s destruction and the universal Resurrection is not till then. Therefore the whole thousand years is included in the Day of Judgment,” stated Mede112; and even more, this Day will be: circumscribed within two resurrections,…and as it were [the] morning Judgement of Antichrist, and the rest of the living enemies of the Church, by the glorious…appearing of our Lord in flaming fire: and then at length to determine (after the reigne of the thousand yeeres granted to new Jerusalem his most holy Spouse upon this earth: and after the utter destruction of new enemies yet to arise, the great Day waxing toward

109

Ibid. 65. On this point Hotson observes that Alsted was transcribing Piscator’s “Meditatio.” Hotson, Paradise Postponed, p. 121. 110 Alsted, The Beloved City, p. 63. 111 Mede, Works, p. 772. 112 Letter to Dr. Meddus dated 25 November 1629. Ibid. 763.


evening and Satan being again loosed) at the universal resurrection, and judgement of all the dead.113 Now in Mede’s scheme the appearance of Christ will begin the destruction of Antichrist and mark the beginning of the millennial kingdom, which also represents a one thousand years period off judgement. The Day of Judgment will include the battle of Gog and Magog and be concluded after that battle with the Universal Resurrection. Furthermore there will be no delay from the defeat of Antichrist to the appearance of Christ and the Day of Judgment, nor any battle following the Day. In this penetrating interpretation Mede gave a clear and profound answer to Pareus’ concerns. “This I can affirm with the most, That Antichrist shall not be finally destroyed till the Day of Christ’s appearing unto Judgement; and yet not fall into that which some charge the Chiliasts with, That this should be after the Day of Judgement.”114 For Mede, equating the duration and time of the Day of Judgment with the millennium answered Pareus’ accusations of inconsistencies. The second appearance of Christ and the Day of Judgment (extended for a thousand years) would contain the defeat of the Antichrist. This judgment upon the Antichrist or Day of Judgment will be in stages coinciding with the millennial kingdom, and will be completed after the battle of Gog and Magog in the Universal Resurrection.115 The brilliance of Mede’s view on the Day of Judgment was well recognized by his millenarian peers. Alsted quickly converted to Mede’s interpretation on the Day of Judgment and quoted large sections of the second edition of the Clavis in his own Podromvs religionis triumphantis, published in 1635.116 In order to give greater plausibility to this exegetical interpretation of the Day of Judgment, Mede consulted a number off Judaic commentaries. These rabbinical works provided a vast wealth of resources to help gain greater insight into this eschatological topic, and ultimately confirm his millenarian conclusion on the Day of Judgment. Initially Mede employed the Jewish definition of a prophetic “day.” He argued, “And it is to be remembered here, that the Jews, who gave this time the name of…The Day of Judgment, and from whom our Saviour and his Apostles took it, never understood thereby but a Time of many years continuance, yea some

113

Mede, The Key, Part II, pp. 122-123. Mede, Works, p. 603. 115 “Not a Day of a few hours, as we commonly suppose, but continuatum multorum annorum intervallum, a continued space of many Years, wherein Christ shall destroy all his Enemies, and at length Death it self; beginning with the Antichrist by his revelation from heaven in flaming fire, and ending with the Universal Resurrection; during which space of time shall be the Kingdom of he Saints in the New Jerusalem.” Ibid. 603. 116 Alsted, Prodromvs religionis triumphantis. In quo methodicè repetuntur et breviter examinantur libri sex de vera religione; qvorum primus à Johanne Crellio, quinq; reliqvi a Johanne Volkelio sunt conscripti. Praemissus Tirumpho verae religionis, in quo sex isti libri pleniùs examinantur (Gyulafehérvár, 1635 [actually 1641]). Hotson, Paradise Postponed, p. 70. 114

Millenarians, The Church Fathers and Jewish Rabbis 133 …of a thousand years.”117 To lend more weight to his argument Mede added a short appendix to his Clavis Apocalyptica, entitled “The Opinions of the Learned Hebrews Concerning the great Day of Judgement, and the Kingdom of Christ then to be.”118 In this tract Mede determined that the Judaic interpretation of the Day of Judgement was not understood to be a literal twenty-four hour day, but an extended period of time. Mede began by explaining the Jewish sabbatical calendar for the history of the world. This history was to follow the pattern of the creation week – six days of labor followed by a day of rest. However the world’s history was not to be counted in literal twenty-four hour days, but with each day representing a thousand years. Mede substantiated this claim from the teaching of the “Doctors of the Talmud,” who taught that the world would continue for six thousand years – two thousand years before the Law, two thousand a years after the Law, and two thousand years until the Great Judgement.119 The concluding day or one thousand years would be the Day of Judgement. Citing Rabbi Ketina, Mede wrote, “Even as every seventh yeere of seven yeers, is a yeere of release: so of the seven thousand yeers of the world, seventh thousand yeere, shall be the thousand of release.”120 Of course Mede was concerned primarily with the Rabbinic teachings on the final one thousand year creation-day.121 From these Rabbinic sources Mede synchronized three events: The Day of Judgement, the appearance of the Messiah, and the bodily resurrection. First Mede argued that the Rabbinic tradition understood the phrase “Day of the Lord” to be the day of the Messiah’s appearance in judgement, lasting one thousand years. Mede cited Rabbi Schelomo teachings on Isaiah 2:12-22, particularly the end of verse 11, “the Lord alone will be exalted in that day.” The term “that day,” Mede argued according to Schelomo, will be the Day of Judgement.122 Moreover Mede consulted the teachings of the famous Rabbi David Kimchi, who interpreted the Isaiah passage as “the dayes of the Messiah, when the Lord shall execute his judgement upon the wicked.”123 Mede found the same Rabbinic interpretation in 117

Ibid. 772. Mede, The Key, Part II, pp. 129-135. 119 Ibid. 129. 120 Ibid. 129, 131. Mede is referring to the sabbatical laws patterned after the creation week in Leviticus 25. Leroy Froom comments, “Many rabbis believed, on the basis of creation week, that the world would last six thousand years and be in chaos the seventh thousand years.” Froom, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, vol. II, p. 191. Additionally Mede cited the Rabbi “Asche”or Asher, the brother of Rabbi Abba and son of Raba- one of the writers of the Babylonian Talmud, as teaching this view. Froom, Prophetic Faith, p.191; H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, trans. M. Bochmuehl, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh, 1991), pp. 208-244. 121 This was an established and virtually unanimously received interpretation from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 97a) and Rabbi Elias. Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon both accepted this view. Firth, Apocalyptic Tradition, p. 63; Hotson, Paradise Postponed, p. 20. 122 Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 130. 123 Ibid. 130. Kimchi was a well regarded Medieval Rabbi. He was frequently cited in the writings of Buxtorf and L’Empereur. For more on Kimchi see, Jacob Neuser, A. J. Avery-Peck, W. S. 118


passages in the Psalms that also contained the same phrase. Mede wrote, “the title of the Psalmee 92 [For the Sabbath day] doth appertaine to the argument of the Psalme, and ought to be understood of the Sabbath of the thousand yeers.”124 In addition to the one thousand year Sabbath being the same as the Day of Judgement, Mede discerned from the rabbinic scholars that this would likewise coincide with the reign of the Messiah. Mede quoted Rabbi Saadas’ exegesis of Daniel 7:10, on this point: Because the children of Israel have rebelled against the Lord, their kingdome shall be taken from them, and shall be given to those foure Monarchies which shall possesse the kingdome in this world, and shall lead Israel captive and subdue it to them even till the world to come, untill Messiah shall reigne.125 Mede observed striking similarities between n this rabbinic interpretation and his understanding of verses found in the New Testament. Compare that of Luk. 21. 25. to wit, t The Jewes shall be led captive into all Nations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot of the Gentiles, until The times of he Gentiles be fulfilled. Then they shall see the Sonne of man Coming in a cloud [.]126 Of course this suited Mede’s millenarian aapproach since he interpreted the downfall of the fourth monarchy as the destruction of the papacy at the Second Coming of Christ. The Jewish expectation of a Messianic kingdom following the four kingdoms prophesied in Daniel was easily appropriated to affirm the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ. Mede observed great accuracy in the rabbinic teachings, they simply misunderstood that Jesus Christ was the long awaited fulfillment of the Messianic prophesies. Finally, Mede also agreed with the Jewish conclusions that the event of the Resurrection coincided with the Day of Judgement, the seventh sabbatical millennium, and the reign of the Messiah. Mede cited Rabbis Eliezer and Jonathan

Green (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Judaism (Leiden, 2000), p. 274; John H. Hayes (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 1 (Nashville, 1999), pp. 22-23. 124 Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 130. 125 Ibid. Part II, 133. Rabbi Saadas or Saadia’s commentary on Daniel was cited in Buxtorf’s works. Burnett, Christian Hebraism, p. 122. Froom lists a number off major Rabbinic interpreters who subscribed to the year-day principle and the four kingdoms of Daniel 7 as chronologically preceding the Messianic kingdom. Included in this list is Saadia ben Joseph (882-942) whom Mede cites. Froom, Prophetic Faith, vol. II, pp. 194, 200. 126 Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 133.

Millenarians, The Church Fathers and Jewish Rabbis 135 from the work of Petrus Galatinus, specifically quoting Jonathan’s interpretation of Hosea 14:8, They shall be gathered together out off the midst of their captivitie, they shall dwell under the protection of their Christ, and the dead shall live, and good shall grow in the land, and there shall be a memoriall of their goodnesse fructifying, and never failing, as the remembrance of the soundof the Trumpets over the old wine which was wont to be offered in the Sanctuary.127 Eliezer added that in “the time to come” (the Day of the Lord), God would raise up his people “in the resurrection of the dead.”128 Mede noted that Jonathan placed the resurrection at the same time as the “protection” or reign of the Messiah, while Eliezer associated it with the great Day of the Lord (which Mede already had argued was also the Day of Judgement).129 Subsequently all of these events would occur at the same time. The resemblance of early chiliasm to these inter-testamental Rabbis’ teachings did not go unnoticed.130 Mede believed this similarity affirmed his own millenarian teachings that the resurrection would occur when Christ returns in judgement to establish his millennial kingdom. Although Mede observed that the rabbinic tradition linked the resurrection with the Messianic kingdom, a significant difference between Jewish eschatology and millenarianism needed to needed to be addressed. From chapter 20 in the Apocalypse, e Mede determined that there would be two resurrections. Both of these resurrections will be literal and corporeal, not spiritual or symbolic.131 However, rabbinic eschatology only referred to one corporeal resurrection. Recognizing this difference, Mede wrote in a letter to Doctor Meddus,

127 Ibid. II, 132. Mede notes that Rabbi Jonathan lived before Christ, therefore Jonathan reference to a Christ was not specifically the Christ of the New Testament, but a prophecy anticipated by the inter-Testamental Jews. 128 Ibid. II, 132. 129 Mede writes, “The Rabbins have also said, that according the time to come…The day of the Messiah shall be one. For God which is holy and blessed in the future (that is, in the future age) shall make one day to himself, of which we reade, Zach. 14. And there shall be one day, which shall be knowne to the Lord, not day nor night; and it shall come to passe, that at evening time it shall be light. This day is the world to come, and the resurrection of the dead.” Ibid. II, 130-131. [Italics are found in the original text denoting Mede’s quotations from the Rabbis] 130 Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob the Elder wrote particularly on the traditions about the Temple, while Rabbi Jonathan or Yohana ben Zakkai fled Jerusalem during the rebellion against Rome and founded his own Judaic academy. H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Talmud and Midrash, pp.74-75. 131 See previous section on the First Resurrection.


Though the ancient Jews (whilest they were yet the Church of God) had no distinct knowledge of such an order in n the Resurrection as First and Second, but only of the Resurrection in gross and general, to be in die Judicii magni; yet they looked for such a resurrection, wherein those that rose again should reign some time upon earth[.]132 Mede regarded the Jewish knowledge of a future resurrection to be referring to the millenarian understanding of the first resurrection, where departed saints would be raised. Since the Jews “who as they look for the Kingdom of their Messiah until Dies Judicii magni, […] expect that their forefathers … should rise at the beginning of the same.”133 The second, or Universal Resurrection, was not revealed to the Jews, but only later “clearly revealed in Christianity.”134 Mede speculated that the body of teaching on the resurrection, from both Christian and Jewish sources, could be used to establish a tradition of interpretation with more truth being disclosed in the progress of unfolding revelation. This, according to Mede, was why the Holy t similarity and consistency to the Ghost spoke to the Church with such striking rabbinic interpreters of the Old Testament.135

7.vii CONCLUSION Millenarianism in the seventeenth century attracted many sophisticated biblical scholars who applied their abilities and knowledge to the study of the Apocalypse. Mede’s expertise included Patristic theology and Judaic studies, two areas that greatly contributed to his research. The originality of Mede is displayed in his use of these ancient sources in order to supplement his millenarian conclusions. With regard to the interpretation of the Apocalypse, Mede sought to solidify his millenarianism by appealing to the highest extra-biblical source of authority: the Patristic writers who followed immediately after f the apostolic era. Patristic chiliasm provided a credible witness for demonstrating a that millenarianism was consistent with the earliest Christian tradition of apocalyptic interpretation. Moreover this was a practice espoused by many of the most respected and learned theologians. Irenaeus, Tertullian and Justin Martyr were cited frequently in discussion of other doctrines, with their chiliasm often overlooked or barely mentioned. Instead Mede focused almost entirely on their chiliastic interpretations for the purposes of fortifying his own millenarianism. For Mede, the era off the Patristics was pure and undefiled by the rise of Antichrist (beginning around the fourth r century). Therefore any appeal to Patristic testimony invoked a witness untouched by Satanic corruption. An appeal to the Patristic chiliasts was not an endorsement of heresy, but the pristine eschatology of the Early Church, according to Mede. 132

Mede, Works, p. 771. Ibid. 771. 134 Ibid. 771. 135 Ibid. 771. 133

Millenarians, The Church Fathers and Jewish Rabbis 137

The Patristic teachings were not the only source for supporting millenarianism. Disregarding the criticism that chiliasm was just a Christianized version of Jewish eschatology, Mede embraced Jewish scholarship as another source for studying and he liberally cited rabbinic scholars and Christian Hebraists to buttress his position further. The seventeenth century provided the ideal academic setting for Mede to study and compare Judaism with Christianity, a since dedicated Christian scholars were hard at work making rabbinic literature a more easily accessible. Consistencies between rabbinic interpretations and his own w millenarian conclusions provided more evidence for the soundness of Mede’s aapocalyptic thought, because the Jews were the recipients of nascent truths only later fully unveiled to the Church. By appealing to both Patristic and rabbinic sources Mede attempted to ground his millenarianism in an ancient apocalyptic tradition that pre-dated other interpretations, and likewise included some of the greatest theologians in the history of Christianity.

CHAPTER EIGHT

An English Millenarian Legacy

8.i ENGLISH MILLENARIANISM Previous studies of early seventeenth-century u English millenarianism neatly aligned their interpretation of the trajectory of seventeenth-century English apocalyptic thought with the predominant historiographical trend of that day.1 Apocalyptic fervor mirrored the rising tide of unrest begun in the aborted Reformation during the Tudor era and reached its climax in the chaotic years of the Puritan Revolution under the Stuarts. Following this convenient narrative, with the failure of the Revolution and the restoration of the Monarchy, a apocalyptic interest evaporated except for a few distant murmurs. Christopher Hill summarized this in his apocalyptic study of the Antichrist, In attempting to draw conclusions, my problems are first to explain the rapid, kaleidoscopic evolution of the content of the Antichrist myth, culminating in the 1640s and 1650s; and secondly to explain its no less rapid disappearance after 1660.2 Likewise Bernard Capp observed, Consequently, the ‘never to be forgotten Sect’ of 1661 had already passed into oblivion by the beginning of the eighteenth century. Millenarianism had little to offer to future political and intellectual trends…and in the age

1

Most prolific and indicative of this thesis is the work of Christopher Hill: C. Hill, The Century of Revolution (London, 1961); idem, Reformation to Industrial Revolution (London, 1967); idem, Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution (Oxford, 1965); idem, “A Bourgeois Revolution?” Building upon Hill are: B. Manning, The English People and the English Revolution (London, 1976); K. Wrightson, English Society (News Brunswick, N.J., 1982); W. Hunt, The Puritan Momentt (Cambridge, Mass., 1983). 2 Hill, Antichrist in Seventeenth-Century England, p. 154.

141

142 An English Millenarian Legacy

of Bacon and Hobbes it can easily be seen as anachronistic, a mediaeval relic.3 Again Tai Liu concurred, In spite of their common hope to build Zion on the English Soil, the Puritan divines differed greatly in their designs of the Zion they wished to establish. In the midst of their quarrels, the vision of the Kingdom of Christ, which at times appeared to be at hand, receded and vanished from Puritan England.4 Unanimously these early studies, especially y those published in the 1970s, agreed with this assessment: with the restoration of the monarchy and the dissipation of the revolution, apocalyptic speculation vanished after 1660.5 As stated earlier, in the 1980s this historiographical tradition was challenged by a host of revisionist studies that no longer endorsed a Marxist reading of the English Civil Wars. The origin and nature of the Civil Wars was rigorously re-examined resulting in more detailed studies of the political, religious and social climate that produced the dramatic events of the 1630s and 40s. While the older thesis was completely reassessed, its accompanying apocalyptic conclusions were not. More recent studies of early modern English apocalyptic thought still maintain the same neat historical narrative that associated millenarianism with revolution, and consequently the demise of millenarianism with the return to more temperate times – specifically with the restoration of the monarchy. Crawford Gribben estimates that “as the puritan movement was drawn inexorably towards the eighteenth century, its millenarian interests slipped, in popular estimation, from threat to entertainment.”6 Gribben assumes that millenarianism was no longer taken seriously as a topic of inquiry and study in the late seventeenth h century. Perpetuating the same assumption, 3

Capp, The Fifth Monarchy Men, p. 15. Liu, Discord in Zion, p. XIV. 5 Richard Popkin summarizes the previous historiography well: “For those who work on the rich outburst of millenarian theories in England in the seventeenth century, it is often claimed that belief in these views ended with the death of Cromwell and the Restoration of Charles II. Before then, we are told, people believed that their world stood close to the end of time and hence took various worldly events, natural disasters, and prophecies as signs of what was coming.” Popkin, “Foreward”, in James E. Force, William Whiston: Honest Newtonian (Cambridge, 1985), p. xi. Also see C. Hill, The World Turned Upside Down, p. 96; P. Christianson, Reformers and Babylon, p. 245; Lamont, Godly Rule, p. 15; Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition, p. 254. Toon is a little more f the restoration. He writes, “Yet cautious, but still agrees with a decline of apocalyptic interest after it must not be supposed that the eventual restoration of the monarchy in 1660 and the Great Ejection of 1662 caused the total abandonment of the hope of the millennium or latter-day glory. Rather these events helped to push eschatological speculation into the background and cause the majority of Nonconformists to be more concerned with the question of comprehension within the National Church or liberty outside it,” Toon (ed.), Puritans, The Millennium and the Future of Israel, p. 128. 6 Gribben, The Puritan Millennium, p. 198. 4

An English Millenarian Legacy 143 Andrew Cunningham and Ole Peter Grell compare continental apocalyptic interest with England concluding that “[o]nly in England were the apocalyptic and millenarian expectations given an extra lease of life through the confrontation between ‘Arminians’ and Puritans in the 1630s, the Civil Wars and Interregnum.”7 Of course after the Interregnum the “lease” on such expectation expired too: “[i]f the age of confessionalism came to an end around the middle of the seventeenth century, so too did most of the social, political and material crisis of the age which had underpinned the apocalyptic vision.”8 In the minds of both older and more recent scholars, apocalypticism was essentially a manifestation of crisis. In chapter 3 the relation between Joseph Mede and radicalism was examined, demonstrating that millenarianism did not necessitate extreme political or social activism.9 On those same revisionist lines, an examination of millenarianism in late seventeenth-century England will reveal a vibrant and rigorous interest in apocalyptic thought that survived the tumultuous events of the 1640s and continued on into the eighteenth century. Contrary to what most previous research has suggested, apocalyptic thought in England was not inextricably linked with revolution and it did not recede after 1660. In his study of Restoration apocalypticism, Warren Johnston demonstrates this same point: [a]pocalyptic convictions were not merely a mid-century language of revolt, nor simply a remnant of radicalism; instead, they were also used in the later seventeenth century by Anglican and royalist authors to champion the Restoration settlement.10 Johnston studies include careful research in both published and unpublished Anglican sources including the writings of: Gryffith Williams, bishop of Ossory in Ireland, Gilbert Burnet, chaplain to Charles II, and of course Henry More.11 Apocalyptic interest did not vanish during the Restoration, instead it continued to flourish, particularly in light of suspicions of a papist plot to assassinate Charles II and replace him with his Catholic brother, James.12 Johnston adds that moderate nonconformists, including Quakers, Baptists and Presbyterians, were likewise invested in apocalyptic thought. However these nonconformists did not use apocalyptic ideas to justify radical actions. Nonconformists “did confront and disobey civil and ecclesiastical governments, [but] their opposition was distinguished by an advocacy of non-violent defiance as the proper response of the 7

Cunningham and Grell, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, p. 11. Ibid. 11. 9 See chapter 3. 10 Warren Johnston, “The Anglican Apocalypse in Restoration England”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 55, No. 3 (July 2004), p. 469. Also see W. Johnston, Apocalypticism in Restoration England d (Cambridge University, Ph.D. Dissertation, 2000). 11 Johnston, “The Anglican Apocalypse”, pp. 467-501. 12 Ibid. 487-490. 8


godly,” writes Johnston.13 This attitude is well illustrated in the millenarian legacy of Joseph Mede.14 His millenarianism was seen as the standard method of interpretation and continued to inform aand stimulate the imagination of English apocalypticists in the late-seventeenth aand early-eighteenth centuries. By tracing the legacy of Joseph Mede, a more accurate account of seventeenth-century apocalyptic thought will emerge with a revised history of English millenarianism. Subsequently, this will contribute to the recent overall revisions of early modern English history. It is important not to deny that some radical groups in the 1640s and 50s did adopt a millenarian rhetoric in support of their political and social actions; and many of these sects claimed Mede’s millenarianism as justification for their apocalyptic fantasies.15 After all Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptica was translated into the vernacular and published in 1643 at the expressed request of Parliament.16 This was no coincidence. As discussed before, the millenarianism a attributed to Mede was used as apocalyptic propaganda against Charles I and his “crypto-papist” ecclesiastical establishment. However these radical millenarians were not authentic disciples of Mede. Their actions revealed an agenda that was not consistent with Mede’s intentions. Mede never used his millenarian a conclusions to advance a violent political program; as a faithful member of the Church of England, he would never have approved of the puritans in the 1630s.17 Apocalyptic interest, for Mede, was a scholarly pursuit of biblical truth and knowledge.18 Subsequently the legacy of English millenarianism, which was initiated by Mede and progressed into the lateseventeenth century, must be located in a different non-activist arena of discourse. Mede’s legacy is found in an academic/ecclesiastical community eager to understand its own place in the divine drama of history, yet recognizing that this history would not be accomplished through some belligerent agenda. The focus of Mede’s legacy in this chapter will be upon individuals faithful to Mede’s millenarian method and his emphasis upon the peaceful academic study of the Bible. It is no coincidence that these heirs of Mede shared his conformity to the Church of England and his affinity for the quiet halls of academy where rigorous scholarship could be pursued in relative peace.

8.ii EARLY CHALLENGES TO MILLENARIANISM Although millenarian doctrines increased in popularity during the seventeenth century, these doctrines did not go unchallenged. In fact many points of 13

Warren Johnston, “The Patience of Saints, the Apocalypse, and Moderate Nonconformity in Restoration England”, Canadian Journal of History 38:3 (December 1, 2003), pp. 506. 14 Johnston, “The Anglican Apocalypse”, pp. 476-478. 15 Wilson, Pulpit in Parliament, p. 199-223; Capp, “The political dimension of apocalyptic thought”, pp. 93-124. 16 Translated by Richard More in 1643. 17 See chapter 3. 18 See chapter 6.

An English Millenarian Legacy 145 interpretation were vigorously y debated from the outset of the publication of Mede’s own millenarian writings. With the continual propagation of millenarianism into the eighteenth century, the need to challenge the millenarian position continued as well. Those who defended millenarianism relied heavily on the central teachings of their Cambridge patriarch, while freely modifying some of his interpretations which were thought to be less consistent. The continual interest in the debate is one demonstration of the sustained existence off millenarianism in the late seventeenth century. One of the earliest English challenges to Mede came from the London schoolmaster, Thomas Hayne.19 From June to October of 1629 Hayne exchanged four letters with Mede strenuously questioning his apocalyptic conclusions. Later in 1645 Hayne published a more extensive critique of Mede along with other early seventeenth-century millenarians.20 Hayne objected to two points of interpretation: first, Mede’s understanding of the Fourthh Kingdom in Daniel’s visions, and second the synchronism of Daniel’s visions with the Apocalypse, which Mede saw as an important piece for his millenarian foundation. In Daniel’s vision, four successive kingdoms are portrayed in the image of the statue (Daniel 2) and the four beasts (Daniel 7). Mede argued that both visions shared the same referent and represented four successive empires beginning in Daniel’s time and continuing into Mede’s era. For Mede, the intent of the entire prophecy was to “point out the time of the Kingdom of Christ, which no other Kingdom should succeed or destroy.”21 Christ’s Kingdom would be preceded by “namely, the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman [kingdoms].”22 The image of the Roman fourth Beast in Daniel 7 would be fulfilled both by the pagan Roman Empire and the ecclesiastical Roman Empire – represented by the little horn (Daniel 7:8).23 Mede identified a transition around the beginning of the fifth century when pagan Rome ended and the ecclesiastical Rome began. Speaking about the final emperors, These are the Kings, by displanting or (as the Vulgar hath) by humbling of whom the Pope got [sic] elbow-room by degrees and advanced himself to 19

Biographical details on Thomas Hayne are from “Hayne, Thomas”, DNB, vol. IX, pp. 299-300. Thomas Hayne, Christs Kingdome on Earth, Opened according to the Scriptures. Here in is examined What Mr. Th. Brightman, Dr. J. Alstede, d and Mr. J. Mede, Mr. H. Archer, The Glympse of Sions Glory, and such as concurre in opinion with them…(London, 1645). Also see Gribben, The Puritan Millennium, pp. 53-54. 21 Mede wrote, “The FOUR KINGDOMS in Daniel are twice revealed: First, to Nebuchadnezzar, in a glorious Image of Four sundry r Mettals; secondly, to Daniel himself, in a Vision of Four diverse Beasts arising out of the Sea. The intent of both is by that succession of Kingdoms to point out the time of the Kingdom of Christ, which no other Kingdom should succeed or destroy.” Mede, “The Purport of the Four Kingdoms in DANIEL: or The A.B.C. of Prophecy” included in a letter to Thomas Hayne dated 22 July 1629, in Mede, Works, p. 743. 22 Ibid. 744. 23 “Regnum Romanum est Regnum Quartum r Danielis”, Ibid. 711-716. 20


the height of Temporal Majesty and absolute Greatness, which made him so terrible in the World.24 The transition was clearly detected when former emperors ostensibly assumed the office of bishop: Yea it is to be observed, that two of them, Avitus (the very next) and Glycerius, being deposed from the Empire, were made Bishops…as signs perhaps that the Emperor of Rome henceforth should be a Bishop, and a Bishop the Emperor.25 With this interpretation Mede revealed his adamant support for the Protestant identification of the papacy as an Antichristian entity, because during the final period of the fourth kingdom, a fifth kingdom (represented by the stone in Daniel 2) would appear and ultimately destroy the fourth kingdom. This fifth kingdom will be the kingdom of Christ represented by the stone which will be set up during the fourth kingdom, and later as the mountain which will be established at the destruction of the fourth kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar’s Image points out Two States of the Kingdom of Christ…The First may be called, for distinction-sake, Regnum Lapidis, the Kingdom Of the Stone; which is the State of Christ’s Kingdom which hitherto hath been: The other, Regnum Montis, the Kingdom of the Mountain (that is, of the Stone Grown into a Mountain, &c.) which is the State of his Kingdom hereafter shall be.26 Thus Christ’s kingdom would be realized in two phases, one beginning at his first advent and the other at his second.27 Likewise the vision of Daniel’s fourth Beast was synchronized with the vision of the Beasts in Apocalypse 13.28 Even though the images are slightly different, Mede insisted that they are “one and the same Beast.”29 The relation between Daniel’s visions and the visions of the Apocalypse was an essential component for grounding Mede’s millenarianism in other biblical books outside of the Apocalypse. 24

Ibid. 662. Ibid. 662. Additionally Mede interpreted the horn as signifying the “changing of Times and Laws” and pointed out to Hayne that “whether the Pope (if, I say, he is that Horn) took not upon him a power of changing such Times as these, I shall not need to tell you.” Letter to Thomas Hayne dated 17 June 1629. Ibid. 737. 26 Ibid. 743. 27 See chapter 6. 28 More accurately Daniel’s image of the beast was divided into two beasts in Apocalypse 13, one representing the secular Beast, the other the ecclesiastical beast. The second beast was properly matched with the little horn from Daniel’s beast. Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 60. 29 Mede, Works, p. 737. 25

An English Millenarian Legacy 147 In his comments in the Clavis on the Beast of the thirteenth chapter, Mede constantly cited Daniel 7.30 Specifically Mede considered that in these visions both Beasts were involved in the same wicked activity – speaking blasphemy against God. There was given to him [the beast], saith he, a mouth speaking great things; those words (a mouth speaking great things) are out of Daniel; but here those great words are expounded by blasphemies: by which name, as by and by shall be said, Idol worship is signified, a matter indeed of the highest contumely against God.31 Subsequently the papacy represented the fulfilment of these prophecies, since many of the practices of the Roman Catholic Church were regarded as blasphemous.32 Now the duration of the reign of the Beast was given in Apocalypse 13 as forty-two months (13:5) or 1260 days. Taking each prophetical day for a year, that equals 1260 years.33 Mede understood this as the same period with the vision of the woman remaining in the wilderness (12:6), the outer courts trodden under foot by the Gentiles (11:2), and the prophesying of the two witnesses (11:3), along with the little horn of the fourth Beast in Daniel 7 which was said to reign for “a time, times and a half time.”34 As was observed before, Mede dated the beginning of this period from rising of the first popes and the initial corruption of the church by the instigation of the cult of saints in the fifth century. But as touching the events of the prophesie; concerning the wonders, it is t which hath raigned in the kingdome notorious, that that universall Idolatry of the Beast for about 1200 yeers, as well that first begotten consisting in the worship of Saints departed, Reliques and Angels, as the worshipping of 30

Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 49ff. Ibid. 56. 32 Mede cites the mass and the cult of saints as examples of the beast’s blasphemy: “This tabernacle I say the Beast blasphemeth, whiles he beleeveth the body of Christ is daily made of bread by the transubstantiating Priest, and therefore adoreth the Bread instead of Christ the tabernacle of God; yea he taketh it for a sacrifice propitiatory for the living and the dead, as it were crucifying Christ afresh. Also he blasphemeth the heavenly inhabitants, that is, the Angels and Saints of heaven, whiles he calleth the Devils and Idols which hee worshippeth by their names, what a reproach is this against the blessed spirits? Yea, and a contumely also against Christ their Lord? In derogation of whose prerogative and glory, they are set up, even against their wils as mediators and intercessours with God, patrones and protectors off mortall men after the custome of the heathen.” Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 59. 33 “That those of Months and Days are to be expounded not Literally, but Prophetically.” Mede, Works, p. 587. Also in “Five Reasons clearly demonstrating That the Antichristian Apostatical times are more than Three single years and an half.” Ibid. 598-599. 34 “The first Synchronisme”, Ibid. Part I, 2. Additionally, “the same Times with S. John’s Apocalyptical Times of the renewed Beast’s blasphemous reign, and profanation of the Temple and City of God forty two months, or 1260 days.” Ibid. 744. 31


Images in the next place, and in conclusion that last blasphemy of the breaden God, at first was commended to poore Christians, afterwards they were perswaded to it and confirmed in it by an abundant company of wonders…All which the two horned Beast or the Pope of Rome with his guard of false prophets, is said to have done[.]35 As a result of the papacy’s blasphemy aand wickedness, Mede regarded the past history of the church as an era of great apostasy. This was the vilest period because Satan had infected the church from within her ranks. Where other interpreters placed the blessed millennium, Mede relegated that time to the most debased period of history. Consequently the millennium was not in the past but expected sometime in the future. In his letters, and later in publication, a Thomas Hayne rejected Mede’s conclusion regarding Daniel’s visions and their relation to the Apocalypse. Hayne’s objection was the first challenge to Mede’s millenarianism, and would be followed by others arguing in similar fashion for the rest of the century. At the outset Hayne attempted to divorce any prophetic relation between the Book of Daniel and the Apocalypse. He denied that the fourth kingdom in Daniel was the Roman Empire, arguing that the persecution of Christians at the hands of the Romans was only revealed to John in the Apocalypse. “Daniel shews not the Roman Monarchie’s persecution of the Church, and the Fall of the same Monarchy,” posited Hayne. The reason for this was that The Roman persecution of the Saints aand their Fall are revealed in the little Book, Apoc. 5. & c. by opening seven seals and blowing seven Trumpets, all concerning seven-headed Rome: and none was able to open the Seals of this Book till Christ opened them to John. Ergo the Romans persecution and Fall were revealed to none till Christ revealed them to John.36 Hence, “Daniel revealed them not.”37 By rejecting the identification of the fourth kingdom with the Roman Empire, Hayne attempted to show the dissolution of all four kingdoms before the arrival of the fifth (Christ’s kingdom portrayed by the stone and mountain in Daniel 2). The fourth kingdom, unlike the Roman Empire, would not co-exist with Christ’s Kingdom, but instead be destroyed prior to its appearance. Instead of the Roman Empire, as represented by the fourth Beast, Hayne offered a different interpretation. “That the Kings of Syria and Egypt are the fourth Kingdome in Daniel, is averred and sufficiently proved by these learned, skilfull [sic], and most diligent searchers into the sacred Text: Namely, Fr. Junius, Im. Tremelius, H. Broughton,…”38 Thus according to Hayne, Mede’s 35

Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 70. Thomas Hayne’s first letter to Mede dated 5 June 1629. Mede, Works, p. 735. 37 Ibid. 735. 38 Hayne, Christs Kingdome on Earth, p. 5. 36

An English Millenarian Legacy 149 second phase of the fifth kingdom (represented by the mountain) did not await the final destruction of the fourth kingdom, since the downfall of the fourth kingdom was already completed. Why did Hayne insist on this interpretation? Hayne was intent on undermining Mede’s anticipation of a future millennial kingdom by locating the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecies in Christ’s first coming. The end of the fourth kingdom would be completed before Christ’s first advent and not his second, which Mede argued would be followed by the millennial kingdom.39 The kingdom of Christ was not a future event for Hayne, but a past event, inaugurated by Christ’s incarnation. Indeed if the arrival of the fifth kingdom was contingent upon the destruction of the fourth kingdom, then by identifying Syria and Egypt as the fourth kingdom and not the a or ecclesiastical form) Hayne located present Roman Empire (in either the secular the fifth kingdom firmly in the past and not the future. Significantly Hayne placed the beginning of the millennium of Apocalypse 20 in the first century with Christ’s first advent, the ministry of the Apostles, and the destruction of Jerusalem. Likewise the binding of Satan was also a past event. But the famous Kingdome of Christ and Christians began moe years then one thousand five hundred agon…Therefore f the notable binding of Satan began one thousand five hundred years agon, and therefore is past long before our time.40 For Hayne, the visions of the four kingdoms in Daniel lent no support for any millenarian speculations. If Hayne dismissed Mede’s interpretation of the fourth Beast as the Roman Empire, how did he interpret the vision of Apocalypse 13? Obviously, for Hayne, these Beasts did not represent the same kingdoms. He argued that the discrepancies between the two Beasts proved that the Beast of Apocalypse 13 was not the same as in Daniel. The Beast of Apocalypse 13 is described as having certain features of a leopard, bear and lion (13:2), these are the same animals used to describe the first three kingdoms of Daniel’s vision. Hence this Beast cannot be identified with the fourth Beast alone. If the Roman Empire, Apoc. 13, be resembled by a Beast which is composed of all Daniel’s four Beasts, Dan. 7. Or the chief parts of the four Beasts, then it is but sufficiently expressed by them all.41

39

Hayne went so far as to argue that the coming off the Son of Man in the clouds in Daniel referred exclusively to Christ’s first coming. “Coming in n the Clouds, Dan.7. is not the last Judgment at Doomsday but Christ’s coming to take the Kingdom which he preached to be at hand, of all power being given to him.” Mede, Works, pp. 740, 752. 40 Hayne, Christs Kingdome on Earth, p. 72. 41 Thomas Hayne’s first letter to Mede dated 5 June 1629. Mede, Works, p. 735.


Additionally, The Fourth Beast, Dan. 7. and the first Beast, Revel. 13. are not one and the same: They differ much in shape of body, and in their acts, and in their falls and plagues. Besides, that in the Apocal. Is made as it were of all the four in Daniel, and is so described as if it came in stead, and was comparable to them all; as indeed it was.42 While the fourth Beast in Daniel’s vision was not the Roman Empire, the Beast of Apocalypse 13 was. Hayne maintained thatt the apocalyptical Beast was persecuting the saints, however this was not part of the activity of Satan prior to his binding during the millennium, but instead represented the satanic activity after the millennium, where Satan was released to “deceive the nations … Gog and Magog – to gather them for battle” (20:7-8).43 With this interpretation Hayne maintained the anti-Christian nature of the papacy, while avoiding the fatal “errors” of millenarians like Mede. Thus the Pope became Abaddon, and Apollyon, the son of perdition, the son of the great father of perdition (cald usually in the Revelation the Dragon, the Serpent, the devill and Satan)…So that many of the best writers judge the Pope not unworthy of these unglorious titles.44 All that awaited fulfilment in Hayne’s interpretation of the apocalyptic drama was the return of Christ to throw the Devil, the beast and the false prophet into the eternal lake of fire (20:10). In the end neither Mede nor Hayne surrendered any exegetical ground. Hayne regarded Mede as his “worthy and learned friend, but not to bee [sic] preferred before truth.”45 Mede concluded, “It is sufficient therefore for a man to propound his Opinion with the strongest evidence and arguments he can, and so leave it. Truth will be justified of her children.” 46 Mede was unaware that these words and the substance of his exchange with Hayne foreshadowed the continual debates between Mede’s “children” and the detractors of millenarianism through to the next century.

8.iii CHALLENGES FROM HUGO GROTIUS, HENRY HAMMOND AND RICHARD BAXTER The debate between Mede and Thomas Hayne illustrates an important division that emerged within the English apocalyptic tradition. The sixteenth century marked the 42

Thomas Hayne’s second letter to Mede, undated. Ibid. 741. Hayne, Christs Kingdome on Earth, p. 78. 44 Ibid. 79. 45 Ibid. “To the Christian Reader”, i. 46 Mede’s third letter to Thomas Hayne dated 13 October 1629. Mede, Works, p. 749. 43

An English Millenarian Legacy 151 increase of the historical-prophetic exegetical method, while the seventeenth century witnessed the dominance of this hermeneutic. Yet within this historicist tradition in England, two competing interpretations arose. The followers of Mede continued to endorse his millenarianism, while others like Thomas Hayne argued for a preterist reading. The differences between these two historicist options were debated vociferously in England well into the eighteenth century. Consequently millenarianism was not the only logical conclusion for a historicist methodology. As a result English millenarians who followed Mede needed to answer the claims of preterists like Thomas Hayne, and other more notable advocates. The New England pastor, Increase Mather, expressed his opinion of the Dutch scholar Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and his most ardent English supporter Henry Hammond (1605-1660) in one of his dissertations: As for Grotius, I look on my self as concerned to warn young Scholars to beware of him, lest they suck down Poison when they think they have found Honey. He has (as Dr. Owen in his Answer to Biddle has made to appear) by perverse Expositions and Interpretations in his Annotations on the Bible, corrupted many Texts of Scripture…[and] That Dr. Hammond has borrowed most of his Notions from Grotius (especially his Apocalyptical ones) whoever compares them will quickly discern.47 All millenarians in the same strand as Mede shared Mather’s scathing sentiments, because Grotius, Hammond and later the puritan pastor Richard Baxter (1615-1691) provided the strongest and most sustained opposition against a millenarian eschatology. Katherine Firth describes their interpretation as a “New Way,” which solicited repeated responses from those who continued to follow Mede.48 In many ways Grotius, Hammond and Baxter argued along the same lines as Thomas Hayne; yet the three scholar’s final apocalyptic conclusions advanced considerably beyond those of Hayne. Most shocking and revolting to nearly all seventeenth-century Protestants was Grotius’ denial in 1640 that the papacy was the Antichrist.49 As Hotson indicates, “[h]istoriographically, theologically, polemically, and psychologically, the identification of the papacy as the Antichrist played a role in sixteenth and early seventeenth-century Protestantism which must not be underestimated.”50 This 47

Increase Mather, A Dissertation Concerning the Future Conversion of the Jewish Nation. Answering the Objections of the Reverend and Learned Mr. Baxter, a Dr. Lightfoot, and others. With an Enquiry into the first Resurrection. (London, 1709), p. 8. 48 Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition, p. 246. 49 Grotius’ first denied the identification of the papacy with Antichrist in his Commentario ad loca quaedam N. Testamenti de Antichristo, published anonymously in Amsterdam in 1640. Also see, Johannes van den Berg, “Grotius’ views on Antichrist and Apocalyptic Thought in England”, in Henk J. M. Nellen and Edwin Rabbie (eds.), Hugo Grotius Theologian: Essays in Honour of G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden, 1994), pp. 169-183. 50 Antognazza and Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, p. 131.


Protestant interpretation justified their separation from Rome, explained the corruption within the Catholic Church, aand instilled hope in their future vindication when at the end of history God would decisively crush Satan and the Antichrist.51 Hayne denied that the fourth Beast in Daniel was the Roman Empire, and by deduction the papacy as the little horn, Grotius stripped the Beasts in Apocalypse 13 of any papal identification as well. Instead d he claimed that the first Beast was properly identified as the emperor Domitian a and the second Beast who “doeth great wonders” was Pythagorean magic practiced by individuals like Apollonius of Tyana.52 Grotius’ preteristic interpretations led to an extremely radical (particularly for the sixteenth and seventeenth century) reading of the Apocalypse. No longer was the Apocalypse a book describing the present n or the future, but instead it was primarily explicating the past. Henry Hammond’s comments on the Apocalypse displayed an undeniable debt to Grotius. Hammond’s apocalyptic thoughts were included in his paraphrase and annotations on the New Testament first published in 1653.53 David Brady notes, “His approach, although novel in England, a had been pioneered earlier on the Continent and Hammond acknowledged his indebtedness in this matter to Hugo Grotius.”54 Like Grotius, Hammond rejected the Protestant consensus that the papacy was the Antichrist. He agreed that Apocalypse 13 was fulfilled in the Roman Empire during the first three centuries. Commenting on chapter 13: And here the first thing I saw was the beast, representing the heathen worship as it stood at Rome, rising out of the sea, as that is all one with the abyss or deep, that is, introduced among them by Satan,…and thriving and prospering by the strength and power of the Roman emperors; that heathen worship represented by this first beast, and the Roman empire by the seven heads, either as seven emperors …or else as referring to the seven hills of Rome, the seat of this idol-worship,…and the ten horns, ten kings, noting those that complied with Rome in this deifying of the emperors.55

51

The best studies on the Antichrist in Protestant thought include: Hill, Antichrist in SeventeenthCentury England; Peter Lake, “The Significance of the Elizabethan Identification of the Pope as Antichrist”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 31, no. 2 (April, 1980), pp. 161-178; Scribner, For the Sake of the Simple Folk; Brady, The Contribution of British Writers; Lake, “William Bradshaw, Antichrist and the Community of the Godly”, pp. 571-589; Hillerbrand, “The Antichrist in the Early German Reformation”, pp. 3-18; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, especially pp. 93127. 52 Grotius, Commentario, as reprinted in his Annotationes in libros Evangelicorum, I (Amsterdam, 1641), pp. 1052-1053. Also see Antognazza and Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, p. 135. 53 Henry Hammond, A Paraphrase and Annotations Upon all the Books of the New Testament, briefly explaining all the difficult passages thereoff (London, 1653). Hammond’s Paraphrase was republished numerous times, well into the nineteenth century. 54 Brady, The Contribution of British Writers, p. 158. 55 Henry Hammond, A Paraphrase and Annotations Upon all the Books of the New Testament, briefly explaining all the difficult passages thereoff , vol. II (Oxford, 1845), p. 509.

An English Millenarian Legacy 153 Additionally the second beast also represented an aspect of heathen worship, while Babylon in Apocalypse 17 only referred to the Roman Empire.56 Unlike Mede, Hammond saw no fulfilment of this vision in the papacy or the Roman Catholic Church. In Hayne’s interpretation only Daniel’s visions were placed in the past, Grotius and Hammond extended this same interpretation n to the first nineteen chapters of the Apocalypse, claiming that these visions represented events that were all completed by the time of Constantine.57 The obvious perception amongst seventeenth-century Protestants was that Grotius and Hammond’s interpretation of the apocalyptic Beast surrendered a major point of argument in the ongoing Protestant/Roman Catholic polemic. Protestants, like Drue Cressener, suspected that Roman Catholics believed, “Grotius was Divinely Inspired, and that Mr. Baxter is the Greatest Man in England among the Protestants for seconding him.”58 Unquestionably Baxter was not a crypto-papist, yet he did admire many of Grotius’ writings. Baxter confessed, “I must in Gratitude Profess that I have learnt more from Grotius then from almost any Writer…that ever I read.”59 Baxter first published his apocalyptic thoughts in 1684, in his A Paraphrase of the New Testament. He continued his studies on the Apocalypse in an unpublished manuscript in 1686, and later in a series of exchanges with Thomas Beverley in 1691.60 Although much more cautious than Grotius or Hammond, Baxter also questioned the Protestant identification of the papacy as Antichrist.61 As early as 1659 Baxter wrote, But I must profess here to the Reader, that though my modesty and consciousness of my weakness, hath made me so suspicious, lest I understand not the Apocalips, as to suspend my judgment, whether the Pope be the Antichrist, the Beast etc., yet the reading of their serious immodest arguings, to prove the Pope to be the Vice-Christ on Earth, doth exceedingly more increase my suspicion that he is The Antichrist.62

56

Ibid. 513, 524. Antognazza and Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, p. 142. 58 Drue Cressener, A Demonstration of the First Principles of the Protestant Application of the Apocalypse (London, 1690), p. xxiv. 59 N. H. Keeble and Geoffrey F. Nuttall, The Calendar of the Correspondence of Richard Baxter, vol. I (Oxford, 1991), no. 235 n. 1. 60 Baxter’s manuscripts are found in the Baxter Treatises in Dr. William’s Library, London. His two responses to Beverley are: The Glorious Kingdom of Christ…Answering Mr. Tho. Beverley, who imposed this Task, by his oft and earnest Challenges of all the Doctors and Pastors, and his Censure of Dissenters as Semi-Sadduces of the Apostasie, in his Twelve Principles and Catechisms, & c. (London, 1691); A Reply to Mr. Tho. Beverley’s Answer to my Reasons Against his Doctrine of the Thousand Years, Middle Kingdom, and of the Conversion of the Jews. (London, 1691). 61 William Lamont, Richard Baxter and the Millennium (London, 1979), pp. 30ff. 62 Richard Baxter, A Key for Catholicks (London, 1659), p. 301. 57


He believed that it was “far more dreadful to the Pope…to be plainly condemned by the known Laws of Christ…than to be under the Dread of a dark and controverted Prophecie.”63 Likewise Baxter was not convinced that the practices of the Roman Catholic Church should be equated with idolatry. Again this was Mede central argument for introducing the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church as evidence of the last great apostasy prophesied in I Timothy 4:1. Baxter was not persuaded. The Roman Catholic practice of the veneration of saints was not an undeniable mark of the Beast, but simply another grievous sin with no particular apocalyptic significance.64 According to Baxter, the Apocalypse primarily detailed the struggle between the Church and Roman paganism, not ecclesiastical Rome symbolized by the horned Beast.65 In one of his replies to Beverley, Baxter challenged his assumption, I am past doubt that Pagan Rome was Babylon mentioned in Rev. But whether Papal Rome be another Babylon, I leave to enquiry: But if all your cause lie on that one Text, I think it hath no good foundation.66 Nevertheless Baxter maintained that he could affirm a staunch anti-Catholic Protestantism without the need to invoke fanciful apocalyptic speculations.67 Still it was necessary for Grotius, Hammond and Baxter to account for the location of the millennium of chapter 20. Grotius concluded that Constantine brought a period of great peace and tranquility to the church since he put an end to Roman persecution.68 As was demonstrated in his interpretation of the Beast, the period before Constantine was marked by extreme suffering for the church at the hands of pagan Rome. The reign of Constantine brought the fall of Babylon (Apocalypse 17) or pagan Roman, and inaugurated the millennium. By marking the beginning of the millennium with Constantine, a Grotius aligned himself with 63

Baxter, Baxter Treatises, f. Q. 2v.; van den Berg, “Grotius’ views on Antichrist…”, p. 181. Baxter gives a comparative illustration, “I have oft had such indiscreet affectionate hearers, that have crept behind me with great desire but to touch my Cloake: If some such weake person should get a bone, or a picture, of Mr. Cartwright, Hildersham, Dod, Bolton, Preston, Jewell, Grindall, etc. and should overvalue them are few religious people would call this Antichristianity and equall it with the worship of Devills and Pagan Idols.” Baxter Treatises, ii, f.116v. 65 Brady, The Contribution of British Writers, p. 162. 66 Baxter, A Reply to Mr. Tho. Beverley’s Answer…, p. 12. 67 “When some do, before they see my Book, accuse me loudly, as if I pleaded that the Pope is not Antichrist, and that unseasonably. Let them know, that as I say nothing but what I summarily said of that point in all my Books against Popery these Seven and Twenty years: so that it is a Question I little meddle with, having greater Arguments and surer against Popery: My ignorance of most of the n of 12 November 1684 appended Revelations, I profess, and long have done.” Baxter “Advertisement” to his Paraphrase on the New Testament. 68 “Aliud est visum significans tranquillitatem quae Ecclesiis per Constantinum erat primum data, aucta per succesores, fore quidem longam, non tamen usque ad Mundi interitum.” Grotius, “Annotationes in Apocalypsin”, in Annotationes in Novum Testamentum, vol. 3 (Paris, 1650), p. 264. 64

An English Millenarian Legacy 155 previous commentators from the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.69 For Grotius, the millennium began in 311 A.D. and continued for one thousand years after which Satan was released in the form of the Ottoman Empire and the threat of anti-Christian Islamic religion.70 Again Hammond followed the example set by his Dutch apocalyptic mentor. He also began the millennium with Constantine n in his interpretation of the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse. And he apprehended the devil…and a bound him for a space of a thousand years, noting the tranquility and freedom from persecution that should be allowed the church of Christ from the time of Constantine’s coming to the empire.71 Moreover the first resurrection (20:4-6) was not a literal resurrection, but a description of “Christians living in tranquility a and peace during the millennium or Christian state of peace under Constantine.”72 Finally, Hammond consistently followed Grotius in identifying Satan’s release at the end of the millennium as, “the rise of the Mahomedan religion.”73 Grotius and Hammond both believed they were living in the period after the millennium, during the release of Satan, and awaiting the final apocalyptic resolution in the return n of Christ to bring the final judgment. Richard Baxter plainly articulated his view of the millennium of Apocalypse 20 in his exchanges with Thomas Beverley. Like Grotius and Hammond, Baxter regarded the conversion of Constantine as a significant event in marking the beginning of the millennium. O how great a change was it for poor Christians throughout all the Empire, to be brought from Scorn and Torments, and the Martydom of many Thousands, after 294 years Captivity, to be suddenly made Freeman to celebrate Christs Worship in the mostt Solemn Assemblies, and to [be] made Lords of their Persecuting, Captivating, Idolatrous Enemies, lately so great that no Nations could stand before them.74 By coordinating the fifth millennial monarchy of Christ with the reign of Constantine, Baxter – like Grotius and Hammond – considered that the end of the millennium with the release of Satan would initiated the sixth monarchy; and “the 69

See Hotson, “Historiographical Origins”, pp. 159-181. “Constantini Edictum pro Christianismi libertate datum fuit circa annum Christ CCCXI. Mille post annis ort est domus Ottomannica, quae non in Persidem aut oras Romani Imperii, sed in partes eius intimas atque potissimas, In Asiam Graeciamque inuexit Mahumetis religionem, Satanae repertum.” Grotius, “Annotationes in Apocalypsin”, p. 267. 71 Hammond, Paraphrase, p. 534. 72 Ibid. 535. 73 Ibid. 535. 74 Baxter, The Glorious Kingdom of Christ, p. 6. 70


Turks are the Sixth Monarchy, the renewed Reign of the captivated Dragon, let loosed after a Thousand years.”75 Baxter located the millennium of Apocalypse 20 in the past history of the church, negating Beverley’s millenarian interpretation. The a position elicited a response from utter shock of Grotius, Hammond and Baxter’s apocalyptic commentators, millenarian and non-millenarian, that continued into the next century. Their conclusions were not only offensive to millenarians, but also the entire apocalyptic tradition that began with h Martin Luther’s first identification of the Antichrist. By denying that the pope was the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning the Antichrist, the preterists were challenging a fundamental tenet of Protestant eschatology. With that said, it was the millenarians who responded in force. Because of their shared historicist methodology, with its obvious implications regarding the placement of the millennium, nearly every major millenarian commentator felt an obligation to refute – in n some form or another – the conclusions of Grotius, Hammond and/or Baxter, along with others that shared the same position.

8.iv HENRY MORE AND THE APOCALYPSE The first to respond and defend the millenarianism of Joseph Mede against the “New Way” proposed by Grotius, Hammond and Baxter, was Mede’s successor at Christ’s College, Henry More (1614-1687). More’s first exposure to millenarianism was undoubtedly from Mede himself. In 1631 More began his studies at Christ’s College, Cambridge.76 Upon Mede’s death in 1638, More replaced him as fellow and continued the legacy begun by his teacher in his own apocalyptic writings.77 More was unabashed in lavishing praise, as well as declaring his dependence on Mede.78 He did feel it was necessary to deviate from Mede on a few occasions in his interpretation, but against Grotius and his followers More defended the central millenarian method and doctrines first taught to him by his Cambridge

75

Ibid. 39. See chapter 4. 77 More’s apocalyptic writings include: An explanation of The grand mystery of Godliness (London, 1660); A Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity (Cambridge, 1664); An Exposition of the Seven Epistles to the Seven Churches (London, 1669); Visionum Apocalypticarum Ratio Synchronistica (London, 1674); Apocalypsis Apocalypseos; or the Revelation of St. John the Divine unveiled d (London, 1680); A plain and continued Exposition of the several Prophecies or Divine Visions of the Prophet Daniell (London, 1681); [Published under the pseudonym Philicrines Parrhesiastes], Some cursory reflexions impartially made upon Mr. Richard Baxter his way of 5 Paralipomena Prophetica (London, 1685). For Writing Notes on the Apocalypse (London, 1685); distinction between Mede and More’s millenarianism see, J. van den Berg, “Continuity within a changing context: Henry More’s millenarianism, seen against the background of the millenarian concepts of Joseph Mede”, in Brecht (ed.), Pietismus und Neuzeit, pp. 185-202, and Johnston, “The Anglican Apocalypse”, pp. 476-478, 483-487. 78 More, Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, p. 249. 76

An English Millenarian Legacy 157 predecessor.79 In nearly every one of his apocalyptic writings More expressed his grievances over Grotius’ interpretation. In 1680, twenty years after his first millenarian publication, More took note of his repeated repudiation of Grotius, And that there may be no distrust of the assuredness of our Interpretation by pretending that others have interpreted the Apocalypse another way, I shall give notice there by the bye, that I have with all care and diligence perused other Interpreters, and the very best of them, Grotius and Ribera…I have shewed how absured and impossible both Ribera’s and Grotius his Interpretation of those Chapters are. And in Grotius…who yet is now accounted the Chiefest Interpreter, aand most accommodate to baffle the true and genuine meaning of those Prophecies, I have noted near fourscore such flawes…80 Clearly More was well aware of Grotius and later Baxter’s opposition to millenarianism (More makes little mention of Hammond, apparently preferring to concentrate on the source – Grotius himself ); and armed with Mede’s initial interpretations, More attempted to refute their “New Way” of interpretation.81 More’s most comprehensive critique of Grotius was in his commentary on the prophecies of Daniel. He rejected Grotius’ interpretation that the fourth Beast with the ten horns was the kingdom of Lagidae and Seleucidae. Instead More confessed, “Amongst all the Interpreters there is onely y Mr. Mede that I have found to have a right sense of things in those parts of the vision.”82 More agreed with Mede’s interpretation that the fourth kingdom was indeed the Roman Empire. 79

More’s two most significant deviations from Mede were in regard to the synchronized chronological sequence of the visions of the trumpets m and vials and the duration in which the martyrs lay slain. First, Mede synchronized the pouring out of the first vials with the sixth trumpet, while More thought it was more accurate to place all the vials at the time of the seventh trumpet. Mede, The Key, Part I, p. 17; Part 2, pp. 112-121; More, Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, pp. 259, 276, 328; idem, Exposition of…the Prophet Daniel, pp. 268-283. Also see, van den Berg, “Continuity within a changing context…,” p. 191. Second, More identified the 3½ days that the witnesses lay slain (Rev. 11) with the 1260 days of their Prophesying, thus placing this event in the past. Mede on the other hand determined that the witnesses had yet to be slain. More, Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, p. 259; idem, Exposition of…the Prophet Daniel, p. 284ff; Mede, The Key, Part II, p. 13. Regardless of his modifications to Mede’s system, More still maintained an attitude of humility and deference to Mede. “Wherein I have deviated from the footsteps of others, amongst whom I account Mr. Joseph Mede absolutely the chief (and from whom I conceive no writer of that kind has deserved better of the Church of God)…it is not out of a desire of seeming to have found out something better than his, but I have dissented from him, but because I am driven there to by meer force of Reason.” More, Exposition of…the Prophet Daniel, p. 268. 80 More, “The Preface to the Reader”, Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, pp. xiv-xv. 81 More’s reluctance to criticize Hammond might also be attributed to Hammond’s position within the academic and ecclesiastical establishments of England. 82 More, Exposition of…the Prophet Daniel, p. xviii. Even earlier in 1660 More expressed his favor of Mede over Grotius, “I shall rather send him that doubts, to satisfie himself in the perusing of the learned writings of that incomparable Interpreter of Prophecies Mr. Joseph Mede: whose


That these ten horns belong to the Roman Empire, Grotius himself is fain to acknowledge in his Commentary on the Apocalypse though with might and main he endeavours to distort and obscure the sense of that Book to the utmost he can. But by virtue of the Apocalyptical Synchronisms, and the clear and undeniable sense of the Seventh Chapter of that Book, these ten kingdoms after the Empire became Christian, and was beginning to Pagano-Christianize and grow Idolatrous again.83 More uniquely argued that the ten toes of the statue (Daniel 2) and the ten horns of the fourth beast (Daniel 7) corresponded to the ten kingdoms of the Roman Empire.84 These ten kingdoms did not match any historical situation during the kingdom of the Lagidae and Seleucidae.85 Additionally More claimed that, according to Daniel 7:9,10, the fourth kingdom was to extend until the great Day of Judgment. He questioned how this kingdom could be identified as the Lagidae and Seleucidae since that kingdom ended two thousand years ago?86 Yet, this vision did not solely represent the political Roman Empire, but the feet of the statue made of iron and clay represented the ecclesiastical (clay) Empire as well.87 Consequently the fourth kingdom also included the ecclesiastical Empire. Grotius understood the little horn to be Antiochus Epiphanes, yet More reasoned that this was impossible since the destruction of the beast would be at the hands of the “Ancient of Days” or Christ (regardless if it is speaking about Christ’s h first or second advent). Antiochus Epiphanes died two hundred years before Christ’s h first advent. Thus, he could not be identified as the little horn.88 Instead More faithfully affirmed Mede’s interpretation that the little horn represented “power extending into Italy,”89 particularly the “Papal Hierarchy, which is the little horn, Chap.7:24.”90 This was undeniably a prophecy fulfilled in the papacy extending into More’s own present. proceedings are with that care and caution,…with that accuracy of judgement and unparallel’d modesty and clamness,…Upon whose account I am not ashamed to profess, that I think it clear both out of Daniel and the Apocalypse that the Scene of things in Christendome will be in due time very much changed, and that for the better. Who I hope will not take it ill that so pious, so learned and judicious a person as Mr. Mede, and that in a matter to which he may seem to be peculiarly selected and set apart to by God and Nature, to which he mainly applied himself with all possible care, serious and devotion, should further then Hugo Grotius, who has an ample harvest of praise from other performances, and who by reason of his Political emploiments could not be so entirely vacant to the searching into so abtruse a Mystery.” More, The grand mystery of Godliness, Book V, Chap. XIV, p. 172. 83 More, Exposition of…the Prophet Daniel, pp. 37-38. 84 Ibid. 5. 85 Ibid. 251. 86 Ibid. 252. 87 Ibid. 6. 88 Ibid. 248. 89 Ibid. 39. 90 Ibid. 14. More adds, “This little horn is the Idolatrizing Clergy of the Empire, but more chiefly and particularly the great and notorious part thereof under the Bishop of Rome.” Ibid. 258.

An English Millenarian Legacy 159 Following Mede’s synchronism between the prophecy of Daniel and the Apocalypse, More agreed that the vision off the fourth beast of Daniel symbolized the same historical referent as the two beasts in Apocalypse 13. Daniel’s beast corresponded to the first beast with seven n heads and ten horns. Likewise the ten horns with crowns represented the same ten Roman kingdoms. In his commentary on the Apocalypse, More states, “In the former Vision there were no Crowns upon his Horns, but there are, to denote that this is the Roman Empire divided into many Kingdoms.”91 More distinguished the first Beast of Apocalypse 13 as the secular Roman Empire, while the second two-horned Beast was the ecclesiastical Roman Empire, also symbolized by the little horn in Daniel’s vision.92 “For it is impossible but the little horn must be concerned in the destruction of the Beast, himself being the Two-horned Beast in the Apocalypse ch. 13.”93 This again was fulfilled in the papacy. For the first Beast gave its power and authority to the second. “But this Sacerdotal Hierarchy claimed all this Power, and exercised it accordingly in the behalf of the former Beast, as he succeeded the Dragon in his Dragon-like power and properties.”94 Again following the synchronisms within the Apocalypse the two-horned Beast of chapter 13 was also the Beast of chapter 17 being ridden by the woman. More refused to interpret this Beast in a strict secular sense. By this understood the Roman Empire. Full of names of blasphemy, that is, full of titles or kind of Idolatry, full of gods, so Grotius interprets it, understanding it of the Pagan Empire: And we may safely render it, full of Daemons in Mr. Medes sense, that is, full of superstitious and idolatrous worship of the souls of the Saints departed (besides other Idolatries in the manner of worshipping the due object of our Religion God and Christ) since the Empire has become Paganochristian.95 Against Grotius, More maintained that the Beasts of Daniel and the Apocalypse represented both the secular and ecclesiastical Roman Empire, including the papacy. The context of Grotius’ apocalyptic conclusions, in all likelihood, had a significant influence on his conclusions. Grotius was interested in pursing an irenical agenda between different branches of Protestantism as well as with the Roman Catholic Church.96 Removing the Protestant identification of the papacy as 91

More, Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, p. 124. Ibid. 130-131. 93 More, Exposition of…the Prophet Daniel, p. 45. 94 More, Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, p. 131. 95 Ibid. 168. 96 See G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes, “Hugo Grotius as an irenicist”, in The World of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645): Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the Grotius Committee of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Rotterdam 6-9 April 1983 (Amsterdam & Maarssen, 1984), pp. 43-64; Henk J. M. Nellen, ““Disputando inclarescet veritas: Grotius as a Publicist in France (1621-1645)”, in H. J. M. Nellen and E. Rabbie, Hugo Grotius – Theologian, pp. 121-144. 92


the Antichrist considerably improved Grotius’ standing before the Roman Catholics. Likewise this would allow Protestants to reconsider reconciliation since the pope was no longer the antithesis of Christ, a project completely unthinkable by previous Protestants.97 In defending his millenarian position, More was sensitive to this context as well. The extreme position damned individual members of the Roman Catholic Church, since they bowed to the Antichrist, and subjected them to an apocalyptic judgement at Christ’s return. More was careful to distance himself from this position. Concerning that sense of the Apocalyptick Visions which Mr. Mede has hit upon, and which for the main I have professed my self to conceive to be true, there is nothing seems to me so harsh therein as that Objection of some, who contented that it implies that all the Adherers to the Romane Church after this her Apostasy will be certainly damned.98 The emphasis, for More, was on the actions which display one’s true belief, even though there are weak Christians who follow the Roman Catholic Church.99 In this w regarding members within the Roman More was consistent with Mede’s view Catholic Church. Mede considered the fundamental articles of faith, which comprise the Early Church Creeds, to be the same between Protestants and Roman Catholics. In a letter dated 18 March 1634 to Samuel Hartlib, Mede explains, That notion is almost proper to our English, to maintain that the Roman Church…erreth not in Primariis & Fundamentalibus Fidei Articulis, because explicitly they profess them, howsoever by their Assumenta implicitely and by consequent they subvert them…by the name of Fundamental Articles understands the Articles of the Creed of all Christians, and no other.100 Thus, for Mede, it was possible still to confess the fundamental articles of faith within the Roman Catholic Church. The distinction being, “[i]n a word we hold that all the Roman Errors consist in the Assumenta they have added to the Foundation, and not in the Foundation it self, which they profess notwithstanding.”101 For More and Mede the identification of the papacy as the Beast and the Antichrist did not result categorically in an extreme anti-Catholic condemnation. In addition to his refutation of Grotius’ interpretation of the apocalyptic Beasts, in 1680 More pinpointed what he thought was the fundamental mistake in Grotius’ view of the millennium. 97

Antognazza and Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, pp. 132-136. More, The grand mystery of Godliness, pp. xxii-xxiii. 99 Ibid. xxii-xxiii. 100 Mede, Works, p. 863. 101 Ibid. 863. 98

An English Millenarian Legacy 161 The strongest presumption that Grotius has against Mr. Mede’s way is his confidence that Days never signifie Years. Which if he could make good, it would utterly invalidate and make useless the whole frame of Mr. Mede’s Apocalyptical Interpretations.102 More understood that duration of Mede’s synchronized visions of the outward Court, mourning of the Witnesses, woman in the desert, ten-horned and two-horned Beasts, sealed Servants of the Lamb, Whore of Babylon and succession of the six trumpet would be 1260 days or 3½ prophetic years.103 This was based upon the interpretation that one “prophetic day” was equal to a year. The three and a half days were not to be taken literally because, More points out, the continuance, I say of all these is circumscribed within the space of three years and an half, if the 1260 days be but Days and not Years, as Grotius would have it…[it] is a thing impossible, especially if we consider the Beasts are, in the Prophetical scheme of speech, Polities or Kingdomes, not Persons, and therefore unconceivable to be so short-lived as to last but Three years and an half.104 For More and Mede this period of 1260 years began in the fourth century A.D. and was defined by the idolatrous apostasy off the Antichrist; and therefore it could not be the millennium that Grotius, Hammond and Baxter assigned to it, since “the times that Grotius points at are the most unlike that new Jerusalem.”105 Since the period of the early Church Fathers Satan a has continued actively to persecute the Church, but More explained that “during the happy Millennium of the Reign of Christ, he is as close a prisoner as can be imagined or expressed. Which is a demonstration, this Millennium is not yet come.”106 Based upon Mede’s

102

More, The grand mystery of Godliness, p. 173. Ibid. 175. 104 Ibid. 175. 105 Agreeing with Mede, More wrote, “Wherefore persisting in the same liberty of speech, I shall a I Tim.4. respects the Apostasy of the Empire adventure to pronounce that that Prediction of S. Paul, into Idolatrous worship, by means of seducing and seduced Clergie thereof, who taught them to give religious worship to mere men departed this life, and so turned the deceased Saints of God, as much as in them lay, into Pagan Daemons…These things are so solidly and copiously made out in Mr. Mede’s Apostasy of the Latter times, that I need adde more but a Recommendation of that Treatise to the Reader.” Ibid. 389-390. 106 More, Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, p. 206. More added, “The thousand years Reign of the Saints could not begin in Constantines time, forasmuch as the binding and imprisoning the Devil is coincident with that time, and as Grotius noteth, is to commence from that Edict of Constantine…Now let us compare the description of the binding and imprisoning this Old Serpent, Ch. 20. vers. 3 …with the state off things in this Millennium begun in Constantine’s time. There has not past quite Three hundred years of this Thousand, wherein the Devil should deceive the Nations 103


synchronistic method and his interpretation of the binding of Satan, More opposed Grotius’ interpretation of the millennium. In the same manner More dismissed Richard Baxter’s apocalyptic interpretations. He published in 1685, Some cursory reflexions impartially made upon Mr. Richard Baxter his way of Writing Notes on the Apocalypse. More criticized Baxter for not following Mede’s interpretations. I did resent the gross Injury he has done…I appeal to him, if he ever was fully Master of Mr. Mede’s synchronisms, I dare say, his desultory and tumultuary Phancy would never be fettered to so close Animadversion. But if he had with patience and steadiness of mind applied himself to the Synchronistical Part, so as thoroughly to have understood it, it is impossible but he should have avoided this soul skepticism touching these holy visions.107 Likewise More suspected that Baxter was less than diligent in studying the apocalyptic texts of the Bible and the interpretations of various commentators throughout the history of the church.108 Two aspects of Baxter’s interpretation concerned More the most. First, he was disturbed by Baxter’s dismissal of the apocalyptic significance of the Roman Catholic Church. More reasoned that Baxter was probably seeking to avoid escalating the disdain already present between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Now for R. B. [Richard Baxter] to make it such an heinous thing to interpret any of the Apocalyptick Visions against such gross Enormities of the Roman Church; and to make such a Tragical deal ado about it, as if it were such an Inflamer of the Romanists, that they would destroy all those that presumed to make any such Application; this Demeanour of his seemed to me to proceed out a malicious Pique against our Church, as if he would cry Hallow to the Pontificians, to worry the Church of England, and devour it.109 However More believed that the Protestant identification of the papacy as the Antichrist did not breed a universal hatred for Roman Catholics, because true Christians were required to display a “sincere love to all Christendom and to Universal Mankind.”110 For More, millenarianism was not a free license for either Protestant retribution or revolution. no more, but up starts the Pope and Mahomet,…How is this consistent with the Devils being so close sealed up in the bottomless pit till the thousand years were expired?” Ibid. 346-347. 107 More, Some cursory reflexions, Preface, p. 5. 108 Ibid. 9. 109 Ibid. Preface, vi-vii. 110 Ibid. 17.

An English Millenarian Legacy 163 Second, More sought to correct Baxter on his understanding of the future conversion of the Jews. Baxter rejected any notion of a future national conversion of Israel. And desire of such a Jewish Conversion, State and Kingdom, or Church, as should continue them in a Jewish Line and Peculiarity, distinct from the Catholick mixed Church is a wickedness, and contrary to the very nature of Christianity, and the Kingdom and Design of Christ[.]111 The denial of this doctrine, for More, was a demonstration of a lack of Christian charity. He went so far as to accuse Baxter of having a “Wooden Soul” and a “Stony Heart” for such unbelief.112 The Israelites were God’s ancient people from the Old Testament, and God had promised an “everlasting Covenant with that People.”113 To deny the future fulfilment at that promise was to question the very integrity of God. Looking back to Paul’s teaching in Romans 11, More maintained that the Apostle was referring to ethnic Israel’s salvation. “Here Israel in both places [11:25, 26] is evidently opposed to the Gentiles.”114 More saw the conversion of the Jews both as an apocalyptic sign and evidence of God’s faithfulness. As a millenarian More’s career as an apocalyptic writer from 1660 to 1685 was dedicated, in part, to defending the legacy of Mede against Grotius’ preterist position.

8.v DEBATING THE MILLENNIUM: THOMAS BEVERLEY AND RICHARD BAXTER In 1690 the conformist minister Thomas Beverley (fl. 1670-1701) published a catechism detailing his millenarian interpretation of the thousand-year Kingdom of Christ.115 Richard Baxter, in 1691, responded with a critique of Beverley’s catechism, which set off a series of published exchanges between the two.116 Beverley’s catechism outlined the basic millenarian tenants in question and answer form. 111

Baxter, The Glorious Kingdom of Christ, p. 58. Ibid. 10, 11. 113 Ibid. 11. 114 Ibid. 11. 115 Thomas Beverley, The Catechism of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ: In the Thousand Years (London, 1690). 116 Baxter responded in The Glorious Kingdom of Christ. Beverley responded to Baxter in The Thousand Years Kingdom of Christ, in its full Scripture-State: Answering Mr. Baxter’s New Treatise, In Opposition to itt (London, 1691). Baxter returned A Reply to Mr. Tho. Beverley’s Answer to my Reasons Against his Doctrine. Finally Beverley concluded with The Universal Christian Doctrine of the Day of Judgment: Applied to the Doctrine of the Thousand Years Kingdom of Christ. (Herein Guided by Mr. Baxter’s Reply) To Vindicate It from all Objections (London, 1691). 112


Q. When does the Kingdom of Christ begin? A. It begins at the Coming and Appearance of Christ, and at the Resurrection of his Saints at that his Coming and Appearance; a Resurrection to Life, Honour, and Immortality, and to a visible Glorious Appearance with Christ, and Reigning with Him.117 Q. How long then does the Kingdom of Christ…last? A. The Grand, and most Definitive Time, in which Christ shall Reign with his Saints, is, while Sathan [sic] is Bound, and That is a Thousand Years.118 Q. Are Thousand Years of Christ’s Kingdom, Litterally, or Mystically to be understood? A. They are both ways to be understood, Litterally, Adding so manyYears to the Time…Mystically, as a Thousand Years are a Cube of Time, signifying the perfection of Time.119 Additionally Beverley employed one of Mede’s distinct interpretations by extending the Day of Judgment to encompass the whole millennial period. “The Day of Judgment is the same with the Kingdom of Christ…All Begin, Continue, and End Together.”120 Baxter’s response was typical of one committed to Grotius’ apocalyptic view. In one sense, he argued, the Kingdom of Christ was heralded by John the Baptist and arrived in the initial gospel preaching of Christ himself, declaring salvation from heaven.121 Yet, more precisely, he rehearsed d the same presentation that Grotius and Hammond had presented, that the millennium began with Constantine. It is far more glorious Christian Monarchy a with Christ by Constantine set up, than most of the Millenaries give any probability of. 1. It was a Deliverance from the cruellest Persecution. 2. And from the Dragons most potent Empire. 3. A Deliverance of all Christians as well as of Jews. 4. Without confinement to the narrow Land of Israel. 5. A Setting up of National-Provincial Church in Judea. 6. With the great Charges of

117

Beverley, The Catechism, p. 5. Ibid. 6-7. 119 Ibid. 26. 120 Ibid. 6. 121 Baxter wrote, “When Christ Incarnate came the King came from Heaven, and therefore John Preached that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, and Christ first preached that it was come and was among them; that is, The King promised from Heaven to Rule the World for their Salvation. And when he had first wrought Miracles enough to prove it, that Faith might not be precarious, and built upon his bare affirmation, he openly claimed first the Kingdom of Judea, as the Line of David, and caused the people to applaud him with Hosanna’s.” Baxter, The Glorious Kingdom of Christ, p. 3. 118

An English Millenarian Legacy 165 promoting it, by New Churches, Monasteries, Bibles, Bishops! What could he do more?122 Baxter was dumbfounded that millenarians like Beverley could not see the obvious. Likewise the binding of Satan was the period between Constantine’s edict and the Ottoman Empire (when Satan was released).123 Moreover, as was mentioned before, Baxter objected to any anticipation of a future national conversion of Israel. He confined the peculiarity and distinction of the Jewish nation to the Mosaic era, and since those laws and practices have ended, so too has Israel’s favour before God as a nation.124 Commenting on Romans 11 and the famous phrase “all Israel will be saved” (11:26), Baxter understood this to be referring to “the believing Children of Abraham…gathered into one Catholick Body,” including Gentiles and not ethnic Jews exclusively. Such ethnic distinctions had no place in the Kingdom of Christ. And desire of such a Jewish Conversion, State and Kingdom, or Church as should continue them in a Jewish Line and Peculiarity, distinct from the Catholick mixed Church is a wickedness, and contrary to the very nature of Christianity, and the Kingdom and Design of Christ.125 While the belief in a future conversion of the Jews was not necessarily a millenarian doctrine, Baxter rejected the millenarian anticipation that this event would mark the beginning of the millennium. Particularly he objected to Mede’s interpretation that the conversion of the Jews would be similar to that of Saul on the Damascus road where Christ appeared supernaturally. Baxter was convinced that Mede’s interpretation was absurd, since Jews are scattered throughout the earth. How then would Christ appear to all of them in there multitudinous locations? For Baxter this was more improbable than even the Lutheran doctrine of Christ’s ubiquity.126 Beverley’s response to Baxter revealed another dependency upon Mede. Like Mede, Beverley agreed that the very period that Baxter assigned to the millennium 122

Ibid. 10. Ibid. 7. 124 “A Converted Jew joyneth himself to the Catholick Church, and knoweth that this is his advancement, above the old separate state of Peculiarity, and knoweth that Moses Law and Policy is ended; and that if he turn to that Law, he falls from Grace, and if he be (Jewishly) Circumcised, Christ shall profit him nothing: Therefore he is no more a Jew in Religion.” Ibid. 62. 125 Ibid. 62. 126 “The New Opinion is, that Christ shall do it by appearing in the Air as he did to Saul. O take heed what you impose on Christ! That appearance of Christ was seen but by few in one place: And the words heard by none but Saul himself. Shall Christ in the Air be seen at once in Persia, Greece, Rome, Portugal, and all Nations where there be Jews? (And yet these good men are against the Lutheran Ubiquitarians!) And shall Christ Preach to them in the Air, and his voice be heard throughout the World, a thousand times further than the Thunder? And how will they know that it is Christ? When on Earth they would not know him, but imputed his Miracles to Beelzebub?” Ibid. 68. 123


was in fact the same time that Satan reigned and substantially corrupted the church. Beverley sternly rebuked Baxter by asking, How near it comes in the Matter of it to a Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, to interpret his so Celebrated 1000 years in n this manner? For to Attribute to God the Works of the Devil, is the Reverse, or as it were the other side of Attributing the Works of God to Belzebub; what then is it to make the 1260 years of the Apostasie the 1000 Years Kingdom of Christ!127 Additionally Beverley attempted to point outt a historical contradiction in Baxter’s interpretation of the release of Satan after the millennium. Baxter agreed with Grotius that the rise of Islam in the Ottoman Empire marked the release of Satan, yet Beverley asked “was not the Mahomet’s Venome Enforc’d by the Saracens within 300 Years from Constantine; How Contradictious is this Opinion then to its self!”128 Likewise Beverley maintained that “there shall be a Glorious Restoration of the Twelve Tribes of Israel in the Kingdom of Christ.”129 This conversion will be a fulfilment of all the “Types, Prophesies, and Promises; in Love to the Fathers, and as especially to Jesus Christ.”130 Beverley understood the conversion as a completion of the old era not a reversion back to it. Still, Beverley’s response to Baxter on this point was not thorough at all. In the end neither Baxter nor Beverley was convinced enough to abandon their original positions.

8.vi DRUE CRESSNER AND THE “NEW WAY” The defenders of millenarianism against the “New Way” introduced by Grotius and his followers included another loyal minister in the Church of England, Drue Cressener (c.1638-1718). Cressener began his academic studies at Christ’s College, where he inevitably encountered Henry More.131 Most likely through the influence of More, Cressener subscribed to many off Mede’ millenarian interpretations. In 1690 Cressener publishedd A Demonstration of the First Principles of the Protestant Applications of the Apocalypse. The preface to this work expressed Cressener’s reasons for writing another millenarian monograph. That the only end of this undertaking was to find out a more satisfactory foundation for what the Excellent Mr. Mede has endeavoured to 127

Beverley, The Thousand Years Kingdom of Christ, p. 32. Ibid. 32. 129 Ibid. 9. 130 Ibid. 9. 131 “Cressener, Drue”, DNB, vol. 5, p. 71; J. van den Berg, “Glorious Revolution and Millennium: The ‘Apocalyptic Thoughts’ of Drue Cressener”, in J. van den Berg and P. G. Hoftijzer (eds.), Church, Change and Revolution: Transactions off the Fourth Anglo-Dutch Church History Colloquium (Leiden, Copenhagen, and Cologne, 1991), pp. 130. 128

An English Millenarian Legacy 167 demonstrate in this way; Whose known w Reputation for his impartial and cautious Judgment in the interpretation of other parts of Scripture, is sufficient to silence all inconsiderate Prejudices against his Performances of this kind.132 Why did Cressener see the need for a “more satisfactory foundation” beyond Mede? First, Cressener felt that Mede’s initial interpretations needed to be expanded to address specifically the current theological climate. Cressener’s other writings displayed an aggressive anti-Roman Catholic sentiment, so it was no surprise that he felt that the challenges of Grotius, Hammond and Baxter necessitated an unmitigated reply, answering in detail each particular point of disagreement.133 Second, Cressener believed that events in the later seventeenth century – post-dating Mede - bore apocalyptic significance. Mede’s millenarian predictions required some revisions in order to take into account more recent events. While remaining faithful to the legacy of Mede, Cressener continued to study the Apocalypse for more current applications.134 It was Cressener’s hope that his book would succeed where Henry More and Thomas Beverley failed in persuading Baxter a to reconsider a millenarian interpretation of the Apocalypse. Cressener sent Baxter a copy of his book along with a letter requesting his “cautious examination of it.”135 More poignantly Cressener added, “I should think it is a very y happy advantage to the Reformation if after your former opposition of it you should now impartially owne, that its Great Adversary is so pompously set forth to the world in this Prophecy, as the Great Antichrist.”136 Due to Baxter’s perceived pro-Catholic eschatology, Cressener addressed the familiar point of disagreement regarding the identification of the Beasts in Daniel and the Apocalypse. In doing of this, I had another aim, which I apprehended to be of very useful importance; and that was to make sure of the foundation of Mr. Mede’s Synchronisms, that is, that the term of Beast all over the Revelation, does denote but one and the same particular state of it; the want of a close proof of which, gives a great advantage to the Grotian

132

Cressener, A Demonstration of the First Principles, “The Preface”, p. ii. Cressener’s first book was, The Judgments of God upon the Roman-Catholick Church, From its First Rigid Laws for Universal Conformity to it, unto its Last End d (London, 1689). 134 Cressener wrote, “But when I came to be acquainted with Mr. Mede’s Demonstrations, and had compared them with the monstrous evasions, and absurd u strains of wit, that Grotius and others were fain to flye to, to turn off the force of them, I gave over all thoughts of the comprehending way, and made of my business to examine the strength of his Foundation with all the critical caution that I could bring.” Cressener, A Demonstration of the First Principles, p. xiii. 135 Letter from Cressener to Baxter dated 2 June 1691, Baxter Correspondence, III, f. 15, Dr. William’s Library, London. 136 Ibid. 133


Interpretation, to evade the force of his Demonstration by taking that Term in various acceptations.137 It was Cressener’s intent – consistent with Mede’s synchronisms - to show that Beasts in Apocalypse 13 and 17 were the same, representing both Imperial and Papal Rome.138 This, of course, was the fourth Beast in Daniel’s prophecy as well. Numerous exegetical arguments for demonstrating this were already articulated by More and Beverley, but Cressener added another dimension to solidify the millenarian case. Like Mede in so many of his millenarian debates, Cressener appealed to the testimony of the Church Fathers. Citing Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Methodius, Victorinus, Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret, Gregory I, and others, Cressener argued that all of these ancient fathers agreed that the Antichrist would emerge from the Roman Empire.139 Subsequently Cressener attempted to prove that millenarianism was justified both exegetically and historically. Another influence on Cressener was the French Huguenot theologian Pierre Jurieu. Jurieu was a committed millenarian, heavily influenced by Mede, and deeply interested in assigning apocalyptic significance to the events within his own country.140 In 1686 Jurieu published, L’Accomplissement des propheties ou la delivrance prochaine de l’Eglise, which was translated into English in 1687. Jurieu saw the monumental events of 1685 in France as a clear and unmistakable fulfilment of the vision of the Two Witnesses (Apocalypse 11). The slaying of the Witnesses was identified as the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the suppression of the true gospel.141 Cressener agreed with Jurieu’s application of chapter 11 and immediately began searching for signs of the resurrection of the Witnesses (11:11,12).142 In 1688 Cressener received his prophetic sign in the Glorious Revolution with William and Mary’s ascension to the English crown. While many anticipated the resurrection off the Witnesses to be in the same location

137

Cressener, A Demonstration of the First Principles, p. vi. Ibid. 57, 177. 139 Ibid. “Appendix. The Consent of the Ancients Concerning the Fourth Beast In the VII Chapter of Daniel; and The Beast In the Revelations”, pp. 5-6. Also see Froom, The Prophetic Faith, vol. II, pp. 592-593. 140 Details on Jurieu millenarianism can be found in: Hubert Bost, “La Révocation, Apocalypse des Protestants?”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses, 65 année (1990/2), pp. 205-219; F. R. J. Knetsch, “Pierre Jurieu and the Glorious Revolution according to his ‘Letters Pastorales’”, in J. van den Berg & P. G. Hoftijzer (eds.), Church, Change and Revolution: Transactions of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch Church History Colloquium (Leiden, New York, Copenhagen, and Cologne, 1991), pp. 145-166; Ernestine van der Wall, ‘”Antichrist Stormed”: The Glorious Revolution and the Dutch Prophetic Tradition”, in Dale Hoak and Mordechai Feingold (eds.), The World of William and Mary: Anglo-Dutch Perspectives on the Revolution of 1688-89 (Stanford, CA, 1996), pp. 152164; M. R. Antognazza and H. Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, pp. 158-164. 141 Antognazza and Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, p. 159. 142 Cressener, The Judgments of God, p. 82. 138

An English Millenarian Legacy 169 as their slaying, Cressener did not see the necessity to restrict the resurrection to France. The Proper Kingdom of France did indeed seem from the present Posture of Affairs, to be the most likely to be the first Scene of this Revival. But it has been shewn, that there is nothing in the Prophecy that does fix the first beginning of it there.143 Cressener considered such obvious prophetic fulfilments to be further evidence for the cogency of a millenarian interpretation. The resurrection of the Witnesses preceded the fall of the Antichrist which would occur at the return of Christ to inaugurate the millennium. Consequently events in the millenarian timeline, for Cressener, were occurring before his very eyes. Unfortunately Baxter was given no opportunity to respond to Cressener’s millenarian interpretations. A few months after receiving Cressener’s letter and book, Baxter died.

8.vii ISAAC NEWTON AND WILLIAM WHISTON: A CONTINUING LEGACY Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) added another layer a of sophistication to the polemics against the preterists. Newton characteristically embarked on the study of prophecy by employing a rigorous scientific approach. He appropriated Mede’s synchronal method, as well as various other millenarian points of interpretation.144 Newton was also familiar with the writings of Henry More, his Cambridge colleague.145 What fascinated Newton most was the evidence of God’s providential supervision over 143

Cressener, A Demonstration of the First Principles, Dedication. A copy of the 1672 edition of Mede’s works was included in Newton’s library. Michael Murrin, “Newton’s Apocalypse”, in J. E. Force and R. H. Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion: Context, Nature, and Influence (Dordrecht, Boston and London, 1999), p. 209. For more on the relation between Newton and Mede see, Frank E. Manuel, The Religion of Isaac Newton (Oxford, 1974), pp. 90-92; Sarah Hutton, “The Seven Trumpets and the Seven Vials: Apocalypticism and Christology in Newton’s Theological Writings”, J. E. Force & R. H. Popkins (eds.), Newton and Religion, pp. 172-173. 145 Sarah Hutton, “More, Newton, and the Language of Biblical Prophecy”, in J. E. Force and R. H. Popkin (eds.), The Book of Nature and Scripture: Recent Essays on Natural Philosophy, Theology, and Biblical Criticism in the Netherlands of Spinoza’s Time and the British Isles of Newton’s Time (Dordrecht, Boston and London, 1994), pp. 39-54; Rob Iliffe, ‘”Making a Shew”: Apocalyptic Hermenuetics and the Sociology of Christian Idolatry in the Work of Isaac Newton and Henry More’, in Force & Popkin (eds.), The Book of Nature, pp. 55-88. For additional works on Newton’s apocalyptic thought see Reiner Smolinski, “The Logic of Millennial Thought: Sir Isaac Newton among his contemporaries”, in J. E. Force & R. H. Popkins (eds.), Newton and Religion, pp. 259290; S. J. Barnett, “The prophetic thought of Sir Isaac Newton, its origin and context”, in B. Taithe and T. Thornton (eds.), Prophecy: The Power of Inspired Language in History 1300-2000 (Stroud, 1997), pp. 101-116; Maurizio Mamiani, “Newton on Prophecy and the Apocalypse”, in I. B. Cohen and G. E. Smith (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 387-408; Stephen D. Snobelen, ‘”A Time and Times and the Dividing of Times”: Isaac Newton, the Apocalypse and 2060 A.D.’, Canadian Journal of History 38:3 (2003), pp. 537-551. 144


human history. This enthusiastically motivated him to concentrate on the study of ancient chronologies. The results of Newton’s apocalyptic studies were not published during his lifetime; but his work is evidence of a sustained millenarian interest that was inherited by others who continued the legacy.146 In the 1670s Newton began his study in biblical prophecy and chronology.147 Based upon the prophecies of Daniel, as well as other astronomical and ancient extra-biblical sources, Newton attempted to construct the chronology and history of ancient empires.148 His labors particularly demonstrated that, indeed, the fourth kingdom of Daniel was the Roman Empire.149 Additionally, this kingdom included both a secular and ecclesiastical element, with the ecclesiastical Empire introducing the religious atrocities of the Antichrist. “The invocation of the dead, and the veneration of their images, being gradually introduced in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries…the Pope thereupon called a Council at Rome, [and] confirmed the worship of Images.”150 Again, the influence of Mede’s Apostasy of the Latter Times is detected. Newton considered the past history of the Roman Empire, both secular and ecclesiastical, as the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Beast in Daniel and the Apocalypse. As a result of his work on ancient chronologies he even gave the precise date of 395 A. D. in which the Dragon bestowed his “power and throne, and great authority” upon the Beast (Apocalypse 13:2).151 However Newton introduced an expanded and unique interpretation of the Beasts of Apocalypse 13. Newton combined the first Beast with Daniel’s Beast and the Beast of Apocalypse 17. All three represented both secular and ecclesiastical Rome. The ten horns stood for ten separate sub-kingdoms under Rome.152 Although the visions of the Beasts of Apocalypse 13 and 17 do not make mention of the little horn from Daniel 9, Newton nevertheless included that element because of the clear synchronism. This eleventh horn or sub-kingdom, was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten kingdoms, having a life or soul peculiar to itself, with eyes and a mouth. By its eyes it was a Seer; and by its mouth speaking great things and changing times and laws,

146

All of Newton’s biblical works were published posthumously, particularly: The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (London, 1728) and Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (Dublin, 1733). Also see, R. H. Popkin. “Newton as a Bible Scholar”, in J.E. Force & R. H. Popkin (eds.), Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology (Dordrecht, Boston and London, 1990), pp. 103-118. 147 Manuel, The Religion of Isaac Newton, p. 92. 148 Popkin, “Newton as a Bible Scholar”, p. 111. 149 Newton, Observations, pp. 24, 25. 150 Ibid. 77. 151 Ibid. 280. 152 The ten kingdoms included the Vandals, Alans, Suevians, Visigoths, Alans in Gallia, Burgundians, Franks, Britains, Huns, Lombards and Ravenna. Ibid. 47.

An English Millenarian Legacy 171 it was a Prophet, as well as a King. And such a Seer, a Prophet and a King, is the Church of Rome.153 Now the second Beast of Apocalypse 13 represented the Greek or Byzantine Empire (both secular and ecclesiastical) which stood as an image of the Western Roman Empire and whose number was 666.154 Newton incorporated the Eastern Orthodox Church in this apocalyptic image which expanded the understanding of this vision beyond previous interpreters. Thus, the millenarian defence against the interpretation of Grotius and his followers was buttressed by Newton’s extensive study in ancient histories and chronologies proving, once again, that the papacy (and now the Eastern Orthodox Church) did indeed have prophetic significance. Isaac Newton’s successor as Lucasian Professor f of Mathematics at Cambridge, William Whiston, continued in the same millenarian tradition. Frank E. Manuel points out, Out of all the members of the Newton circle William Whiston, …was far the most prolific writer on Mosaic astronomy, on ancient chronology, on the interpretation of the Old and New Testament, on problems of the Trinity, on the coming of the great conflagration, and on prophecy – he compiled more than 40 works.155 The academic genealogical succession from Newton to Whiston extended to other fields of scholarly interest beyond biblical studies.156 Yet, Whiston’s writings in ancient chronology and millenarianism reflected his continuing faithfulness to the legacy of Joseph Mede.157 Commenting on Mede, Whiston wrote: And tho’ I care not to use Monsieur Jurieu’s Words, … yet I can add with him, that his Works of this Kind have ever charm’d me; and that I can find nothing like them in all the other Expositors. And I take the true Reason to 153

Ibid. 75. Ibid. 279-286. 155 Frank E. Manuel, Isaac Newton, Historian (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), p. 143. 156 See Margaret C. Jacobs, The Newtonians and the English Revolution, 1689-1714 (Ithaca, 1976); James E. Force, William Whiston: Honest Newtonian (Cambridge, 1985); idem, “The God of Abraham and Isaac (Newton)”, J. E. Force & R. H. Popkin (eds.), The Book of Nature and Scripture, pp. 188-194. 157 These writings include, William Whiston, A New Theory of Earth, From its Original, to the Consummation of all Things, Where in the Creation of the World in Six days, the Universal Deluge, And the General Conflagration, As laid down in the Holy Scriptures, Are Shewn to be perfectly agreeable to Reason and Philosophy. With a large Introductory Discourse concerning the Genuine Nature, Stile, and Extent of the Mosaick History of the Creation (London, 1696); An Essay on the Revelation of St. John, So far as concerns the Past and Present Times (London, 1706); The Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecy (London, 1708); The Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies. Being a full Answer to a late Discourse, Of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (London, 1724). 154


be (besides his extraordinary Judgment in the Scripture in general, his Impartiality, and the extraordinary Blessings of God upon his Labours) that he laid the Foundation right by the exact Observance of this Method, as far as possibly he could[.]158 Whiston apocalyptic writings were all published at the turn of the eighteenth century. James Force comments, “Whiston, like all biblical interpreters, based his millennial expectations on the time periods mentioned in the prophecies in the books of Daniel and Revelation and the fates predicted there for the political kingdoms of the world.”159 By following Newton’s example in the study of ancient chronologies and prophecy, one of Whiston’s desires was to discredit the preterism of Grotius and Hammond. Consistent with Mede exegetical method, t Whiston intently studied the relation between the books of Daniel and the Apocalypse. He agreed with the synchronization of the fourth Beast of Daniel 7 with the Beasts of the Apocalypse, preferring Mede’s interpretation a to Newton’s new attempt.160 For Whiston, Mede’s treatise, “The A. B. C. of Prophecy,” attached to the end of his letter to Thomas Hayne provided an irrefutable account of the Roman Empire as the fourth kingdom. “This proposition is so plain at first Sight, upon the bare Reading of the Words of the Prophecy, and comparing them with the Histories of past Ages.”161 Again, Grotius and Hammond saw the manifestation of the fourth kingdom symbolized by the Beast in the past Selucid kingdom, and therefore concluded from that early date that the events in the first nineteen chapters of the Apocalypse had been fulfilled by the time of the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. Logically then the millennium of chapter 20 would follow shortly thereafter in the fourth century A. D, when the Beast would be subdued by the fifth kingdom. Now because Whiston understood that the fourth kingdom and the Beast represented the Roman Empire – now ruled by an ecclesiastical emperor – Whiston rejected Grotius and Hammond’s position, which claimed that these prophecies had all been fulfilled in the past history of the church. Hence it evidently follows, that none off the Predictions contain’d in the Revelation of St. John can refer to the Times or Events before the Destruction of Jerusalem; or indeed before the Conclusion of the Reign of Domitian, when John saw these visions.162 158

William Whiston, An Essay on the Revelation of St. John (London, 1744, 2ndd edition), p. 107. Force, William Whiston, Honest Newtonian, p. 114. 160 Whiston, An Essay, pp. 70-71. 161 Ibid. 19; Likewise, “Mr Mede, the most judicious Person that ever wrote upon the Matters, stiles a of Fundamental Rudiments of this series of the Four Monarchies, the A, B, C, the very Alphabet the Prophecies of Sacred Writings.” Ibid. 24. Mede’s treatise is found attached to a letter Thomas Hayne dated 22 July 1629. Mede, Works, pp. 743-745. 162 Whiston, An Essay, p. 37. 159

An English Millenarian Legacy 173 Whiston understood that the prophecies of the first nineteen chapters were not describing the brief period in the past between the Apostle John’s time and the fourth century, with the millennium subsequently beginning with Constantine, and thus already concluded by Whiston’s day, [because] they do by no Means, as Dr. Hammond would have it, imply that the End of the Visions should be very soon, or that they should contain a short Space in the whole…it was to be a Prophecy of the future State of the Church, and such a Series of Events then to come[.]163 An attempt to identify accurately the fourth kingdom and the Beast with the Roman Empire situated the chronology of the Apocalypse forward in time, not back in the past, thereby also projecting the millennium into the future and not the past history of the church. “And this Observation intirely overthrows the very Foundation of Grotius’ and Dr. Hammond’s…Exposition of these Prophecies,” concluded Whiston.164 The proverbial hinge that the understanding of all biblical prophecy turned on, for Whiston, was the accurate identification of the prophetic visions with the proper corresponding chronology of historical events.

8.viii CONCLUSION: ENGLISH MILLENARIANISM REVISED As William Lamont correctly pointed out, “[i]n 1686 Richard Baxter was actively engaged in millenarian research. This discovery is doubly upsetting. It is the wrong man at the wrong time.”165 Lamont rightly understood that Baxter’s consuming interest in the millennium in 1686 contradicted the received historiographical narrative of seventeenth-century apocalyptic thought. If interest in apocalypticism died with the Restoration in 1660, why was Baxter still engaged in such research? The logical answer is that interest in the Apocalypse did not die out after 1660; while some political radicals may have given up on their millennial delusions, serious scholars of the Apocalypse continued to study and debate detailed points of interpretation in order to comprehend the word of God and their world properly.166 Many of these scholars seized upon the interpretations of Joseph Mede and formed a legacy that continued through to the next century. The legacy of Mede demonstrates both the survival and proliferation of millenarianism beyond 1660 in England. Confronted with the preterist challenges of Hugo Grotius, Henry Hammond and Baxter, Mede’s English disciples responded 163

Ibid. 32. Ibid. 38. 165 William Lamont, “Richard Baxter , The Apocalypse and the Mad Major”, Past and Present, no. 55 (May 1972), p. 68. 166 Paul Korshin outlines the continuance of dissenting millenarian sects through 1750. P. J. Korshin, “Queuing and waiting: the Apocalypse in England, 1660-1750”, Patrides & Wittreich (eds.), The Apocalypse in English Renaissance, pp. 240-265. 164


with a deluge of answers in their writings, yet always dependent upon the foundational methodology of Mede. Even Baxter recognized a loose “establishment” of English millenarians. In his dedication to Increase Mather he wrote, Seeing the chief Writers of the Millennium are Conformists (and men of Greatest Learning and Piety among them) as Jos. Mede, Dr. Twisse (then conformable) Dr. Cressener, Mr. Beverley, Mr. J. N. & c. I hope they will not take it for scandalous in you and me herein to differ.167 Baxter was communicating his sentiments to Mather in 1691. Of course Henry More had already given his millenarian apology in 1685, followed by Thomas Beverley’s exchanges with Baxter in the 1690s, Drue Cressener in 1690 as well, and William Whiston as late as 1724. Clearly in n these debates with Grotius’ “New Way,” the existence of millenarianism, at the very least, is established among leading scholars faithful to the Church of England.168 This leads to a further question, what then accounted for the propagation of millenarianism in the latter seventeenth century? Clearly it was not the continuance of political or social crisis or revolution. As Richard Popkin notes, “[t]his neat picture would be nice, as well as comforting to accept, were it not for some very odd facts.”169 One odd fact was that both Newton and Whiston were heirs to a continuous tradition, dating from Joseph Mede in the early seventeenth h century, of seeing the growth of scientific knowledge as part of the fulfillment of the prophecies about the events leading up to the actual reign of Jesus Christ on earth for one thousand years.170 Yet, not just Newton and Whiston, but the many of the most intellectually exceptional millenarians were a part of that same continuous tradition, contributing to the legacy of Joseph Mede. These individuals were spurred continually by their academic, intellectual and spiritual interest in the interpretation of biblical prophecy. This enduring legacy sustained apocalyptic interest in England long after 1660.

167

Baxter, Glorious Kingdom of Christ, “Epistle Dedicatory.” In the following two chapters the existence off millenarianism beyond the English context will be established as well. 169 Richard Popkin, “Foreward”, in J. E. Force, William Whiston: Honest Newtonian, p. xi. 170 Ibid. xi. 168

CHAPTER NINE

Colonial North America: The Puritan Errand Revised

9.i THE PURITAN ERRAND INTO THE WILDERNESS The appearance in 1939 of Perry Miller’s The New England Mind d renewed interest in the study of colonial North America. Miller’s explosive thesis argued that the first settlers in Massachusetts in the 1620-1640s immigrated to the New World with the purpose of establishing a godly community that would serve as a religious example to the Old World. In the much quoted words of John Winthrop, they would be a “Citty upon a Hill,” a model of godly purity.1 These early immigrants departed England, like ancient Israel’s exodus from Egypt, on an “Errand into the Wilderness,” mandated by God and bound by a special covenant. However by the late 1660s and 1670s ministers began to lament and condemn the settlers’ departure from the mission of that first errand, with sermons that drew heavily from the prophetic books of the Old Testament. These sermons were appropriately called the New England Jeremiads, and they admonished the people to repent and return to their divine calling, or else they would face the judgment of God.2 With this narrative in place, Miller introduced a foundational thesis for others to appropriate. Since the publication of Miller’s early works nearly all historians – and especially intellectual historians – of colonial North America have had to wrestle with Miller’s provocative thesis. Many, like Sacvan Bercovitch, Emory Elliott, Mason I. Lowance, Jr., Stephen J. Stein and Avihu Zakai, built upon Miller’s foundation by infusing the puritan errand with an apocalyptic dimension.3 With 1

John Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity, in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third series, VII (1838), pp. 46-47. Also see Francis J. Bremer, John Winthrop: America’s Forgotten Founding Father (Oxford, 2003). 2 Miller continued his thesis in his later volume, P. Miller, Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge, Mass., 1956). 3 Sacvan Bercovitch, The Puritan Origins of the American Self (New Haven and London, 1975), p. 57; Francis J. Bremer, The Puritan Experiment: New England Society from Bradford to Edwards (New York, 1976, reprinted 1995), pp. 29-54; Emory Elliott, Power and the Pulpit in Puritan New

175

176 The Puritan Errand Revised

extensive research in colonial puritan sermons and books, many of these studies focused on the use of typology, particularly the paradigm of Israel’s history as an elect nation typifying New England. These studies concluded that the New England settlers perceived themselves as the new people of God and the rightful heirs to all of God’s promises, replacing the Israel of the Old Testament. The errand was seen as a millenarian-motivated trek. These pilgrims forsook the Old World and its acquiescence to the Antichrist, and instead anticipated the establishment of the New Jerusalem of Christ’s millennial kingdom in North America. Others like Theodore Dwight Bozeman and Stephen Foster were more critical; both of these authors cited more immediate historical events as the motivation for the first migration and subsequent Jeremiads in the second and third generations.4 Clearly Miller’s provocative thesis and the subsequent plethora of revisions demonstrates the complexity of apocalyptic thought in relation to the first puritan errand and the rhetoric used to motivate and justify this drastic sojourn into the wilderness of North America. Recently a third voice, represented primarily by Reiner Smolinski, has introduced the most radical break from Perry Miller’s historiographic perspective. Smolinski completely rejects Miller’s original thesis, since “no millenarian ideology informed the Puritan exodus during the first wave of emigration.”5 This latest revision concludes that the ecclesiastical, political and social dissatisfaction experienced by the first generation, which prompted their relocation to the New World, was not motivated by an apocalyptic or millenarian agenda. We have argued that millenarianism did not necessitate a revolutionary ideology bent on radical ecclesiastical, political, and social change for those who remained in Old England, Smolinski argues that millenarianism was not the ideological or doctrinal inspiration for others who chose to leave for New England in search of a religiously purer church and state. England d (Princeton, 1975), pp. 186-190; Elliott, “From Father to Son: The Evolution of Typology in Puritan New England”, in Earl Miner (ed.), Literary Uses of Typology (Princeton, 1977), pp. 204-227; Mason I. Lowance Jr., “Typology and Millennial Eschatology in Early New England”, in Miner (ed.), Literary Uses of Typology, pp. 228-273; Bercovitch, “The Typology of America’s Mission”, American Quarterly, vol. XXX, no. 2 (Summer, 1978), pp. 135-155; Lowance, The Language of Canaan: Metaphor and Symbol in New England from the Puritans to the Transcendentalists (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1980), pp. 115-159; Stephen J. Stein, “Transatlantic extensions: apocalyptic in early New England”, in Patrides and Wittreich (eds.), The Apocalypse in English Renaissance thought, pp. 266-298; Avihu Zakai, Exile and Kingdom: History and apocalypse in Puritan migration to America (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 120-206. 4 Theodore Dwight Bozeman, To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimensions in Puritanism (Chapel Hill and London, 1988), pp. 90-113; Stephen Foster, The Long Argument: English Puritanism and the Shaping of New England Culture, 1570-1700 (Chapel Hill, 1991), pp. 312-343. 5 Reiner Smolinski, “Apocalypticism in Colonial North America”, in Stephen J. Stein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism: Volume 3, Apocalypticism in the Modern Period and the Contemporary Age (New York, 1998), p. 37. See also: Smolinski, ““Israel Redivivus: The Eschatological Limits of Puritan Typology in New England”, New England Quarterly, 63 (1990), pp. 357-395 and Smolinski (ed.) The Threefold Paradise of Cotton Mather: An Edition of “Triparadisus” (Athens, GA., and London, 1995).

The Puritan Errand Revised 177

Smolinski’s approach is fundamentally sound. The first generation of settlers did not set off on an apocalyptic errand into the wilderness of North America. If that is the case, how did they understand the role of eschatology in their present history? Specifically, how did New England puritans understand the spatial place of North America in the geography of the millennial kingdom and their own position as the so-called “elect” nation of God? In order to answer these questions it is useful to examine colonial North American millenarianism in relation to the method and interpretations of Joseph Mede. Such an examination will contribute to the reassessment of various aspects of colonial North American eschatology.

9.ii THE FIRST GENERATION The eschatology of some of the first-generation of settlers to New England was undeniably millenarian, and distinctively dependent upon Mede. However, before discussing the millenarian connection between Mede and the firstgeneration, it is important to understand their ecclesiological differences. As explained more fully in an earlier chapter, Mede remained a faithful supporter of the Church of England and a staunch defender of her polity and practices.6 The majority of New England puritans were congregationalists, advocating an ecclesiastical polity in which local congregations of gathered confessing believers governed themselves with the intent of aligning (as closely as possible) the visible with the invisible church.7 Mede absolutely rejected this form of church government and he wrote a short treatise demonstrating the error of these separatist congregations.8 With such obvious antagonism against one of their chief theological beliefs, why did Mede’s eschatology become so popular among the congregationalists? In general terms, Mede’s anti-Catholic position was admired by most puritans who easily adapted and redirected his criticism toward Archbishop Laud and the English church. More specifically it was Mede’s position as a tutor in the university which seemed to provide the most likely connection between himself and the puritan congregationalists who studied in Cambridge. Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680), one of the most prominent congregationalists, began his studies at Christ’s College in 1613, the same year that Mede was elected fellow.9 Although in 1613 Mede was still formulating his own eschatological position, for Goodwin, this initial encounter with one of the College’s young scholars was 6

See chapter 3. Also, “The Second Book of the Works of the Pious and Profoundly-Learned Jose Mede…containing several Discourses and Treatises of Churches, and The Worship of God therein”, in Mede, Works, pp. 319-408. 7 Geoffrey F. Nuttall, Visible Saints: The Congregational Way, 1640-1660 0 (Oxford, 1957); Paul, The Assembly of the Lord, pp. 121-127. 8 See chapter 3. 9 “Goodwin, Thomas”, DNB, vol. VIII, p. 148.


most likely the beginnings of a rapport which would later influence Goodwin to acquire a more intimate knowledge of Mede’s mature millenarian position. Upon completing his studies, Goodwin continued his academic career in the university; and he also served as the vicar at Trinity Church, Cambridge. Through the influence of John Cotton, Goodwin became dissatisfied with the requirements for strict conformity. He resigned his vicarage and left the university. Goodwin’s whereabouts from 1634-1639 are shrouded in mystery; some scholars believe he was ministering at a congregational church in London. But in 1639 he fled to the Netherlands and served as the pastor to the English church in Arnhem. It was in Arnhem that Goodwin preached a series of sermons eventually published as An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (1639).10 In these sermons and some of his later works, Goodwin displayed an allegiance to the basic tenets of Mede’s millenarianism. Structurally Goodwin incorporated Mede’s method of synchronisms resulting in the same chronological sequence for the visions.11 He agreed that the past history of the church was not the blessed millennium, but a period of great apostasy.12 The state of the church, from Christ’s time until the kingdom of Christ, may be divided into two: 1. The state of the church during the first four hundred years after Christ, usually called primitive times. 2. The state of the church during the times of Antichrist, whom Jesus Christ is to destroy with the brightness of his coming.13 Like Mede, Goodwin marked the rise of Antichrist shortly after the time of Constantine with the emergence of the papacy.14 Consequently Goodwin reached the same conclusion with Mede that the millennium must be a future event. In his exposition on Ephesians in 1641, Goodwin anticipated a future “glorious church on earth” which would “continue for a thousand years.”15 He also interpreted the reign of Christ during the millennium in exactly the same manner as Mede. Christ would not reign on earth during the 1000 years, but part of heaven would come down to rule the earth and expand the glory of Christ’s kingdom.16 However, even though Goodwin followed Mede’s chronological sequence for the visions, he differed in the historical application of these visions. Goodwin believed that Mede had implied a possible date for the destruction of the Antichrist. “I find also Mr Mede, in his Clavis, to pitch upon 1656, though tacitly and implicitly, yet clearly enough, as the time he most inclined unto for the 10

Found in: Goodwin, The Works of Thomas Goodwin, vol. III, pp. 1-230. Ibid. 7, 21, 79. 12 Ibid. 71. 13 Ibid. 65. 14 Ibid. 65. 15 Ibid, I, 521. 16 Ibid. 506. 11


expiration of Antichrist’s kingdom.”17 He determined this by citing that Mede synchronized the sounding of the first trumpet with the beginning of the pope’s reign in 395 A.D. By adding 1260 years (the prophetic days of the Beast’s reign) he concluded the end of that reign would be at the end of the year 1655. Thus, Christ would return in 1656.18 On this point Goodwin’s reading of Mede’s date for the beginning of the millennium was not entirely accurate. In a letter dated 22 May 1628 to Archbishop James Ussher, Mede speculated that the beginning of the Beast’s reign was in 476 A.D. and would then end in 1736.19 Nevertheless Goodwin formulated his own calculations. Instead of using Mede’s interpretation that the reign of Antichrist would be 1260 years, Goodwin turned to Daniel 12:11,12 as his key for unlocking the exact date. These verses give two numbers for the duration of the “abomination,” 1290 and 1335 prophetic days or years.20 Beginning with the emperor Julian in 360-365 A.D., Goodwin added 1290 and 1335 and came up with two dates: 1650 and 1700. These two dates served as an inclusio bracketing the period in where the reign of Antichrist (he included in this the fall of Turkish Empire) would come to an end and at the same time preparations for the kingdom of Christ would begin.21 The year 1700 would mark the beginning of Christ’s millennial reign, “which is the consummation of all.”22 With this alternative interpretation, Goodwin projected the millennium further into the future; beyond what he thought was Mede’s initial date. Regardless of ecclesiological differences, Goodwin appropriated many of Mede’s interpretations. In doing so, he stands as an important link between New England millenarians and their English millenarian patriarch. As a vocal defender of congregational polity at the Westminster Assembly beginning in 1643, Goodwin was highly respected by other puritans who followed the “congregational way.”23 Congregationalists, in Old and New England, formed an intimate solidarity. Many of the New Englanders were invited to attend the Assembly, although eventually they decided not to make the long voyage back to England.24 Moreover Goodwin wrote the preface to John Cotton’s The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (1644), a book defending congregational church polity. 17

Ibid. 196. Ibid. 196. 19 Mede, Works, p. 734. 20 Daniel 12:11, 12 reads: “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1335 days.” 21 “And so, from the first period should begin the great turn towards the accomplishment of them, and the immediate preparations thereunto. And in the interim of that immediate space of time between 1650 or ’56 and 1700 shall follow the orderly performance of those things which are to end and consummate all before the glorious kingdom of Christ. As first, the ruin of Rome, and so the end of Antichrist’s reign; and then the destruction of the Turkish period of 1335, falling out about 1700, which is the consummation of all.” Goodwin, Works, vol. III, p. 198. 22 Ibid. 198. 23 Thomas Goodwin, et.al., Apologeticall Narration (London, 1644). 24 Paul, Assembly of the Lord, pp. 125-126. 18


With such a close network of like-minded puritans, the influence of Goodwin’s, and consequently Mede’s, millenarianism on these first-generation settlers is clearly detectable. Amongst the first generation of New England settlers the most obvious indication of their eschatological sympathies can be seen in their interpretation of the millennium. As was mentioned earlier, Goodwin’s close congregational colleague was John Cotton (1584-1652). Mason Lowance comments, “[i]n New England, Mede’s most prominent early aapostle was John Cotton, minister to the Massachusetts Bay Colony and one of the most important figures in the founding of the Puritan commonwealth.”25 In 1633 he fled from the persecution of the Laudian establishment and immigrated to Massachusetts, where he served as minister of the First Church of Boston. Cotton agreed that Mede’s synchronisms were the key to properly interpreting the visions of the Apocalypse. So that all these are manifest to be contemporary (as they call it) to begin together in the same period of time, and to end together; The Gentiles (which is the Roman Catholick Church) treading down the true Church of God forty two months: And the two Witnesses prophecying in sackcloth 1260.dayes: And the womans flight into the wildernesse, and her continuance and abode there 1260. Dayes, where she was nourished by the prophecying of those two Witnesses: So that expound aright one of these and you cleare the right Interpretation of all.26 Regarding the timeframe of the millennium, Cotton rejected the interpretation of other commentators who wished to place the millennium in the past history of the church. For Cotton, the past – including the thousand years beginning with Constantine – did not reflect a period when the saints ruled. Concurring with Mede, Cotton concluded that the millennial rule of the saints could only be expected in the future, and “most properly begin from the throwing down of Antichrist and the destruction of Rome.”27 Yet, like many of Mede’s other disciples, Cotton modified some of Mede’s interpretations to address his own theological concerns. He wedded Mede’s millenarianism with his own apocalyptic understanding of ecclesiastical polity. Cotton incorporated the issue of church polity as an apocalyptic sign. Like other 25

Lowance, The Language of Canaan, p. 127. John Cotton, An exposition upon the thirteenth chapter of the revelation (London, 1655), p. 83. 27 idem, The Churches Resurrection, or the Opening of the Fift and sixt verses of the 20th Chap. Of the Revelation (London, 1642), p. 5. “Besides, after the thousand yeares are expired, it is here said the Saints have a comfortable time of it. (over what they had;) that they doe rule, and sit upon Thrones, and Judgement is given them; Now take any of these times, wherein this period of a thousand yeares is wont to be assigned, it will not hold true that the Saints had a time of Rule and Judicature after it; take a thousand yeares from Christ, or Constantine, or Theodosius, though a thousand yeares from that be expired long agoe, yet hitherto it is not given to the Saints to Rule.” Ibid. 5. 26


Protestants, Cotton’s writings are filled with vitriolic condemnations of the papal Antichrist. However, Cotton also included the institution of a national church as an “Image of the great beast.”28 He argued that civil magistrates should not have any power over the church.29 Of course his congregational bias was transparent in this interpretation. Nevertheless Cotton inserted an apocalyptic dimension into the polity debates of the early seventeenth century. Cotton encouraged other congregationalists to give thanks because God “hath delivered us from this Monster, both our Fathers from this great beast, and our selves from the remnants of the Image of this beast, from all Diocesan and National Churches, and from Metropollitan & Catholick visible Churches that are Images of this great beast.”30 With a prestigious figure like John Cotton setting a precedent for colonial millenarianism, others from the first generation followed in the same eschatological tradition. William Hooke (1601-1678) of New Haven expressed his millenarian views when he described the kingdom of Christ as currently in “a very low condition,” awaiting Christ’s return.31 At that time, however Christ will judge the world with the saints. These deceased saints will return to participate in the judgment and serve as examples of perfection.32 Likewise he anticipated the kingdom of Christ after the fall of the Pope and the Turks, extending for a thousand years of great comfort and peace. And when Knowledge, Holiness, and Peace shall abound on the Earth; when Turk and Pope, and all oppose the Kingdom of Christ shall be destroyed, and Satan bound and confined to the bottomless Pit, during the Thousand years. I say, This must needs be a very comfortable time. Great then shall be the peace of Zions Children, when God shall make her an external Excellency, and a joy of many Generations, when violence shall no more be heard in her Land,wasting and destruction within her Borders; but men shall call her Walls, Salvation; and her Gates, Praise[.]33 Hooke’s millenarianism was similar to the interpretation of Mede in projecting the millennium into the future following the fall of the papacy and the Turkish Empire. Edward Johnson (1608?-1672) also articulated a millenarian eschatology in his book, Wonder-Working Providence of Sions Saviour in New England. Johnson was a former leader of the militia at Woburn and his writings are colored 28

Cotton, An exposition, p. 29. Ibid. 39. 30 Ibid. 18. 31 William Hooke, The Priviledge of Saints on Earth, Beyond Those in Heaven…To which is added, A short Discourse of the Nature and Extent of the Gospel-dayy (London, 1673), p. 35. 32 Ibid. 12. 33 Ibid. 46. 29


with military imagery.34 Johnson anticipated a transformation when “the Kingdome of the Earth shall become the Kingdome of our Lord Christ in a more peculiar manner, then now they are.”35 He followed Mede in repudiating those who place the personal reign of Christt on earth during the millennium. Johnson wrote, “Not that he shall come personally to Reign upon Earth (as some vainly imagine) but his powerfull Presence and Glorious brightnesses of his Gospell both to Jew and Gentile.”36 Moreover Johnson agreed with Cotton by identifying the Church of England’s ecclesiastical polity as another sign of the Antichrist. He argued that churches should follow the matter and forme…as were in the Primitive Times (before Antichrist Kingdome prevailed) plainly poyned out by Christ and his Apostles, in most of their Epistles to be neither National nor Provinciall, but gathered together in Covenant of such a number as might ordinarly meete together in one place, and built of such living stones as outwardly appere Saints by calling.37 Johnson creatively combined Cotton’s apocalyptic ecclesiastical interpretation with Mede’s understanding of the “Apostasy of the Latter Times.” The rise of the Antichrist after the period of the early church did not result in simply the corruption of various practices (adoration of saints, the mass, etc.), but it also extended to the structure of church government as well. In 1637, after receiving a letter from John Cotton describing the amicable ecclesiastical climate in New England, John Davenport (1597-1670) departed England for the colonies. He joined Cotton in Massachusetts, but eventually settled in New Haven. Davenport is an interesting case since his millenarian comments were written in 1667 – thirty years after his so called “errand” from Old England. How Davenport perceived himself (a first generation New Englander) in the millenarian tradition was revealed in his enlightening comments on the different strands of millenarianism present in Old England.

34

Johnson wrote, “Gentlemen, Corporalls and fellow-Souldiers, keepe your weapons in a continuall readinesse, seeing you are called [to] fight the Battails of your Lord Christ; who must raigne till hee hath put all his enemies under his Feet, his glorious Victories over Antichrist are at hand, never yet did any Souldier rejoyce in dividing the spoyle after Victory, as all the Souldiers of Christ shall, to see his judgment executed upon the great Whore, and withall the Lambs bride prepared for him, who comes Skipping over & trampling m down the great mountaines of the Earth, whose universall Government will then appeare glorious, when not onely the Assyrians, Babilonians, Persians, Grecian, and Roman Monarchies shall subject themselves unto him, but also all the other new upstart Kingdomes, Dukedomes, or what else can be named, shall fall before him.” Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence of Sions Saviourr (London, 1654), p. 11. 35 Ibid. 112. 36 Ibid. 11. 37 Ibid. 4.


First, Davenport dismissed those who used millenarianism as a justification for violent political and social action – namely, the Fifth Monarchists. But about this also they, who of late were called the fifth Monarch-men, did err on the other hand, especially two ways. First, By anticipating the time [of the millennium], which will not be till the pouring out of the sixth and seventh Vials. Secondly, By putting themselves upon a work which shall not be done by men, but by Christ himself [.]38 Second, Davenport praised the work of Goodwin and Mede. He admired Mede for detailing the proper course of events from Christ’s return to judge the Antichrist and the first resurrection of the saints at the beginning of the thousand years, to the general resurrection at the end of the millennium.39 In Goodwin’s writings Davenport found the best defense of a corporeal first resurrection in Apocalypse 20:5-7.40 Yet what is most revealing is Davenport’s recognition that the millenarianism of the Fifth Monarchists was not the authentic position of Mede, “who was no phanatick, as the Prelates themselves will grant.”41 Prelates within the Church of England understood that some radical sects seeking to overthrow the established church were using millenarian doctrines as justification for their actions. They also knew that the most scholarly and learned millenarian studies were being produced from an intellectual giant within their own ranks. Again it must be pointed out that under the Laudian tenure Mede’s books were banned from publication. Still, the more perceptive students of the Apocalypse recognized the fact that Mede’s millenarian conclusion never pushed him towards a revolutionary agenda. Thirty years after he departed England, Davenport observed that Mede’s millenarianism provided no fuel for the fire of revolution; and, quite tellingly, he aligned himself with Mede’s brand of millenarianism. With that understanding neither radical involvement (such as that displayed by the Fifth Monarchists), nor radical separation (a millenarian errand into the wilderness) can find its ideological roots in the millenarianism articulated by Joseph Mede. Some New Englanders, like John Davenport, who followed Mede’s interpretations, likewise followed his attitude regarding active participation in establishing the millennium. Consequently, a good number of the first generation of New England settlers were millenarians. Their millenarianism followed the method and interpretations of Joseph Mede and his congregationalist mediator, Thomas Goodwin. But did this eschatological position have any influence on their decision to migrate across the Atlantic Ocean? Did they view themselves as 38

John Davenport, “Epistle to the Reader”, written on 18 September 1667, in Increase Mather, The mystery of Israel’s salvation (London, 1669), p. A6. 39 Ibid. A6. 40 Ibid. A7. 41 Ibid. A6.


God’s “peculiar” people, heirs to the covenant promises? Were they intent on establishing the New Jerusalem, the capital city of Christ’s earthly kingdom, on the North American continent? Smolinski has pointed out that previous studies, which have sought answers to these questions in the millenarianism of the first settlers, are guilty of “divorcing language from doctrine.”42 Instead the comments of John Davenport serve as a preface for answering these questions. For the first generation of New Englanders, millenarianism was not a doctrine that prompted urgent political and social upheaval – whether it be in the form of active involvement or withdrawal. Mede, the acknowledged patriarch of English millenarianism, was not moved to participate in either the puritan revolution or migration. Therefore, in order to understand properly the millenarian eschatology of these New England settlers it is important to wed their language regarding their “elect” status and the New Jerusalem with their doctrine of the true identity of Israel and the millennial kingdom of Christ.

9.iii NEW ENGLAND: GOG AND MAGOG OR NEW JERUSALEM? In a letter to Joseph Mede dated 2 March 1634, Dr. William Twisse – sometime resident in New England – requested Mede’s opinion of the English Plantations.43 Twisse confessed that he once considered, after seeing the success of the Gospel in New England, “Why may not that be the place of New Jerusalem?”44 Mede, however, objected to any such speculation. “Concerning our Plantation in the American world, I wish them as well as any body; though I differ from them far, both in other things, and in the ground they go upon.”45 No, America would not be the place of the New Jerusalem because, Mede thought, it was a land thoroughly possessed by Satan. Likewise he was skeptical of the missionary efforts to convert the natives, since they had lived under the rule of the Devil for so long.46 Mede viewed North America as the place where the Devil had fled once he lost his authority over the European continent; and so the Devil searched for a new land where he could “reign more absolutely and without control.”47 Mede was thankful that he was not born in a land “among Pagans and barbarous Indians, a people without God in the World.”48 North America would 42

Smolinski, ““Israel Redivivus”, p. 358. Mede, Works, pp. 798-799. 44 Ibid. 799. 45 Letter dated 23 March 1634/5 from Mede to Twisse. Ibid. 799. 46 “And though there be but little hope of general Conversion of those Natives in any considerable part of that Continent; yet I suppose it may be a work pleasing to Almighty God and our Blessed Saviour, to affront the Devil with the sound of the Gospel and Cross of Christ in those places where he had thought to have reigned securely and out of the dinne thereof: and though we make no Christians there, yet to bring from thither to disturb and vex him, where he reigned without check.” Ibid. 800. 47 Ibid. 800. 48 Ibid. 165. 43

The Puritan Errand Revised d 185

not be the place of New Jerusalem, and in fact Mede proposed that it would not be included within the borders of the millennial kingdom at all. Instead he anticipated the establishment of the New Jerusalem in Judea and the boundaries of the millennial kingdom to be restricted to the Old World, thus excluding North America from the future blessings of Christ.49 Still Mede did assign a role for North America within the apocalyptic drama. Apocalypse 20: 7,8 reads: “When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle.” Gog and Magog were also figured in the prophecies of Ezekiel (38:1,2), typifying the enemies of God and his people. Mede answered, “that this army shall come from those nations, which live in the Hemisphere opposite us, whom the Best and most Great God in his secret judgement, for the most part shall not cherish with the light of his Gospel.”50 For Mede, those nations in the opposite hemisphere were the inhabitants of North and South America.51 Instead of hoping for the New Jerusalem to be erected in America, Mede designated that country as the apocalyptic Gog and Magog, literally the armies of Satan. The implications for Mede’s interpretation of Gog and Magog are staggering for the puritan errand into the wilderness. As Smolinski observes, If Mede was right and the American hemisphere was not to share in the sacred geography of Christ’s millennial kingdom, then the Puritan Errand into the American Wilderness was nolens volens an errand in futility, an errand, ironically, not into the future garden of Eden but to the very gates of Hell itself! By transplanting themselves to America, Puritans had in effect foolishly traded Christ’s future Paradise in the Old World for Satan’s abode in the New.52 What could be more disheartening for New England millenarians who expressed a great admiration for Mede? In response the New England settlers required an extensive re-mapping of the geographic boundaries of Christ’s millennial kingdom. So devastating were Mede’s comments that successive generations of New Englanders, down to Jonathan Edwards in the eighteenth century, felt it necessary to defend the sanctity of their new country.53 Against Mede, the puritans in America did not see their residence in the New World as a forfeiture 49

Twisse was convinced by Mede’s resolve “concerning the place of New Jerusalem, namely the land of Jury.” Ibid. 799. 50 Mede, Works, 1648 edition, “A Conjecture Concerning Gog and Magog in the Revelation”, p. 3. 51 “And that both which do appertain to the inhabitants of the land of America, both Northern and Southern, is unknown to none that understand Geography; a for seeing they inhabit the Hemisphere opposite to us, they are so fitly situated that by directly passing the Ocean from their own coasts, they may easily encompass round our world.” Ibid. 5. 52 Smolinski, ““Israel Redivivus”, p. 371. 53 Ibid. 373.


of their reward in the millennium. At the same time, their inclusion of America within the millennial kingdom reveals whether or not they actually anticipated the capital of the millennium to be erected in the New World when they departed on their first errand. Beginning with a third generation New Englander and working back to the first generation’s response to Mede will provide a more accurate account of how these settlers understood the place of America in the millennial kingdom. Cotton Mather (1663-1728), the pastor of the Second Church of Boston, and grandson of John Cotton, defended New England’s participation in the future blessings of God in his book Theopolis Americana, published in 1710. In this book Mather described the wonderful millennial blessings that were yet to come; he longed for the fall of the papal Antichrist and the establishment of Christ’s kingdom, represented by the great mountain in Daniel’s vision.54 Likewise he eagerly awaited the New Jerusalem, “The Blessed CITY…a Market Place of Righteousness, a Mountain of Holiness.”55 These were cosmic events, which he believed all true Christians should anticipated. Would America share in these blessings? Mather categorically affirmed America’s inclusion. Referring to the first resurrection of the martyrs at the beginning of the millennium, Mather asserts, “There have been martyrs of Christ in America. The Blood of the Martyrs here, is an Omen that the Truths for which they suffered are to Rise, and Live, and carry all before them, in the Land that has been so Marked for the Lord.”56 Mather regarded America as “Legible in these Promises” of God, and the receiver of “so many such Gifts.”57 It is important to remember Cotton Mather’s context for writing these words. In the style of the prophet Jeremiah, he lamented the moral and religious degeneration of New England in the late seventeenth century.58 Mather attempted to use the reward of millennial blessings as a motivation for repentance and a return to covenant faithfulness. In doing this he did not regard America as the capital of the future kingdom of Christ. He only desired that America would reflect the same righteousness and holiness that would be manifested in the New Jerusalem. “Oh! May such a Speech be used in this our Land! Grant it, Oh! Grant it, Thou God of our Salvation!”59 Additionally, Smolinski explains that Cotton Mather understood there to be two New Jerusalems, one earthly in Judea, and the other suspended in the New Heavens directly above its earthly counter-part.60 For

54

Cotton Mather, Theopolis Americana (Boston, 1710), p. 44. Ibid. 7. 56 Ibid. 45. 57 Ibid. 44, 37. 58 See Harry Stout, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial North America (New York and Oxford, 1986), pp. 105-126. 59 Mather, Theopolis, p. 7. 60 “As these passages from Mather’s recently edited treatise reveal, the New Jerusalem was not to be located in Boston, nor on the American continent, but above the geographical terrain of Judea, 55

The Puritan Errand Revised

187

Mather, the blessings of the millennial kingdom extended to New England, but New Jerusalem was not to be built in an American wilderness.61 Samuel Sewall (1652-1730), a judge and fellow at Harvard College, was the only exception who suggested that some part of North America would be the sight of the New Jerusalem. He located the capital of the millennium west of Rome in the “New-Spain” or the Spanish colonies in North America.62 Sewall was determined to refute Mede; he dismissed Mede’s observation that no one, during his time, had yet been converted in North America. Sewall pointed out the conversion of the famous Indian Squanto.63 He also speculated that the Indians were descendents of the ten lost tribes of Israel, citing Mannaseh ben Israel’s book, The Hope of Israell (1650), and therefore would be included in the final salvation of the Jews predicted by the Apostle Paul in Romans 11.64 Sewall reasoned that if such a blessed apocalyptic event would take place in America, how could anyone conceive of America as Gog and Magog? Furthermore if the New Jerusalem will be limited to the “old Roman Empire” it would also exclude “Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Bohemeia, Moscovia, and much of Germany.”65 Sewall added, New Jerusalem will not straiten, and enfeeble; but wonderfully dilate, and invigorate Christianity in the several Quarters of the World, in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, and in America. And one that has been born, or but liv’d in America, between thirty, and fourty years, it may be pardonable for him to ask, Why may not that be the place of New Jerusalem?66 Even with what seems to be a very tentative statement, which would confirm a possible errand to America for the purposes of setting up the New Jerusalem,

above the Judean capital of a restored Jerusalem.” Smolinski, ““Israel Redivivus”, p. 376; Smolinski (ed.), An edition of “Triparadisus”, pp. 244-245, 269. 61 Smolinski adds, “Cotton Mather, like many of his fellow Americans, reacted against Mede’s exclusionary statements not by claiming the City of God for New England alone but by extending the boundaries of Christ’s sacred geography into the American hemisphere, thus safeguarding New England’s membership in Christ’s kingdom. Americans’ difference with Joseph Mede notwithstanding, they were of one mind that the New Jerusalem would be located in Judea.” Smolinski, ““Israel Redivivus”, p. 378. 62 Samuel Sewall, Phaenomena quaedam Apocalyptica (Cambridge, Mass., 1697), pp. 31, 3. Also see Smolinski, ““Israel Redivivus” , pp. 378-379. 63 Sewall, Phaenomena, p. 33. 64 Ibid. 2. For more on the Jewish Indian Theory see: Richard H. Popkin, “The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Indian Theory”, in Y. Kaplan, H. Méchoulan and R. H. Popkin (eds.), Menassah ben Israel and His Worldd (Leiden, 1989), pp. 63-82; Amy H. Sturgis, “Prophesies and Politics: Millenarians, Rabbis, and the Jewish Indian Theory”, The Seventeenth Century, vol. XIV, no. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 15-23. 65 Sewall, Phaenomena, p. 27. 66 Ibid. 2.


Sewall in actuality was not so adamant. In a letter to Governor William Burnet of New York, Sewall wrote, I am far from being positive that Judea, or any other part of Asia must afford situation to the New Jerusalem. I rather hope that America Mexicana will be that happy Place. Asia, Africa, and Europe have already had their Turn, And they ought not to envy, but to rejoice at this glorious Marriage of their younger Sister.67 Such caution from the only advocate of an American New Jerusalem hardly confirms a millenarian errand. Likewise Sewall hoped that the New Jerusalem would be located in the Spanish colonies. The Spanish did not conquer Mexico as part of an errand into the wilderness, nor did the English settlers attempt to migrate to the Spanish colonies. The second generation New Englander, Nicholas Noyes (1647-1717), responded to Mede’s opinion of the English colonies with severe frankness. The degeneration observed by Mather did not begin with his own contemporaries, but began in the previous generation. Noyes recognized that New England was undergoing a period of unfaithfulness, yet he still held out hope for God’s blessings upon the American colony. “And notwithstanding the present bad circumstances of America, I know no reason to conclude this Continent shall not partake of the Goodness of God in the latter days.”68 Noyes found evidence for his hope in the success of Christ’s spiritual kingdom in the New World through the preaching of the Gospel.69 He agreed with Mede that America was previously a land under the authority of Satan, but he claimed that Christ followed Satan and took possession of America for himself.70 Subsequently, as a possession of Christ, North America would be included in the future millennial blessings. Defending the first generation, Noyes wrote, Now as for New England, if the First Planters of it had dream’d that the very Situation or Climate of this Land had been crime enough to make them aliens from the Covenant of promise; they would not have Sold their European Birthright, for a mess of American Pottage.71 But did these first planters hope that New England would be the place of the New Jerusalem? Noyes disagreed identifying that interpretation as one of two extreme 67

Samuel Sewall, The Letter-Book of Samuel Sewall, 1674-1729. In Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Scoiety, sixth series, vol. 2, (Boston, 1886-1888), pp. 155-156. 68 Nicholas Noyes, New-Englands Duty and Interest, To be a Habitation of Justice, and Mountain of Holiness (Boston, 1698), pp. 68-69. 69 Ibid. 76. 70 Ibid. 75. 71 Ibid. 76.


positions. Some “have conjectured that America will be the head Quarters of Gog and Magog: and that it will be Hell it self…[but] there are Others that ask why it may not be the New Jerusalem, or part of it?”72 Obviously the first extreme position was Mede’s, and the second belonged to Sewall, published only a year before. In 1646 a sermon by Peter Bulkeley, the first generation New England minister at Concord, was published with the title, The Gospel-Covenant; or the Covenant of Grace Opened. Bulkeley’s sermon was an exhortation to desire and expect the future blessings of God. He addressed his remarks to two specific audiences: And heare, O England, my deare native Countrey (whose womb bare me, whose breath nourished me, and in whose armes I should desire to dye), give eare to one of thy children, which dearely loveth thee. Be thou exhorted thankfully to accept the grace which is now ready to be revealed unto thee…And thou New-England, which art exalted in priviledges of the Gospel above many other people, know the time of thy visitation, and consider the great things the Lord hath done for thee.73 If Bulkeley, as a first-generation settler, was convinced that England had forfeited her role in the apocalyptic plan of God and was now replaced by New England, it would be inconsistent for him to declare that England still awaited some form of blessing. One would expect a tone of condemnation, or at the very least a stern rebuke, since through the Church of England’s polity and practice she had bowed to the Antichrist, and nott the optimistic affection expressed in Bulkeley’s sermon. Bulkeley still regarded Old England as recipient of future blessing. In the mind of this first generation New Englander, the Old World had not forfeited any divine rewards, nor had New World become the exclusive and privileged locus of God’s favor in the millennial kingdom. Peter Bulkeley’s attitude towards Old England was shared by other first generation New Englanders like John Eliot (1604-1690). Eliot arrived in Boston in 1633 and was zealous in his efforts to convert the native Indians.74 Yet, like Bulkeley, he did not abandon his former country and reassign exclusive millennial significance to North America. In fact Eliot believed that the triumph of Christ’s kingdom had already begun, and England was manifesting this glorious event. Eliot saw the fulfilment off Daniel’s prophecy of the statue of the four kingdoms destroyed by the stone (Daniel 2:31-35) in the present conflicts 72

Ibid. 74. Peter Bulkeley, The Gospel-Covenant; or The Covenant of Grace Openedd (London, 1646), pp. 13-14. 74 J. A. de Jong, As The Waters Cover the Sea: Millennial expectations in the rise of AngloAmerican missions 1640-1810 (Kampen, 1970), pp. 67-75; Bozeman, To Live Ancient Lives, pp. 263-286. 73


engaging the British Isles in the 1640s. “Now it seemeth to me that the Lord Christ is now accomplishing these things in great Britain. The faithful brethren in Scotland gave the first blow at the dirty toes, and feet of this Image.”75 Eliot longed for Christ’s return, and his ascension as king over the earth. He even declared that “Christ is the only rightful Heir of the Crown of England, and all other Nations also”; and he yearned for Christ “to take possession of his Kingdom, making England first in that blessed work of setting up the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus; and in order thereunto, he hath cast down not only the miry Religion and Government of Antichrist, but also the former form of civil Government.”76 Strikingly, Eliot gave priority to Old England over New England in establishing Christ’s kingdom. New England was included in the kingdom of Christ, but not the focus. Eliot still looked to the Old World for the primary accomplishment of God’s end-time purposes. Without a doubt the opinion of Joseph Mede troubled New England millenarians well into the eighteenth century. These settlers defended their new country against Mede’s interpretation which consigned North America to the realm of Satan. Instead they expanded the spatial geography of Christ’s kingdom to include America. New England millenarians, aside from Samuel Sewall’s tentative suggestions, did not expect the New Jerusalem to be located in the New World. Thus, the New England millenarians’ interpretation of the geographic boundaries of the millennial kingdom, and especially the location of New Jerusalem, does not support an errand to erect the millennial capital in New England, especially since those who first arrived in America still looked to Old England as a primary eschatological locus of Christ’s imminent victory over Satan.

9.iv THE NATIONAL CONVERSION OF THE JEWS Sacvan Bercovitch writes, [T]he New England Puritans … departed from tradition, however, in what I suggested was their main use of the doctrine of the National Conversion: their application of the doctrine, literally and historically, to their own venture. It was an application which violated a fundamental tenet of Protestant exegesis – that relation between the old chosen people and the new was solely spiritual – and an application for which the Puritans’rhetoric and vision had amply prepared them. As Israel redivivus in the type, they could claim all the ancient prerogatives.77

75

John Eliot, The Christian Commonwealth: or, The Civil Policy of The Rising Kingdom of Jesus Christt (London, 1659; modern facsimile: New York, 1972), p. iv-v. 76 Ibid. vi. 77 Sacvan Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad d (Madison, 1978), p. 75.


Subscribing to Perry Miller’s theory of a puritan errand, Bercovitch assumes that New Englanders regarded themselves as the New Israel, replacing the ethnic Israel as the chosen people of God. This self-perception motivated their “venture” to establish a new Canaan (or Promised Land) in the wilderness of America. According to Bercovitch, the promises given to ancient Israel – including the national conversion described d in Romans 11 – were now passed to New England. Reiner Smolinski forcefully refutes this assessment by demonstrating that the majority of New England puritans held to the doctrine of a future national conversion of ethnic Jews.78 In asserting this doctrine they did not break with the exegetical tradition, butt affirmed one of the most prevalent Protestant hopes. Joseph Mede framed the doctrine of the national conversion of ethnic Israel within his millenarian eschatology. The conversion of the Jews will not be simply a general blessing for the church, but it will have specific implications for the arrival of the millennium. In his interpretation of Apocalypse 7, Mede saw a connection with Romans 11. Apocalypse 7:2-4 describes an angel placing God’s seal on 144,000 individuals from the tribes of Israel. He calculated that this was 12 multiplied by 12,000, with 12 being the number of the tribes of Israel but ultimately representing the 12 Apostles. Mede believed this was an image of the New Testament Church.79 Additionally verse 9 states that there “was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb.” Mede interpreted this “multitude” as the full number of the Gentiles in Romans 11:25 that the Apostle T he fulnesse of the Paul predicted would precede the salvation of Israel. “[T] Gentiles shall come in; that is, that innumerable multitude out of all Nations, Tribes, People and Tongues, which the sealing of this Israell [referring to the 144,000] at length being finished, John testifieth he saw signing prayers to God and to the Lambe.”80 Now the place of this conversion within Mede’s millenarian chronological sequence can be determined from his synchronisms. Mede synchronized the sealing of the 144,000, or the gathering in of Gentiles into the church, with the image of the whore of Babylon and the Beast (chapters 17 and 18).81 Subsequently, when Babylon and the Beast are destroyed, the fullness of the Gentiles will be completed as well, thereby paving the way for the conversion of the Jews and the millennium. Therefore, for Mede, the national conversion of Israel served as an apocalyptic sign heralding the return of Christ and the dawn of the millennium. How then would this conversion be accomplished? Mede compared the Jewish conversion with the conversion experience of the Apostle Paul on the 78

Smolinski, ““Israel Redivivus”, pp. 361-369. Mede, The Key, Part I, p. 72. 80 Ibid. I, 72. 81 Mede’s Fourth Synchronisms, Ibid. I, 8-9. 79


road to Damascus. This was a characteristically novel interpretation by Mede. In an important letter to William Twisse dated 11 November 1629, Mede suggested, For my part, I incline to think…that they shall be called by Vision and Voice from Heaven, as S. Paull was; and that that place of Zach.ch.12. verse 10. They shall see him whom they have pierced, and that of Matth. 23. verse 39. Ye shall not see me henceforth, till you say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, seems to imply some such matter. They will never believe that Christ reign at the right hand of God, until they see him. It must be an invincible evidence which must convert them after so many hundred years settle obstinancy. But this I speak of the body of the Nation.82 The conversion of the Jews will be an extraordinary event, where Christ will miraculously appear to convince the Jews of his kingship. For Mede, the Apostle Paul’s conversion served as a pattern for the Jews, because he formerly opposed Christianity even to the point of persecution, and thus needed Christ to appear to him personally in order to be convinced d of the validity of Christian gospel.83 Mede further speculated that Paul’s conversion was actually God’s pledge to secure the salvation of the Jewish nation in the future. I pray consider seriously that pattern of S. Paul’s Conversion, so differing from all other mens that ever were, and how fitly his condition before it resembles that of the Jews in their bitter obstinancy against Christ and Christians. Why did Christ vouchsafe so strange a call to that man above other men? [W]as it not a pledge or pattern of something that should be vouchsafed his Nation?84 While Mede’s view expected d a miraculous conversion en masse just prior to the millennium, he did not discourage efforts towards evangelizing the Jews in the present. The ordinary means of the preaching of the Gospel also would be used to convert a small number of Jews as “Preludia” or “forerunners of the great and main Conversion.”85 Moreover this interpretation solved the potential problem of the Jewish Diaspora. With the Jews scattered across Europe and Asia, the logistical difficulties of a national conversion were solved, for Mede, by this extraordinary means. Mede considered that, “a Vision or Apparition in Heaven may be seen to the greatest part of the world at the same time (as Stars and 82

Mede, Works, p. 761. Mede composed a chart outlining the similarities between Paul’s conversion and the Jews, entitled “The Mystery of S. Paul’s Conversion: or, The Type of the Calling of the Jews.” Ibid. 891-892. 84 Ibid. 761. 85 Ibid. 766, 761. 83


Comets are:).”86 Therefore there would be no necessity for gathering the Jews to one particular place.87 The doctrine of the national conversion of the Jews was an integral part of the eschatology of the New England settlers. In the first generation William Hooke described the New Testament dispensation in terms of a twenty-four hour “Gospel-Day,” with both a morning and evening. The “Morning began with the rising of the Sun of Righteousness [a skillful play on words], when the dayspring from on high did visit us, and the people that sat in darkness saw great light.”88 The morning of the “Gospel-Day” would be the events that will precede Christ’s second coming. Likewise, Hooke believed that the evening would be “immediately before the Jews conversion.”89 Similar to Mede, Hooke placed the conversion of the Jews in a millenarian timeline, although illustrated by the metaphor of the “Gospel-Day.” Peter Bulkeley also affirmed the doctrine of a future national conversion. He described the present state of the Jews as “prisoners in the pit,” awaiting their release when they shall once again be “translated into the libertie of the people of God.”90 Bulkeley cited evidence in the Old Testament and the New Testament for this promise. From the Old Testament he agreed with the sixteenth-century Reformer Wolfgang Musculus’ interpretation that Moses’ breaking of the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments written on them, and then giving them again, prophesied the falling away and restoration of Israel in the end times.91 Looking at the New Testament, Bulkeley insisted that Romans 11, “speaketh of the rejection of the Jewes, but withall shewes that it was neither totall nor final.”92 There still awaited a “calling again” for God’s ancient people.93 The most extensive explanation of this doctrine can be found in the writings of the second generation New Englander, Increase Mather (1639-1723). Mather wrote two books detailing his position entitled The Mystery of Israel’s salvation (1669) and A Dissertation Concerning the Future Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1709).94 Like Bulkeley, Mather described the Jews in a state of imprisonment expecting a future release. “That the time will surely come, when 86

Letter to William Twisse dated 2 December 1629. Ibid. 767. This was Oliver Cromwell’s motivation for the readmission of the Jews to England. David Katz, Philo-Semitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England, 1603-1655 (Oxford, 1982); idem, The Jews in the History of England, 1485-1850 0 (Oxford, 1994), pp. 107-144. 88 Hooke, The Priviledge of Saints on Earth, pp. 126-127. 89 Ibid. 127. 90 Bulkeley, The Gospel-Covenant, p. 18. 91 Ibid. 18. 92 Ibid. 18. 93 Ibid. 18. 94 Mather’s second book was direct critique of his good friend Richard Baxter’s eschatology. Mather’s response to Baxter is added confirmation that millenarianism, influenced by Mede, extended beyond the mid-seventeenth century. And this was not limited to geographically to England, but extended to North America as well. For details on Baxter’s eschatology see chapter 8. 87


the body of the twelve Tribes of Israel shall be brought out of their present condition of bondage and misery, into a glorious and wonderful state of salvation.”95 In expounding the phrase “all Israel” in Romans 11:26, Mather gave four possible meanings. First, it could mean “few of all Israel” will be saved, connoting a curse rather than a blessing.96 Second, it could refer to just the “elect of God,” or spiritual Israel with no ethnic limits.97 A third possibility could be “every one of the natural posterity of Jacob.” Fourth and finally, “by all Israel, is meant the body of the Israelitish Nation,” and for Mather “that seemeth to be the genuine interpretation of the words.”98 Consistent with Mede’s highly distinctive doctrine, Mather agreed that the conversion would be similar to the Apostle Paul’s and that this event had apocalyptic importance. As for the manner of their Conversion, I still encline (with Mr. Mede. Dr. Twisse, Dr. Goodwin, Mr. Strong, and others) to think that it will be effected as Paul’s was, by a miraculous Appearance of Christ to some of them, and be carried on by the Preaching of the Gospel, with a most glorious down pouring of the Holy Spirit therewith.99 He also understood the future conversion of the Jews as one of the events directly preceding the arrival of the millennium. Mather built on Mede’s interpretation of the fourth monarchy from Daniel which would reign until the “Time, Times, and half a Time” would expire, and designated this period as the same time when the fullness of the Gentiles would be accomplished.100 This period will continue until the pouring out of the sixth vial and then the conversion of the Jews would be expected.101 While the exact date of these events, according to Mather, could not be predicted, the chronological sequence was unmistakable. The destruction of the fourth monarchy or papal Rome would be followed by the Jewish conversion, which would then be followed by the millennium.102 This neat apocalyptic timetable insured that the doctrine of the national conversion of the Jews would continue to have significance for millenarians in Old and New England. 95

Mather, The mystery, p. 12. Ibid. 5. 97 Ibid. 6. 98 Ibid. 9. 99 Mather, A Dissertation, p. 12. 100 Ibid. 3. 101 “Then by the Fulness of the Gentiles may be meant the full Time of the Continuance of that Monarchy, which will remain until Sixth Vial be poured out, and then is the Jews Conversion to be expected…When the Four Monarchies of the Gentiles are finished, especially when the last Period of the Fourth Kingdom prophesied of, viz. See Mr. Jos. Mede’s Works.” Ibid. 3. 102 “ [ I ]t is evident that Rome must be destroyed before the Jews can be converted.” Also, “after Israels salvation is consummate, no more persecution shall be heard of in the world, no not for a thousand years together.” Mather, The mystery, pp. 24, 67. 96


In light of the evidence for the New England settlers’ adherence to the doctrine of the national conversion as still promised to ethnic Jews, the statements of Bercovitch and others who agree with him must be rejected as inaccurate. The settlers of the North American colonies did not see themselves as the heirs to the promises originally given to the biblical nation of Israel. Their voyage to and settlement in the New World was not infused with a belief that they were now the favored people of God. As a nation, Israel still found favor in God’s eyes and could still expect a future salvation. These New Englanders were not unique in their understanding of this. Other millenarians anticipated the future salvation of Israel.103 However, the particular interpretations of Mede regarding this event reinforced the place off the Jews in a millenarian timeline that infused their future conversion with tremendous apocalyptic meaning and uniquely explained how the conversion would occur. For those who longed for Christ’s second coming and the millennial kingdom, the conversion of the Jews would be another sign demonstrating that the time of blessing was near.

9.v ISRAEL AND OLD TESTAMENT HERMENEUTICS Studies in the biblical uses of typology by New England puritans have been the focus of volumes of books and articles. Most of these works have examined typology primarily from a literary perspective.104 From these literary studies, punctuated by the ever-pervasive historiography of Perry Miller, many (like Mason Lowance) have concluded that the New Englanders employed “typology as a vehicle for minimizing the differences between the two dispensations [the periods of the Old and New Testament].”105 In other words typology was a convenient way to demonstrate that the Old Testament was still applicable to the church present after Christ’s resurrection; particularly the use of ancient Israel as a typological prefiguration of the church. The history of the nation of Israel, from exodus to the promise land and finally into exile, was applied to the present circumstances of the New England churches. These literary studies concluded that New Englanders regarded themselves as the antitype of Israel, replacing ethnic Israel as the recipients of God’s blessings; the ancient Jews’ elect status and exclusive hope for God’s protection and rule in the promised land were all transferred to the new North American Israel. However, as was demonstrated earlier, the New England settlers agreed that, because of the future national conversion of the Jews, ethnic Israel was not cast off entirely but would still enjoy the benefits of the covenant made with the patriarch Abraham. Puritan 103

Howard Hotson, “Antisemitismus, Philosemitismus und Chiliasmus im frühneuzeitlichen Europa”, WerkstattGeschichte 24 (Berlin, 1999), pp. 7-35. 104 Particularly in S. Bercovitch (ed.), Typology and Early American Literature (Boston, 1972); Miner (ed.), Literary Uses of Typology; Barbara Kiefer Lewalski, Protestant Poetics and the Seventeenth-Century Religious Lyric (Princeton, 1979); Lowance, The Language of Canaan. 105 Ibid. 103.


typology did not support Israel’s abdication of her place within the covenant. With that being the case, in order to explain how the New England settlers understood the relation between ethnic Israel and themselves within the redemptive plan of God, their hermeneutical method for interpreting the Old Testament in relation to the New must now be re-examined. Mason Lowance comments that the New Englanders formulated an analogy between “their own mission and Old Israel’s Exodus from Egypt,” because they followed “William Perkins’ rejection of the four-fold method, and deriv[ed] a rationale from Calvin’s insistence that the Church and the Kingdom of God were prefigured in the New Testament as well as the Old.”106 Lowance believes that Perkins and Calvin’s interpretation of the Old and New Testament as loose prefigurations of the spiritual kingdom off Christ allowed the New Englanders to infuse their errand with eschatological meaning.107 Since the Old Testament history of Israel prefigured the kingdom, and they were journeying towards the millennial kingdom, they could easily write themselves into the apocalyptic script as the new Israel. Lowance argues that such analogies were applied easily to the New England errand. Analogous to ancient Israel’s exodus, these puritans departed for a new Canaan with the elect status and the promised covenantal blessings of God. But is this entirely accurate in light of the tradition first established by Perkins and Calvin and latter carried on by Mede and other seventeenth century biblical scholars, like James Durham and William Ames? Moreover, did Perkins and Calvin’s interpretation of the Old Testament as temporal/physical types, prefiguring a spiritual reality, lay the foundation for the New Englander settlers’ justification for a temporal/physical fulfilment in their own history? In addition to his millenarian doctrines, Joseph Mede’s understanding of biblical typology was also significant for the New England settlers. Mede emphasized a double-literal meaning for Old Testament typological passages, where both the type and the antitype required historical referents. [I]n Typical Speeches it often comes to pass that the things which are spoken are true both in the Type and Antitype; as that in Hosea II.I Out of Egypt have I called my Son, was in some sense true both of Christt and Israel; and that in Exod.12.46. Thou shalt not break a bone thereof, f was true literally both of Christ and the Paschal Lamb; and that in Psal.22.18. They parted my garments among them, was true figuratively in David, and literally in Christ[.]108 In this definition Mede gave equal interpretive weight to both the literal and the typological readings of the Old Testament. Both must be interpreted fully and 106

Ibid. 27. Ibid. 26. 108 Mede, Works, p. 285. 107


properly, and neither reduced or replaced the other. Similar to Mede, James Durham (1622-1658), Professor of Divinity at Glasgow and minister of the Inner Church of Glasgow Cathedral, distinguished between a type and an allegory in his commentary on the Song of Solomon.109 Types were to have “verity of some History, as Jonas casting in the Sea, and being in the Fishes belly three days and three nights, when it is applyed to Christ in the New Testament.”110 Allegories did not require a true historical event, but instead had a “mystical” purpose, like the parables.111 In Durham’s definitions types are much more narrow and restricted, while allegories have greater freedom for application. He warned, Types are only Historical as such, and the truth of Fact agreeing in the Anti-type, make them up, it being clear in Scripture that such things are Types; for we must not forge Types without Scripture-warrant: But Allegories are principally Doctrinal, and in their scope intend not to clear, or compare Facts, but to hold forth and explain Doctrines[.]112 In this distinction Durham and Mede share the same hermeneutical restriction on biblical types. Moreover Durham shared Mede’s construction of a “twofold Literal sense of Scripture.”113 First there is a proper or immediate sense. In the Song of Solomon that would be Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter. The second sense is figurative or mediate, “setting out God’s calling Jews and Gentiles, unto fellowship with his Son.”114 From this Durham concluded: “Now we say, this Song…is not to be understood the first way, properly and immediately, but the second way, figuratively and mediately as holding forth some spiritual thing under borrowed expressions.”115 While not denying the first sense, Durham believed that the ultimate purpose for this book was to describe Christ and his Bride. The similarities between Mede and Durham demonstrate a common seventeenth-century hermeneutical tradition in dealing with Old Testament typology, which affirmed that the type and antitype must contain historical verity. Additionally, Mede explained that the movement from type to antitype was a movement from temporal to spiritual blessings. He specifically used the land of Canaan as an example. Temporal blessings for Israel under the Law included rest in the “earthly Canaan” with “long life and fulness of days.”116 But, “we must 109

James Durham, Clavis Cantici: or, An Exposition of the Song of Solomon (London, 1669), p. 6. Ibid. 8. 111 Ibid. 9. 112 Ibid. 9. 113 Ibid. 6. 114 Ibid. 6. 115 Ibid. 7. 116 Mede, Works, p. 249. 110


know that under these outward things were veiled the Spiritual and Eternal Promises. Not that these Temporall were onely shadows of the Eternal, and were not literally to be understood; but that the enjoying of those outwardd things, unto the Jew was a pledge of the Spirituall as it were inwrapped in them.”117 Likewise Mede’s interpretation of the Sabbath demonstrated the same double-literal fulfillment. The Sabbath observance in the Old Testament “was a sign and profession that Jehovah, and no other, was the God of Israel,” both as creator and deliverer from slavery in Egypt.118 In the New Testament the Lord’s Day (instead of the Sabbath) served as the same sign, but this time, of the church’s “deliverance from the Spiritual Egyptt and Spiritual Pharaoh.”119 Thus, by consistently interpreting the literal and typological sense of an Old Testament passage, along with recognizing the progression from temporal to spiritual blessings, Mede never mistook the status of ethnic Israel with that of the church. “For the deliverance of Israel out of Egyptt by the Ministery of Moses was intended for a Type and pledge of the Spiritual deliverance which was to come by Christ: their Canaan also, to which they marched, being a Type of that Heavenly inheritance which the redeemed by Christ do look for.”120 Agreeing with Mede on this point, William Ames (1576-1633), a close friend, included his thoughts on typology in his Medulla Sacrae Theologia (1612), later translated as The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (1642).121 Ames distinguished between the Old Testament, where Christ was exhibited outwardly or carnally, and the New Testament in which he was exhibited inwardly and spiritually.122 Like Mede, Ames paid particular attention to the spiritual fulfilment of Old Testament types. In the different oblations and rites of sacrifice he saw the shadows of the ordo salutis, specifically the doctrines of justification, sanctification and glorification.123 As a result Ames’ examination of Old Testament types produced no sense of a temporal divine purpose due to an elect status. The deliverance of ancient Israel out of Egypt by the ministry of Moses was a type of Christ’s spiritual redemption, and the blessing of the earthly Canaan typified the heavenly country.124 Again, Ames’ similarity with Mede provides further confirmation that the early seventeenth-century Protestant Old Testament hermeneutical tradition understood that the movement from type to antitype was a movement from physical/temporal blessings to spiritual/eternal rewards.

117

Ibid. 250. Ibid. 56. 119 Ibid. 57. 120 Ibid. 57. 121 Ames was also a fellow at Christ’s College from 1601-1610, and later corresponded with Mede during his residency in Holland. Mede, Works, pp. 782-783. 122 William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London, 1642), p. 171. 123 Ibid. 172. 124 Ibid. 173. 118


In his interpretation of Old Testament types, Mede (as well as Durham and Ames) was following the hermeneutical method first established by the two prominent sixteenth century theologians that Lowance originally cited. Both William Perkins and John Calvin had a great influence on the method of interpretation for biblical texts. In the late sixteenth century William Perkins reacted against the medieval four-fold sense of the Scripture as follows: The Church of Rome maketh 4. Senses of the Scripture, the literall, allegoricall, tropolgicall, & anagogicall, as in this her example. Melchisedek offered bred & wine. The literall sense is, that the King of Salem with meate which he brought, refreshed the souldiers of Abraham being tyred with trauell. The allegoricall is, that the Priest doth offer up Christ in ye Masse. The tropologicall is therefore something is to be given to the poore. The Anagogicall is, that Christ in like manner being in heauen, shall be the bread of life to the faithful. But this here deuice of the fourfold meaning must be exploded and rejected. THERE IS ONE ONELIE SENSE, AND THE SAME IS THE LITERALL. An Allegorie is onely a certain manner of vttering the same sense. The Analogue and Tropolgie are waies, whereby the sense may be applied. The Principall interpreter of the Scripture is the Holy Ghost.125 Obviously Perkin’s rejection of the medieval method, and his insistence on the literal sense, was heavily influenced by his strong anti-Roman Catholic bias.126 Perkins essentially reduced everything to the literal sense; nevertheless he did not deny the allegorical sense, but subsumed it under the literal sense. For Perkins the literal sense did not exclude an allegorical interpretation. Both of the senses were necessary for properly understanding a biblical passage. In Perkins the medieval four-fold sense was reduced to a two-fold or double-literal sense, subsequently refined further by Mede and Durham. Nevertheless Protestants did place restrictions on the allegorical sense compared to their medieval predecessors. Richard Muller points out that John Calvin’s Old Testament hermeneutic likewise did not break completely with the medieval tradition, but Calvin developed “the complexus of ideas presented in a text to cover an extended meaning virtually identical in context to that covered by allegory or trope but more closely governed by the grammatical and historical

125

William Perkins, The Arte of Prophesying g (London, 1609), pp. 30-31. More on medieval exegesis can be found in Karlfried Froehlich ‘“Always to Keep the Literal Sense in Holy Scripture Means to kill One’s Soul”: the State of Biblical Hermeneutics at the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century’, in Miner (ed.), Literary Uses of Typology, pp. 20-48; Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, vols. 1 & 2: The Four Senses of Scripture (Edinburgh, 1998-2000). 126


sensus of the text.”127 What this means is that Calvin allowed for an analogy of historical situations within the complexus which extended the reference of Old Testament prophecies beyond one single temporal fulfillment.128 The insertion of a historical requirement within Calvin’s complexus anticipated Mede and Durham’s understanding of typology. Here Calvin’s restriction of allegory within his broad complexus was closer to Durham’s definition of typology and not allegory.129 Likewise the allegorical sense within Calvin’s complexus paved the way for an eschatological dimension or, as Mason Lowance puts it, a prefiguration of the kingdom, which provided meaning for the contemporary audience.130 In the Old Testament the allegorical sense allowed Calvin to avoid what he thought was the medieval error by emphasizing both a first fulfilment for the original audience and a second which could be applied to a contemporary audience. Calvin could then maintain faithfulness to the literal grammatical-historical reading of the text, while at the same time demonstrating its applicability for his present readers. This application paved the way for Mede’s double-literal meaning, a meaning for the original audience and one for the present hearer. Furthermore Calvin’s eschatological dimension was not referring to the kingdom in a temporal or terrestrial manifestation, but a spiritual fulfilment through Christ and his church. Mede and Ames agreed that the antitype was a spiritual fulfilment and not a temporal or physical reality. Nevertheless, unlike Ames and Durham, Mede needed to adjust Perkins and Calvin’s hermeneutic to accommodate his millenarianism.131 For Perkins and 127

Richard Muller, “The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom”, in Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, p. 73. 128 Ibid. 74. 129 It is worth noting one other sixteenth-century figure, the German historian and biblical scholar Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520-1575). Illyricus’ definition of a type argued a strict connection between the historical Old Testament event and its New Testament fulfillment, restricted to Christ or the church. Illyricus writes, “Typus, sunt vel actiones, vel res aut etiam personae, quae olim ad hoc ipsum a Deo propositae sunt, ut futura quaedam depingat. Ut, Agnus Paschalis, Summus sacredos, Tabernaculum, Serpens suspensus, & similia innumera exprimunt Christum: eduction populi ex Aegypto, redemptionen generis humani: vagatio per desertum, vitam Christianum in hoc Mundo.” Also, “Typus non fere de alliis rebus sermocinatur, quam de Christo & ecclesia, de lege & Evangelio.” Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Clavis Scripurae S. seu de sermone sacrarum literarum (Basel, 1567, another ed., 1609), sig. 2O6r, col. 334, sig. 2Dv, cols 75-6. Likewise he introduced a broader connection or exemplum, which allowed for looser comparisons between the Old and New Testament. “Exemplum est plerunque, cum alienum aliquod factum aut dictum casusve nostro simile aut dissimile proponitur.” Ibid. sig. 2O6r, col. 334. 130 The kingdom being, for Calvin, not a literal terrestrial 1000 year kingdom but the spiritual kingdom established in Christ’s first advent. Calvin was no millenarian. Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, pp. 995-996. 131 Neither Ames nor Durham were millenarians. For Ames’ eschatology see, J. van den Berg, “Quaker and Chiliast: the ‘contrary thoughts’ of William Ames and Petrus Serrarius”, in R. Buick Knox (ed.), Reformation, Conformity, and Dissent: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Nuttalll (London,

The Puritan Errand Revised

201

Calvin, first and foremost, Old Testament prophecies and types were fulfilled in Christ. Commenting on Calvin, Muller writes, Christ provides in his first advent the logical as well as historical terminus of the meaning of prophecy: His Second Coming does not add new substance to this earthly work. Old Testament references to the “last day,” the “day of the Lord,” and the “restoration of Israel” can in the preexilic prophets refer to the return of Israel from Babylon, to the coming of Christ and the new age inaugurated by him and, by extension, to the life of the present-day church. In the prophets of the restored Israel - Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi - where prophecy of a future kingdom can no longer indicate the historical reestablishment of Israel, the text is referred to Christ and his kingdom and, through Christ, points to the age of the church and the Second Coming.132 Calvin’s hermeneutical resolution to interpret the fulfilment of all Old Testament prophecies in Christ’s first coming and the subsequent church age was highly problematic for Mede. Within the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, especially the book of Daniel, Mede found specific references to Christ’s Second Coming and the establishment of the millennial kingdom. As a non-millenarian, Calvin claimed that kingdom of Christ was inaugurated in Christ’s first coming. Mede, of course, observed a physical aspect of the kingdom inaugurated by the Second Coming. An adjustment was neededd in Calvin’s hermeneutic method to account for this. Mede’s solution was to introduce a progressive aspect into the redemptive-historical plan of God. As revelation continued to unfold from the time of the prophets to the New Testament, aspects of God’s plan became clearer. Mede argued that the prophets – in their limited knowledge at that particular stage in the redemptive-historical plan of God – only understood one coming of the Messiah. But now, in the New Testament era, the church is more fully informed and capable of applying properly the prophets’ vision to either the first or Second Coming.133 With this interpretive adjustment, Mede and those

1977), pp. 180-198. For Durham’s eschatology see, James K. Cameron, “The Commentary on the Book of Revelation by James Durham (1622-58)”, in Wilks (ed.), Prophecy and Eschatology, pp. 123-130. 132 Muller, “The Hermenuetic of Promise”, p. 78. 133 “That the old Prophets for the most part spake of the coming of Christ indefinitely and in general, without that distinction of First and Second coming, which we have more clearly learned in the Gospel. For this reason those Prophets (except Daniel, who distinguisheth those comings, and the Gospel out of him,) speak of the things which should be at the coming of Christ indefinitely and all together; which we, who are now more full informed by the revelation of his Gospel of this distinction of a Twofold coming, must apply each of them to its proper time: those things which befit the state of his First Coming unto it; and such things are befit the state of his Second coming, unto his Second: and that which befits both t alike,…may be applied to both.” Mede, Works, pp. 98-99.


who followed his millenarian position could now discern typology properly and identify millenarian anticipations in the Old Testament prophets. In his evaluation of the roots of New England typology, Lowance overlooks Calvin’s literal grammatical-historical sense. The original covenant and promises were made to ethnic Israel. This historical interpretation is just as valid as the analogous interpretation which gives meaning to the New England audience. If the literal sense, first articulated by Perkins and Calvin and later codified by Mede and his colleagues, is to be taken seriously, then any contemporary analogy cannot abrogate the original historical reading. Promises made to ethnic Israel remain in effect and are not transferred by way of typology to a subsequent group or nation. As theological forerunners to the New England puritans, consistency is found between Perkins and Calvin’s Old Testament hermeneutics and that of Joseph Mede. Interpreting biblical typology, for Mede, required equal attention to the historical truth of the type and the antitype. Consequently the promises made to ancient Israel, as a type of church, must have a literal fulfilment. These promises were not cancelled or transferred upon the arrival of the antitype; but they would ultimately be realized in the national conversion of the Jews anticipated before the millennium. Because of God’s covenant with the Old Testament patriarchs, the nation of Israel could still expect to receive God’s favor and blessing. The relationship then between Israel and the church, for Mede, was redemptive-historically defined. Israel served as a type of the church, foreshadowing the church’s spiritual deliverance and redemption in Christ. However, Israel’s temporary “casting off ” served as a means for extending the typological promises to the Gentiles.134 The Gentile or New Testament church became a “surrogated Israel,” standing “in that place for a little while esteemed by God, untill, his old people againe obtaining mercy.”135 Once the full number of the Gentiles were included, ethnic Israel would then be returned to her position of favor in the plan of God.136 Mede concluded that the promise of spiritual salvation, typified in the history of ancient Israel, was given to this “surrogated Israel” – the church – but in the impending restoration of ethnic Israel the original promise would remain exclusively Israel’s.137 No nation, whether England or New 134

“Now because the Jews are not yet called, it followeth that the fulness of the Gentiles is yet to come: and what should then this Fulness be, but the Fulness of the Gospel’s extent over all the nations of the world.” Mede, Works, p. 197. 135 Mede, The Key, Part I, p. 72. 136 Mede, Works, p. 197. 137 “[S]o here also the Catholique Church of the Gentiles, to be senced with the Seale of God, is figured by the Type of Israel; the twelve Apostles of that, aptly answering to so many Patriarchs of this. And it is so done not without good cause, as well for other causes, as specially because the Church, even from the first rejection of the Jewes, hitherto, is gathered out of the Gentiles, succeeded in the room of Israel, and is, as I may so call it, surrogated Israel; and in that place for a little while esteemed by God, untill, his old people againe obtaining mercy.” Mede, The Key, Part I, p. 72.


England, would replace Israel’s elect status; and thus Mede placed little significance in the role of particular nations in the cosmic design to secure the kingdom of Christ.138 Mary Morrisey draws the same conclusion in her study of the Paul’s Cross Jeremiads.139 In these famous sermons, Israel served as a type of the invisible church of elect believers, and so no “other nation can claim ‘most favoured nation’ status on the same basis unless that nation is prepared to suggest that it is comprised solely of God’s elect, which is clearly an assumption no preacher could make.”140 Instead Israel was seen as an exemplum or example, “a far looser form of comparison,” which provided general instruction for the contemporary church.141 Consistent with the Paul’s Cross sermons, Mede designated specific roles for Israel and the church in the redemptive plan of God. They were joined by a typological relationship, but distinct in their covenantal contract with God. While Mason Lowance was incorrect in his evaluation of Perkins and Calvin’s influence, and consequently the tradition continued in Mede, he may still be correct in his assessment of New England typology. There is the possibility that they intentionally broke with tradition and repudiated the legacy established by their exegetical predecessors. However, the New England inheritors of this hermeneutical tradition did not depart from the method set forth by their predecessors. The Jeremiads of the second and third generation used extensive Old Testament imagery to describe the first generation’s plight and the subsequent decline from the faith of their fathers. These sermons called for a moral and spiritual renewal within the colonies. Previous scholars misunderstood the hermeneutical method employed in these sermons for interpreting Old Testament types by misapplying the promises to ancient Israel and mistakenly created the myth of New England as the new nation of Israel.142 Contrary to these 138

Instead Mede preferred to speak of the place of the Protestant Church in God’s plan. He lamented some of the errors of the Reformed and speculated that the Thirty Years’ War may be a result of God’s judgment. “That the Reformed Churches, out of extream aabomination of Idolatry, have, according to the nature of men, incurred some guilt before God…, by taking away the distinction almost generally between things Sacredd and Prophane, and that they shall one day smart of it. But the prejudices hereabout are so great, that I have little hope to perswade others to my opinion: yet I could say much for it, and if it be well observed, the present Judgments of God upon the Reformation to insinuate some such thing. Let the Godly wise considerr it. Divine Judgments have usually some brand or stamp upon them, which points at the Sin for which they are inflicted: you may call it a sin-mark. If the passages and ground of the continuance of this German War be well considered, would not a man think they spake that of the Apostle, Thou that hatest Idols dost thou commit Sacriledge?” Letter from Mede to William Twisse dated 14 July 1635. Mede, Works, p. 829. 139 Mary Morrissey, “Elect nations and prophetic preaching: types and examples in the Paul’s Cross Jeremiad”, in Lori Anne Ferrell and Peter McCullough (eds.), The English sermon revised: Religion, literature and history 1600-1750 0 (Manchester, 2000), pp. 43-58. 140 Ibid. 50. 141 Ibid. 51. 142 Sacvan Bercovitch writes, ‘Theirs [New Englanders] was a peculiar mission, they explained, for they were a “peculiar people,” a company of Christians not only called but chosen, and chosen not


scholars, the New Englanders’ use of Old Testament typology followed the double-literal sense, which maintained the covenantal distinctions between ethnic Israel and the church. New Englanders used the Israelite paradigm as an analogy, or exemplum, with which to describe their present circumstances (their migration to America), but they did not assume for themselves the elect status of God’s ancient people. Samuel Mather (1683/4-1725), the brother of Increase Mather, who later returned to Ireland to serve as a ministerr in Dublin, demonstrated his agreement with the tradition in his book, The Figures or Types of the Old Testament, by which Christ and the Heavenly Things of the Gospel were Preached and Shadowed to the people of God of Old d (1705). Like Perkins, Mather intended to guard the interpretation of Old Testament types from the “fansies and imaginations” of the Roman Catholics who insisted on an allegorical sense.143 He laid out three specific guidelines for determining the proper identification of a Type: 1. When there is express Scripture for it. 2. When there is a permutation of names between the Type and the Antitype. 3. When by comparing several Scripture together, there doth appear an evident and manifest Analogy and parallel between Things under the Law, and things under Gospel.144 Additionally Mather came to the same conclusion as Mede, that physical types represented spiritual antitypes. “Here is the general nature of a Type…[i]t hath been the Goodness and Wisdom of God in all times and ages, to teach Mankind Heavenly things by Earthly; spiritual and invisible Things, by outward and visible.”145 As a result Israel’s deliverance out of Egypt and Babylon typified the “Churches Deliverance from Antichristian Bondage,” and not a specific nation’s deliverance from tyrannical rule.146 Ultimately, for Mather, types “had some dark only for heaven but as instruments of a sacred historical design.” Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad, pp. 7-8. Mason Lowance adds, “This departure from the historically verified and divinely instituted typological correspondences was a prominent feature of development in Puritan rhetoric during the latter part of the seventeenth century. Although the discerning of analogies between Israel, or even the New Testament, and New England was a commonly accepted practice among the Puritans from the beginning, it was another matter altogether to include New England in a typological scheme by which natural occurrences had typical significance similar to the events of the Old Testament, all prefiguring the long-awaited kingdom of God on earth.” Lowance, The Language of Canaan, p. 66. 143 Samuel Mather, The Figures or Types of the Old Testament, by which Christ and the Heavenly Things of the Gospel were Preached and Shadowed to the people of God of Old (London, 1705), p. 55. 144 Ibid. 53. 145 Ibid. 52. 146 Ibid. 54.


resemblance of Christ and his Benefits, and did some way adumbrate and represent them, and hold them unto his People, to enlighten and inform their Understandings, and to strengthen and confirm their Faith in him.”147 New England held no special status in Mather’s mind, as his return from the New World back to the Old in itself suggests. Increase Mather followed his brother’s interpretation, with one notable exception. While Israel was considered as a type of the church, she were still “exalted above every Nation”, with future blessings grounded in God’s covenant.148 Mather’s hermeneutics reflected the double-literal interpretation by giving equal consideration to the historical accuracy of the type (Israel) and the antitype (the church). Israel’s typological blessing prefigured a future blessing, but at the same time remained her own and was not granted to anyone else. Likewise, Mather did not assign New England (as a nation) any specific fulfilment as the antitype of Israel. Instead he focused on the church. Using the same language as Mede, Increase described the church, and not any nation, as the “surrogate Israel,” engrafted into the covenant.149 However, Increase added a nuance to his interpretation of one particular Old Testament type. He distinguished between Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and her deliverance from Babylon, by assigning two different typological fulfilments. For Israel’s return from Babylonian exile, Mather comments that “Their Bondage in Babylon was a Type of Spiritual Bondage, their Deliverance, a Type of spiritual deliverance by Christ, and of his raising up his spiritual Kingdom.”150 This was not unique. The pattern of a physical type and a spiritual fulfilment (or antitype) was seen in Mede and Ames. Yet, when examining Israel’s exodus from Egypt, Mather concluded that it was a Type of the New Testament Churches Deliverance from the Yokes of Antichrist. For Egypt is expressly made a Type of Rome, Rev. 11.8. To be under the Yokes of Men, under Antichristian Bondage, is worse than Egyptian Bondage[.] … That Men must have their Consciences kept in the Pocket of a base Priest at Rome; for him to oppress their Consciences and exercise dominion over their Faith, what fearful slavery is this?151 For Mather, Israel’s bondage in Egypt served as a type of the papal bondage of the Christian church. Instead of assigning a spiritual antitype, Mather proposed an obvious physical antitype. Nevertheless the fulfilment was the church in Roman Catholic bondage and nott a particular nation. 147

Ibid. 52. I. Mather, The mystery of Israel’s salvation, pp. 59-51. 149 Ibid. 58; I. Mather, A Dissertation, p. 179. 150 Ibid. 160. 151 Ibid. 156. 148


Recognizing these distinctions in their comprehension of typology, New England writings and sermons still drew upon the similarities between the history of Israel and their present circumstances. As a result of these parallel conditions, Israel was used as a hortatory example of how God deals with his people. For instance John Higginson (1616-1708), Minister at Salem, wrote, “I say the cause of Religion i.e. the profession and practice off one true Religion to be in all things according to Gods Word. This was the cause of God and Israel then, the same is the cause of God and his people now.”152 Higginson believed that God’s dealing with Israel, especially in her unfaithfulness, served as an example for what New England could expect in her own waywardness. Yet because of this example, Higginson also saw the possibility for God’s restoration, since Israel also experienced such renewal.153 Thus, Higginson viewed New England’s predicament as analogous to Israel’s, since both were confronted with the problem of religious integrity. Validating Higginson’s use of the analogy of Israel’s history with New England’s, Nicholas Noyes noted, “the New Testament teacheth us to interpret, accommodate and apply to our selves, Texts of the Old Testament.”154 Subsequently Noyes, by analogy and not typology, compared Israel to New England. The Jews were “a Prophetical Type of the Christian Church in the times of the Messias,” but “Gods Judicial Proceedings with the Jews before the Coming of Christ, are instructive to people, and places professing the Christian Religion.”155 Noyes gave four reasons justifying this analogy. 1. God is the same now, as he was then, as holy righteous as ever he was. 2. His is the same Church now, though not the same people: God hath but One Church, Christ hath but one Body; from the beginning to the end of the World. 3. This Law requiring Holiness and Righteousness, is the same. 4. Gods Name and Honour is alike concerned in the ways and behaviour of his people now, as it was then.156 Noyes compared the hazardous journey of the first generation with Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness; and he likened New England’s initial prosperity to Israel’s flourishing in the promise land.157 Again, Noyes expected God’s 152

John Higginson, The Cause of God and His People in New-Englandd (Cambridge, Mass., 1663), p. 10. 153 Higginson, “The Epistle Dedicatory”, in Nicholas Noyes, New-Englands Duty and Interest, To be an Habitation of Justice, and Mountain of Holiness (Boston, 1698), p. iii. 154 Noyes, New-Englands Duty and Interest, pp. 6-7. 155 Ibid. 6, 22. 156 Ibid. 22. 157 “As the Israelites underwent many hazards & hardships…so did the first comers into New England run many great risks, and grapple with many difficulties…As God made room of the


restoration of degenerate New England, due to this analogy with Israel and her restitution.158 In looking to Israel as an example, Noyes did not expect identical outcomes, or a one-to-one correspondence between God’s dealings with his ancient people and his community in America, but the general pattern of Israel could be applied to New England. The purpose of the analogy was for New England’s continual restoration, reformation and blessing.159 As generations of New Englanders continued to invoke the analogy between Old Testament Israel and North America, this was not confused with an inappropriate use of typology. The distinctions in status between Israel and New England were never blurred. New Englanders did not perceive themselves as a New Israel, recipients of all the covenant blessings promised to the Jews, for the purposes of setting out on a second exodus to the New Canaan. The errand into the wilderness of America was not pregnant with typological meaning. In fact the motivation for the migration from the Old to the New World was simply a desire for religious purity. Samuel Danforth (1626-1674) commented on the original desire for religious freedom: The times were such that we could not enjoy it in own Land: and therefore having obtained Liberty and a gracious Patent from our Soveraign, we left our Country, Kindred and Fathers houses, and came into these wilde Woods and Deserts; were the Lord hath planted us, and made us dwell in a place of our own, that we might move no more, and that the children of wickedness might afflict not us anymore…What is it that distinguishes New-England from other Colonies and Plantations in America? Not our transportation over the Atlantick Ocean, but the Ministry of Gods faithful Prophets [by this he means ministers], and the fruition of his holy Ordinances.160 The distinction of the New England settlers was not in their apocalyptic or covenantal position, but in their faithful adherence to the traditional marks of the church – the preaching of the Gospel and the proper administration of the sacraments. Noyes agreed with Danforth assessment of the first generation: The World knows, that our Predecessors did not leave their native Soil, that dulce solum Patriam, for better Accommodations in worldly respects; they did not come into the Wilderness for Worldlines; but for Godliness sake: and that the first Rulers & Teachers, and Churches had Israelitish Vine, and caused it to take root, and spread and flourish…And so it was in New England in a good degree, God blessed them and caused them to multiply greatly.” Ibid. 47. 158 Ibid. 48-49. 159 Ibid. 4-6. 160 Samuel Danforth, A Brief Recognition of New Englands Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge, Mass., 1671), pp. 16-17.


the Glory of God, and the liberty and purity of his Worship in their Eye.161 Moreover Danforth pointed to Israel’s exodus as a helpful example when he asked, “To what purpose did the Children off Israel leave their Cities and Houses in Egypt, and go forth into the wilderness?162 The reason that Israel left Egypt (the desire for religious purity), for Danforth, was the same reason that the first generation departed from Old England. Notice that Danforth diverted any emphasis from the actual migration (crossing the Atlantic Ocean) to the practice of pure religion in the colonies. The New Englanders did not embark on a sacred errand, but on a thorough Reformation. The Old Testament hermeneutics of New England puritans reflected their dependence on an exegetical tradition for interpreting biblical types begun in the sixteenth century and established in the early seventeenth century. This hermeneutical tradition provided certain restrictions and limits that aided New England ministers in properly interpreting Old Testament types, particularly the typological significance of the biblical history of Israel. New Englanders understood that a double-literal meaning was required to determine the necessary historical verity of the type and the antitype. Both were equally true, and the fulfilment in the antitype did not abrogate what was established in the type. As a result Israel still had a special purpose and place in God’s plans. New England, as the antitype, never inherited the promises or elect status first given to Israel. They only received the spiritual rewards typified in Israel’s physical blessings. Thus, the “Errand into the Wilderness” was nott motivated by some New Israelite nationalism. Instead the history of Israel provided an analogous example for the new settlement of how God dealt with an obstinate people. The example of Israel had pedagogical value for a colony experiencing spiritual and moral degeneration. Powerful as this comparison was, however, it did not confuse the national elect status of Israel and the covenant promises to Christ’s church. Therefore an accurate description of New England typology depends on a proper understanding of sixteenth and seventeenth-century Old Testament hermeneutics.

9.vi CONCLUSION The original Errand into the Wilderness, set forth by Perry Miller, introduced a problematic reading of the first settlers’ journey to North America. Subsequent studies predicated on Miller’s work added to the problem by misrepresenting New England’s biblical and theological commitments. After a careful examination of their doctrinal positions concerning the spatial geography of the millennial kingdom, the future of the Jewish nation, and the typological relationship between 161 162

Noyes, New-Englands Duty, p. 46. Danforth, A Brief Recognition, p. 5.


Israel and the church, the motivation for the errand that many previous studies have assumed can no longer be sustained. In fact all that is left are glaring contradictions. While continuing the millenarian tradition endorsed by Joseph Mede, New Englanders did not view their relocation across the Atlantic as a voyage to establish the New Jerusalem in America. They did not regard themselves as the new “Israel” or God’s unique elect nation, because they believed that there would be yet a future conversion for ethnic Jews after which certain prophecies will be fulfilled. The New Englanders adopted a hermeneutic which distinguished the typological relationship between Israel and the church – never confusing God’s intentions for either. The Old Testament was used, to be sure, to address the concerns expressed by ministers in the new colonies. For the ministers in America, the history of Israel provided a useful instructional example for calling a people back to religious purity and reform. But the biblical nation of Israel was seen analogously related to New England, and not as a mistaken type. Finally, in light of this theological reassessment of the New England settlers’ thinking, the roots of early America identity likewise must be reexamined. Perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on these first few generations of settlers in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century as being the architects of a distinct American identity. At the very least, the theological evidence is completely lacking. Instead of constructing an apocalyptic antithesis between the Old World and the New World, a more integrated method would be more appropriate. Specifically for the study of seventeenth and early eighteenthcentury intellectual dialogue, a transatlantic approach provides a broader scope for investigating the context in which ideas emerged. From the first generation down to Jonathan Edwards, New England ministers and theologians continued to interact with the most significant intellectual ideas coming out of Britain and the continent. Undoubtedly, the situation changed dramatically in the mid-eighteenth century with the approach of the War off Independence, yet prior to these events colonial America should be placed within the intellectual network of early modern Europe.

CHAPTER TEN

The Continental Millenarian Tradition

10.i THE CONTINENT The previous chapter attempted to explore Joseph Mede’s influence on North American eschatology. Mede’s millenarian conclusions proved equally provocative for continental readers. The biographer of Mede commented, By the fruit of these studies, particularly by his happy Labours upon the Apocalyps and Prophetical Scriptures, what honour our Authour purchas’d abroad (besides what he gain’d at home) among men studious in this way, and therefore capable of judging, is evident by the many Letters sent him from Learned men in several parts, expressing their own and other high esteem of his Writings.1 Immediately following this statement Mede’s biographer listed the names of several prominent continental scholars who had exchanged letters with Mede, all full of praise and admiration.2 Particularly in the Dutch Republic, Mede’s interpretations stimulated and served as an intellectual catalyst for the emerging “Dutch Prophetic Tradition.”3 Ernestine van der Wall comments on the relation 1

Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. VI. Ibid. VII. 3 Aside from the work of Professors van den Berg and van der Wall, additional studies of early modern Dutch apocalypticism include: Leszek Kolakowski, Chrétiens sans Église: La conscience religieuse et le lien confessionel au XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1969); Andrew C. Fix, Prophecy and Reason: The Dutch Collegiants in the Early Enlightenmentt (Princeton, 1991). 2

211

212 Continental Millenarian Tradition

between the English and the Dutch, “[w]hen one talks about apocalypticism and millenarianism in the Netherlands, England is never far out of sight, because Dutch eschatological thinking owes much to the British apocalyptic tradition.”4 She adds, “Dutch elements are almost non-existent in millenarianism in the Netherlands. We do not detect special features which can be labelled as typically Dutch”; this is because the “Dutch had no ... Alsted or Mede.”5 Instead, according to van der Wall, it is the monumental work of foreign apocalyptic commentators who contributed to the Dutch understanding of eschatology. Van der Wall has also observed that the “characteristics of the Dutch prophetic tradition include its being more scholarly than popular, more individual than collective, and more socially and politically conservative than radical.”6 In this observation there is a remarkable similarity with the millenarianism exemplified by Mede and his British and North American adherents. This should not be entirely surprising. The Dutch tradition was dependent on ideas imported by German, French, and of course British theologians. Among the British, Mede’s interpretation was carefully examined. Subsequently Mede’s distinctive views can be detected by tracing the rise of Dutch apocalypticism, which will reveal the influence of Mede’s millenarianism on specific developments in n the Dutch prophetic tradition. As many Dutch scholars incorporated Mede’s interpretations they began to establish a European legacy in the same eschatological tradition. However this tradition was not exclusively millenarian. Interest in the study t of the Apocalypse did not necessitate a millenarian interpretation. This is a distinction that is commonly overlooked in previous studies of seventeenth-century apocalyptic thought, beginning with the early work of William Lamont and continuing in more recent studies like Crawford Gribben’s.7 These studies conclude that any discussion of the Apocalypse presupposed a millenarian agenda. Instead some apocalyptic scholars attempted to refute millenarianism in all its variations. Examining the interaction between Mede and his millenarian works with continental, and specifically Dutch, apocalypticists will help explore the reception of Mede’s millenarianism on the continent. 10.ii INITIAL CONTACT: LUDOVICUS DE DIEU AND DAN VAN LAREN Shortly after the publication of Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptica in 1627, the readership of this singular book expanded to include those across the English Channel. Through a network of British diplomats and refugee ministers, who

4

van der Wall, “Antichrist Stormed”, p. 154. van der Wall, “Mystical Millenarianism in the Early Modern Dutch Republic”, in Laursen and Popkin (eds.), Millenarianism and Messianism, Volume IV, V p. 37; van der Wall, “Antichrist Stormed”, p. 155. 6 Ibid. 156. 7 Lamont, Godly Rule, and Gribben, The Puritan Millennium. 5

Continental Millenarian Tradition

213

served as couriers and intermediaries, Dutch ministers and theologians were exposed to the writings of Joseph Mede. Commenting on the reception of Mede’s work, Sir William Boswell, British ambassadorr to the Hague, wrote in a letter to Mede dated May 1633, “In a word, you have set their teeth on edge: and I am pressed by many to procure them sight of all other things you have written.”8 Boswell was in regular communication with Mede; in addition to circulating Mede’s books, he frequently sent Mede news from London and later the continent.9 Boswell’s distribution of Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptica was not limited to the Netherlands, nor was he the only British ambassador forwarding copies. He also gave Mede’s book to an interested reader in Italy; and Sir Robert Anstruther, one time ambassador to Denmark, along with his chaplain were carrying copies with them into Germany.10 In the Netherlands Mede’s readers were Dutch theologians and ministers. They were scholars and academics, educated in the universities and highly conversant in the disciplines of theology and philosophy, not unlike Mede. Boswell reported giving a copy to Andre Rivet, professor of theology at Leiden from 1620 to 1632.11 Likewise Boswell served as an intermediary between Mede and Ludovicus de Dieu, another theologian in Leiden. De Dieu originally wrote his response to Mede’s book in a letter to Boswell dated 25 February 1634.12 He praised Mede’s diligence and knowledge of divine things.13 However, de Dieu did find certain points where he disagreed with Mede.14 Specifically two of the latter’s millenarian interpretations were difficult for de Dieu to accept. First was the understanding of the conversion of the Jews which would be accompanied by their restoration to the land of Canaan and the beginning of the Day of

8

Mede, Works, p. 789. Boswell was clerk of the Privy Council in the 1620s and a close friend of Mede’s. The affection that Boswell had for Mede was demonstrated in a thoughtful gift, the renowned Cambridge scholar Hugh Broughton’s personal copy of the Greek New Testament. A valued possession in and of itself, yet Boswell sent it to Mede because the large print would be easier for him to read as his vision was beginning to decline. Cockburn, A critical edition, pp. 37-38; Broughton’s Greek New Testament can be found in Christ’s College Old Library (B.2.15), entitled: Nouum Iesu Christi D. N. Testamentum (Paris, 1550). The dedicatory letter to Mede was pasted on the inside cover. 10 Boswell writes, “Your books I sent…by my Lord Ambassador Anstruther, and his Chaplain (one Mr. Johnson) an honest learned friend of mine, into Germany.” Mede, Works, p. 789. In the early to mid-1630s Anstruther had relocated to Hamburg, see Steve Murdoch, Britain, Denmark-Norway and the House of Stuart, 1603-1660 0 (East Lothian, 2000), pp. 71, 73, 84. 11 Mede, Works, p. 789; Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae MDLXXVMDCCCLXXV V (The Hague, 1875), pp. IX-XII. 12 Mede, Works, pp. 566-569. 13 “Prodit scriptum Authorem non tantum diligentissimum sed & doctissimum, rerum divinarum cognitione largiter perfusum, & omnis politioris literatarae ornamentis instructissimum.” Ibid. 566. 14 J. van den Berg, “Joseph Mede and the Dutch Millenarian Daniel van Laren”, in Wilks (ed.), Prophecy and Eschatology, p. 114. 9


Judgment.15 Second, de Dieu had difficulty accepting the possibility of a future corporeal resurrection at the beginning of the millennium.16 Yet despite these objections he was not adverse to further study and examination into these interpretations; and, indeed, as Johannes van den Berg states, he did expect “a future most happy time for the world, which in fact brought him near to a moderate millenarian position.”17 Instead of responding himself, Boswell forwarded de Dieu’s letter to Mede. In a letter dated 4 June 1634, Mede attempted to answer some of de Dieu’s objections. But instead of responding directly, Mede enclosed a copy of a letter that he had written to another friend detailing his position on the interpretation of the first resurrection and the future millennium. Mede hoped that this would be enough to convince de Dieu.18 Unfortunately this attached letter did not address de Dieu’s first concern. Practically the entire discourse focused on Mede’s understanding of the first and second resurrection of Apocalypse 20. Mede employed both biblical and patristic sources to demonstrate that the first resurrection was, in fact, a corporeal resurrection. The essence of Mede’s argument can be reduced to a desire for maintaining a consistent interpretation between the first and second resurrections. If the second resurrection will be a bodily resurrection, then the first resurrection – according to the analogy of scripture – must also be literal and not spiritual.19 Only one additional set of letters between Mede and de Dieu is contained in Mede’s collected works.20 Dated January 1635, these letters dealt primarily with de Dieu’s questions regarding certain details in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. While not convinced entirely by Mede’s millenarian conclusions, de Dieu remained a grateful admirer. Writing in September of 1634, Boswell shared with Mede the impression left with de Dieu from their earlier exchange: “[i]t was sufficient for me to receive many thanks for the conveyance, and that which was better (better than Musick) to hear innumerable commendations of so near a 15

“Ad sententiam certe Chiliastarum ut accedam iuduci nondum possum. Judeos ad fidem Christi aliquando convertendos, atque id tempus mundo felicissimum, imo … vitam ex mortuis, futurum, firma fide amplector: Sed Judeos & Israelitas in terram Canaan esse revocandos, Inde Diem Judicii esse inchoandum.” Mede, Works, p. 568. 16 “Particularem tum fere quorundam resurrectionem.” Ibid. 568. 17 “Nec tamen damno qui ista disputant modeste & disquirunt; quippe qui beatum me censebo, si in felicia ista tempora incidere detur: beatiorem tamen, si afflictionibus Christi in his terris conformi, gloria quoque ipsius in coelis conformem fieri detur.” Ibid. 568; van den Berg, “Joseph Mede and the Dutch Millenarian”, p. 114. 18 “Plura non addo, nisi hoc solum; Unam cum libello meo ad te venire exemplar Epistolar ad Amicum, qua sententiam meam de Millenario paulo plenius aperio: in quam me nulla animi levitate aut studio praepostero delapsum credas velim; sed postquam alia omnia frustra tentassem, tandem rei ipsius claritudine perstrictum paradoxo succubuisse,” Mede, Works, p. 571. 19 “Cur igitur hinc non majori versimilitudine argumentari mihi liveret, Cum Resurrectio secunda corporalis fit, ideo similiter primam quoque corporalem esse?” Ibid. 572. 20 Ibid. 805-808.


215

Friend, though I knew them due; for ‘tis no small pleasure to see debts paid, where we think our selves to have Interest.”21 In addition to ambassadors like Boswell and Anstruther, other British expatriates residing in the Dutch Republic distributed Mede’s works. William Ames departed for the Netherlands in 1610 after failing to reconcile himself with authorities in the Church of England.22 Ames remained there until his death in 1633.23 Although removed from his academic post in Cambridge, Ames maintained friendships with his former Christ’s College colleagues, including Mede.24 In a letter dated 11 October 1629, Ames expressed how Mede’s Clavis was being received in the Netherlands: Good Mr. Mede,

I shewed your Clavis to one much given unto those Studies, and desired his censure; which having at length received, I send herewith unto you, desiring from you to receive what you think fit to be opposed: You shall perceive his full meaning out of the printed Treatise adjoyned. He seemeth to me tocarry all to the Jews, upon no other grounds than communion of Phrases. Thus with hearty salutations to you and Mr. Chappel, I rest Your loving Friend, W. Ames25 In this letter Ames was referring to the critical response of the relatively unknown minister Daniel van Laren.26 Van Laren was one of the rare Dutch scholars already engaged in the study of the Apocalypse in the 1620s. Ames sent van Laren’s comments on the Clavis Apocalyptica, along with his apocalyptic commentary (apparently without van Laren’s knowledge) to Mede together with the above quoted letter.27

21

Ibid. 792. “Because Ames refused to make his peace with the Anglican authorities, not much was open to him in England. The universities and the church knew him as a radical, and they wanted nothing to do with him. Under these circumstances Ames decided to leave England to go into the Netherlands.” Keith Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Urbana, Chicago and London, 1972), p. 25. 23 Ibid. 27. 24 Ames was exceptionally close to Mede and William Chappel. In his letters to Mede, he always asks Mede to send his regards to Chappel. Mede, Works, pp. 782-783. 25 Ibid. 782. Also see J. van den Berg, “Joseph Mede and the Dutch Millenarian”, p. 111. 26 Biographical details can be found in: J. van den Berg, “Joseph Mede and the Dutch Millenarian”, pp. 115-117. 27 Van Laren’s commentary is entitled, In Apocalypsin beati Ioannis theologi prolegomena sive notationes proemiales (1627), published under the pseudonym “Theocritus Justus.” Van den Berg notes that this work is very rare, but a copy exists in the Bibliothèque Nationale; see van den Berg, “Joseph Mede and the Dutch Millenarian”, pp. 111, 117, n.*, n.30. It was reprinted in 1642 under 22


The bulk of van Laren’s criticism focused on Mede’s synchronisms, particularly Mede’s synchronism of the seventh seal with the six trumpets and the seven-headed beast with two horns.28 Instead van Laren proposed that the beast, which represented the kingdom of the Antichrist, was contemporary only with the fifth and sixth trumpets.29 Likewise this was synchronized with the fifth seal and not the seventh.30 Van Laren matched the series of seals with that of the trumpets. The importance of such intricate exegetical details would seem to be exaggerated, but van Laren opposed Mede’s interpretation because he saw the seventh seal as a vision representing the return of Christ, and not the reign of the Antichrist. He viewed the seventh seal (ch. 8) as contemporary with the vision of the saints in white robes who had come out of the great tribulation (ch. 7), after the fall of Antichrist in the sixth seal.31 The reason that van Laren belabored this point was because he felt that Mede had reversed horrifically the proper interpretation by confusing a vision of blessing with the vision of tribulation under the Antichrist. This probably explains the harsh tone of van Laren’s comments. Mede mentioned in a letter to Archbishop James Ussher that van Laren, “not knowing my name, but calling me Synchronista … sometimes seemed to be very angry in his confutation of me.”32 Mede’s response to van Laren on this point began with an appeal to an exegetical consensus. He cited numerous Roman Catholic and Protestant commentators (including Francisco Ribera, Luis Alcazar, Cornelius a Lapide, Francis Junius, Thomas Brightman, John Napier, Patrick Forbes and Johann Heinrich Alsted) who all associated, in one form or another, the vision of the seventh seal with the trumpets.33 Moreover, Mede was not persuaded by van

the title: Lareni in Apocalypsin notationes proemiales. I was able to obtain a microfilm copy of this edition from the University Library of Utrecht. 28 “Synchronismum primum appellat cardinem Synchronismorum; ego vero eundem voco cardinem vanitatum: adeo nihil est in eo veri, nihil certi. Synchronismum esse vultt Sigilli septimi quo ad sex priories Tubas, cum Bestia Septicipite, Bicorni, caetetisque contemporantibus. Sed jam demonstravi sex Tubas no pertinere ad Sigillum septimum; demonstravi insuper Bestiam Bicornem Bestiae Septicipiti & caeteris non in omnibus nec ad amussim contemporare.” Mede, Works, p. 545. 29 “Bestia Septiceps est ipsissimum regnum Antichristi, sub novissimo, i.e. septimo, suo capite. Atque Antichristus demum in lucem producitur sub Tuba sexta, Apoc.11.7. vel (quod ego malim) sub Tuba quinta, Apoc.9.11. ubi Angelum Abysii eundem esse puto cum Bestia ascensura ex abysso, Apoc. 11.7.” Ibid. 545. 30 “Atqui hoc proprium munus est Bestiae: ipsa itaque rectius dicetur contemporare cum Sigillo quinto.” Ibid. 546. 31 “Initium septimi Sigilli est in obsignatione Coetus illius virginalis cap.7. ipso Synchronista confitente: atqui obsignatio illa sequitur illustrem Domini adventu, qui describitur Sigillo sexte, & in quem incidit Bestiae interitus, ut apparet ex collatione Apoc.6.15,16,17. cum Apoc. 16.14,15,16. Impossibile itaque est Bestiam Septicipitem contemporare cum initio Sigilli septimi.” Ibid. 546. 32 Letter from Mede to Archbishop Ussher dated 4 May 1630. Ibid. 783. 33 Ibid. 551.


217

Laren’s attempt to apply the end of the sixth seal to Christ’s second coming.34 Instead he explained that the reign of the Beast would last for 1260 prophetic days, or 42 prophetic months. This was the same period as the first six trumpets (not just the fifth and sixth trumpets as van Laren asserted), and the Beast’s reign would conclude at the beginning of the seventh trumpet.35 Likewise Mede was not convinced by van Laren’s insistence that the seals be synchronized with their coordinate numerical trumpets. Mede maintained that the vision of the trumpets did not correspond to the vision of the seals in the same way that the vision of the saints in white robes was not contemporary with the reign of the Beast.36 Therefore the seventh seal was not synchronized with this vision of Christ’s triumph in chapter 7 (which was also depicted in the vision of the seventh trumpet), but matched with the reign of the Antichrist and the first six trumpets. Despite these exegetical differences, van Laren agreed with Mede’s fundamental millenarian conclusion. Mede’s fourth synchronism of the seventh trumpet with the one thousand-year binding of Satan and the destruction of Antichrist was, in van Laren’s estimation, thoroughly correct.37 He praised this interpretation, along with the fifth synchronism which included the reign of Christ as occurring during the same time as the events in the fourth synchronism.38 Van Laren’s approval of Mede’s interpretation at this point demonstrated his commitment, regardless of other exegetical disagreements, to the fundamental millenarian tenet: the belief in a future earthly thousand-year kingdom of Christ. In this regard van Laren may be considered a pioneer in early modern Dutch millenarian thought. Subsequently, because of this common ground, Mede continued to hold van Laren’s comments in high regard.39 A millenarian connection between the two was significant for stimulating the ongoing apocalyptic thought in Britain and the budding interest in the Netherlands. Mede’s initial contact with a few Dutch theologians and ministers demonstrates an important channel off exchange through which British ideas on the Apocalypse helped to stimulate the nascent Dutch interest. However, not everyone was convinced of Mede’s millenarian interpretation, nor were they

34

“Mihi quidem persuasissimum est Sigillum sextum t non esse de secundo adventu.” Ibid. 561. “Cum Testium in sacco lugentium dies 1260 finiantur ad exitum Tubae 6, seu ineunte septima; ibidem quoque Bestiae menses 42 finiri necesse est; & per consequens illam Bestiae tyrannidem intra sex primarum Tubarum ambitum m contineri.” Ibid. 562. 36 “Hoc autem posito, nulla ei amplius elabendi copia superest, nisi aut negando septem Tubas Rem esse Sigilli Septimi, aut Coetum Virgineum cum Bestia (semper Bestiam novissimi capitis intelligo) in solidum contemporare.” Ibid. 562. 37 “Synchronismum quartum, Mille annorum ligati Draconis, seu Satanae, cum Tuba septima, seu excidio Bestiae, non possum non laudare, cum fit verissimus & certissimus.” Ibid. 546. 38 Ibid. 547. 39 Ibid. 564. 35


directly influenced by it. De Dieu was still hesitant, and van Laren reached his millenarian position independent off Mede. Even William Ames was not convinced of Mede’s conclusion that the first resurrection will be corporeal.40 Nevertheless, these exchanges reveal the growing appeal for the study of biblical prophecy in the Dutch Republic, and especially of the interpretations of Mede. In these initial contacts Mede’s letters helped to stimulate the thought of Dutch scholars. It is interesting to observe that it is the conservative scholarly community that was interacting with Mede during this early period, and not some deviant radical social sect. Now the evidence from correspondence may seem sparse. Aside from his letters to de Dieu and van Laren, John Worthington mentioned a letter from Antonius Walaeus, another Leiden professor, which was not included in his collected works.41 Yet Mede’s direct contact with these Dutch scholars did not constitute the only means of exposing the scholarly theological community in the Netherlands with his biblical studies. Unlike William Ames, other British refugees in Dutch cities who were committed to Mede’s millenarianism continued to stimulate apocalyptic interest.

10.iii BRITISH REFUGEES: ENGLISH CONGREGATIONALISTS AND SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIANS In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century the Netherlands was a safe haven for many religiously persecuted refugees from Britain.42 For some British refugees, Dutch cities were the first ports-of-call before traveling on to North America. These foreign residents established communities and churches of their own while at the same time interacting with the Dutch theologians and ministers. Theological similarities between the British and the Dutch church created a common bond. The Scottish Presbyterians and the Dutch Reformed had the closest kinship, but this did not exclude the Church of England.43 While participating in a whole host of theological discussions and debates, these British residents additionally imported their eschatological doctrines. It is significant to

40

Ames to Mede: “[Y]et methinks that Millenary state spoken of may well be understood of the Church raised from a dead condition, and so continued for that space.” Ibid. 782-783. 41 Ibid. “The Authour’s Life”, VII. 42 Studies include: Raymond P. Stearns, Congregationalism in the Dutch Netherlands (Chicago, 1940); Alice C. Carter, The English Reformed Church in Amsterdam in the Seventeenth Century (Amsterdam, 1964); B. R. White, The English Separatist Tradition from the Marian Martyrs to the Pilgrim Fathers (Oxford, 1971); Geoffrey F. Nuttall, “English Dissenters in the Netherlands 16401689”, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeshiedenis, 59 (1978), pp. 37-54; Keith L. Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism: A History of English and Scottish Churches of the Netherlands in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Leiden, 1982); idem, Trumpets from the Tower: English Puritan Printing in the Netherlands 1600-1640 (Leiden, 1994). 43 Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism, p. 354.


219

observe that many of the British ministers and theologians were committed to the millenarian eschatology articulated by Mede. The previous chapter introduced two prominent English Congregationalists who were both one-time residents in the Netherlands. John Cotton and Thomas Goodwin followed many of Mede’s interpretations. Goodwin in particular composed and preached a series of sermons on the Apocalypse while he was pastor of the English Church in Arnhem in 1639.44 In addition to that work, Goodwin’s millenarianism – which bore great similarity to Mede’s – was continually reproduced in other sermons. In A Sermon on the Fifth Monarch, published in 1654, Goodwin maintained a future millennium in which the saints would reign on earth and Satan would be bound.45 In another sermon Goodwin continued to defend specific millenarian tenets. He maintained that the first resurrection would be physical and not spiritual;46 and he concluded that the conversion of the Jews would have apocalyptic meaning. There was very few of them [Jews] in comparison that did come in to Christ; but there will come a time, when this new world shall have a further perfection, when the generality of mankinde, Jew and Gentile, shall come intoChrist…This was never yet fulfilled, Jewes and Gentiles, were never yet one sheepfold together, but they shall be so one day: Read the Prophets, and you shall read there of strange things, of glorious times, that shall be here upon the earth, of all Nations coming into the Church, the mountains of the Lords house, being set on the top of the mountains, and all Nations flowing unto it, and of great prosperity they shall have, which was never yet fulfilled…that there shall be a glorious church on earth, when the Jews shall be called[.]47 So far Goodwin’s millenarianism can best be described as generic, with no obvious or distinct influence from Mede. However Goodwin’s interpretation of the reign of Christ during the millennium was unmistakably dependent on Mede. Like his Cambridge teacher, Goodwin believed that Christ would not remain on earth during the millennium, but, as Goodwin put it, “let it be understood that Christ shall still remaine in Heaven, and there to be his Court, where he shall

44

Capp, “Political Dimensions of Apocalyptic Thought”, p. 107; Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism, p. 331. For a description of Goodwin’s interpretations in these sermons see chapter 8. 45 “Because during this raign, Satan is said to be bound. Now to have Satan bound while the Saints raign in heaven, is unnecessary and needless: for how can he disturb them, or be an annoyance to their kingdom there?” Thomas Goodwin, A Sermon on the Fifth Monarchy (London, 1654), p. 14. 46 Thomas Goodwin, The World to Come. or, The Kingdome of Christ asserted. Second Sermon (London, 1655), p. 32. 47 Ibid. 29.


reign both over this world, and the world to come.”48 Goodwin was sympathetic to Mede’s millenarianism; but he was not alone amongst the English Congregationalist in the Netherlands. Goodwin’s fellow minister in Arnhem, John Archer, was also a dedicated millenarian.49 In 1642, the year Archer died in the Netherlands, his work – The Personall Reign of Christ Upon Earth – was published. Archer attempted to clarify the different “states” of Christ’s kingdom by introducing a three-fold distinction. The first was the providential kingdom, “which is that universall influence and Soveraign power, by which Jesus Christ manageth the affaires of all the world, both in heaven, earth, and under the earth.”50 Next would be the spiritual kingdom, “which is that Soveraignty, which by his Word and Spirit, hee exerciseth over the consciences of some people, and in speciall the Elect of God the Father, whom by his Word and Spirit, hee subdues in conscience to an universall obedience to him.”51 The final state Archer labeled the monarchial kingdom, during which Christ “wil governe as earthly Monarches have done, that is, universally over the world.”52 This third state he identified with the future millennial reign of Christ. Similar to Mede, Archer attempted to find ancient precedents for this interpretation. And it is cleare, that beyond the first Age, even an hundred yeares after Christ, it is recorded by one who lived in the dayes of the Apostle John, who was the last Apostle, it was joynt opinion of all Beleevers, that Christ should have a Kingdome on Earth, which should (after it was come to perfection) endure a thousand yeares.53 However it is important to note that the nature of Archer’s third state was not entirely consistent with Mede’s view. Archer placed the reign of Christ on earth during the millennium, while Mede situated Christ in heaven.54 Moreover Archer also tried his hand at calculating the exact date of this kingdom. Archer gave careful attention to the numbers in Daniel 12:11, 12, which reads: “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1335 days.” For Archer, the reign of the papal Antichrist began sometime around 360 to 366 A. D. Consistent 48

Ibid. 30. Christianson, Reformers in Babylon, pp. 210-212; Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism, p. 331; Brady, The Contribution of British Writers, pp. 182-183; Gribben, The Puritan Millennium, p. 51. 50 John Archer, The Personall Reign of Christ Upon Earth (London, 1642), p. 1. 51 Ibid. 2. 52 Ibid. 2. 53 Ibid. 40. 54 Ibid. 2. 49


221

with Daniel 12, the reign would last 1290 years until around 1650-1656. This would mark the beginning of the downfall f of Antichrist’s kingdom until 1666. However, by adding another 45 years (the difference between 1335 and 1290 from Daniel 12) to 1650-1656 would result in the beginning date of Christ’s kingdom, roughly 1700.55 Such calculations were not uncommon. Mede even speculated on a possible date of 1736.56 Unquestionably Archer and Goodwin agreed with the millenarian interpretation of the Apocalypse. Their joint ministry in Arnhem, along with Philip Nye (another Congregationalist minister), provided a unique opportunity to discuss and reflect on the various apocalyptic interpretations. Van der Wall also notes that Daniel van Laren was serving the Reformed congregation in Arnhem during this same period.57 It is not implausible to suggest that millenarian thought was exceptionally pervasive amongst the Arnhem ministers. Arnhem was not, however, the only city that became the adopted home for English Congregationalist refugees. William Bridge and Jeremiah Burroughes served successively as the pastor of the English church at Rotterdam.58 Like their congregational brethren in Arnhem, Bridge and Burroughes expounded the Apocalypse with millenarian conclusions. Bridge borrowed Mede’s synchronism between the Beast in Apocalypse 17 and the fourth Beast in Daniel 7.59 Consequently he concluded that “Babylon’s downfall,” or the papacy, would result in Zion’s rise, or the establishment of Christ’s kingdom.60 Moreover, like the English ministers in Arnhem, Bridge followed Mede’s interpretation of the actual location of Christ during the millennial kingdom. Bridge agreed that Christ would not reign on earth during the millennium. “I would not be mistaken here; for I do not thinke that Christ shall come and raigne, continue raigning upon earth a thousand years. I do not see how the Saints can spare him out of heaven so long.”61 Additionally, Jeremiah Burroughes concurred with the millenarian precedents established by his predecessor in Rotterdam. He agreed with Mede’s interpretation of the Two Witnesses in Apocalypse 11, and considered the study of prophecy to be edifying for the church.62 “The revelation

55

Ibid. 52-53. Mede, Works, p. 734. 57 van der Wall, “Antichrist Stormed”, p. 156. 58 Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism, pp. 163, 331. 59 William Bridge, Babylons Downfall. A Sermon Lately Preached at Westminster before sundry of the Honourable house of Commons (London, 1641), p. 7. 60 Ibid. 28. 61 William Bridge, Christs coming Opened in a Sermon before the Honourable House of Commons in Margarets Westminster: May 17, 1648 (London, 1648), p. 6. 62 “But after a while they stood upon their feet, and they heard a voyce from heaven, saying, Come up hither: and they ascended up, and their enemies beheld them. Mr. Meade upon the place saies it was Magistratus supremi jussu, by the command of the chiefe Magistrate,” Jeremiah Burroughes, 56


of prophecies for the good of the Saints is a great blessing, an object that hath much in it to draw out joy.”63 Burroughes also advocated a more glorified future state of the Church, depicted by the last two chapters in the Apocalypse.64 Likewise in 1641 a brief treatise was published anonymously entitled, A Glimpse of Sions Glory: or, The Churches Beautie specified. The authorship of this work has commonly been attributed to either Thomas Goodwin or Jeremiah Burroughes.65 Regardless whether the author was Goodwin or Burroughes, this work clearly revealed the same millenarian sympathies found in both English refugees. The author of Sions Glory agreed that a future kingdom of Christ was yet to be manifested. Though Christs Kingdome bee for a while darkned, Christ shall reigne gloriously, that is implyed: It is revealed to John as a great wonder, as a glorious thing. Why, did not Christ reigne before? Yes, but not in that manner that now hee is to reigne: the Kingdome of Christ hath beene exceedingly darkned in the World; though it now begins to appeare a little more brightly, it hath been exceedingly darkned.66 However, further evidence from this work suggests that the author was not Goodwin. As mentioned earlier, Goodwin agreed with Mede’s placement of Christ in heaven during the millennium. The author of the Glimpse of Sions Glory wrote, Now the reigning with Christ a thousand yeeres is not meant reigning with him in Heaven, for after these thousand yeares, there shall be many enemies raised against the Church, GOG and MAGOG shall gather themselves together; if it were meant of Heaven, that could not be; and therefore it must be meant of Jesus Christ coming and reigning heere gloriously for a Thousand yeares.67

Sions Joy, A Sermon Preached to the Honourable House of Commons assembled in Parliament (London, 1641), p. 16. 63 Ibid. 22. 64 “I suppose you all believe, that there is a time that the church militant here, shall be Triumphant in Heaven, and glorious there; but there is a time thatt God in this Earth, shall make his church to be the glory of the earth,” Jeremiah Burroughes, Jerusalem’s Glory Breaking forth into the World (London, 1697), pp. 4-22. 65 See J. F. Wilson, “A Gimpse of Syons Glory”, Church History, vol. XXI (1962), pp. 66-73; A.R. Dallison, “The Authorship of “A Glimpse m of Syons Glory”, in Toon (ed.), Puritans, The Millennium and the Future, pp. 131-136. 66 A Glimpse of Sions Glory: or, The Churches Beautie specified (London, 1641), p. 8. 67 Ibid. 14.


223

This interpretation was not consistent with h what is explicitly known of Goodwin’s millenarianism.68 If Burroughes wrote this, it demonstrates both a fundamental commitment to millenarianism and a willingness to differ from Mede. In either case, like at Arnhem, the refugee ministers in Rotterdam were also contributing to the apocalyptic climate of the Netherlands a in the mid-seventeenth century. The import of British apocalyptic thought was not limited to the English Congregationalists. Scottish Presbyterians also contributed to the apocalyptic climate in the Dutch Republic. Sprunger notes that “Scottish religious refugees congregated at Rotterdam and made the city the outpost of Presbyterianism-in-exile. The Scots church was the central institution ministering to Scottish spiritual, educational, and material needs.”69 In 1677, Robert Fleming was appointed as a second minister to the Scottish Church in Rotterdam. Fleming had strong roots in the Scottish Reformation. His step-mother was the eldest daughter of John Knox. He studied at St. Andrews under Samuel Rutherford aand departed for Rotterdam after being ejected as a minister in Scotland.70 Fleming was best known for his book, The Fulfilling of the Scripture Complete, first published in Rotterdam in 1669. In this book Fleming demonstrated how the Scriptures foretold what God would accomplish in his providence.71 Likewise he recorded that four major events in history were still awaiting fulfillment: the ruin and downfall of Antichrist, the conversion of the Jews, the flourishing of the church, and the fall of the Turkish Empire.72 In a follow up book, Fleming elaborated the reign of Antichrist and included Mede’s unique interpretation of I Timothy 4:1, which accused the Roman Catholic Church of introducing the pagan “Doctrine of Demons” through the practice of venerating saints.73 Consistent with Mede, Fleming saw the fulfillment of the prophesy in I Timothy in the practice of the Anti-Christian Roman Church. With regard to the church’s flourishing, Fleming noted: It would appear so solemn a time of the church’s flourishing, where as the prophets did so oft point, as it hath an undoubted respect to the days of the 68

A. R. Dallison attempted to circumvent this inconsistency concerning Goodwin by first – claiming that he was ambivalent on this point, and that second – his interpretation squared with Mede’s. Dallison, “The Authorship”, p. 135. Clearly Goodwin was not ambivalent, as was cited earlier (fn.46); and Mede insisted on placing Christ in heaven during the millennium, Mede, Works, p. 603. 69 Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism, p. 431. 70 “Fleming, Robert”, DNB, Vol. VII, p. 284. 71 “We shall consider the accomplishment of the Scripture t as that which is the Lord’s peculiar work and design in the world, and that great business which is upon the wheels of providence, amidst the various changes and revolutions which are here within time, for bringing about whereof the blessed thoughts of his heart are fixed and unalterable,” Robert Fleming, The Fulfilling of the Scripture Complete, Part I (Rotterdam, 1669; reprinted: London, 1726), p. 4. 72 Ibid. 157. 73 Robert Fleming, Scripture Truth Confirmed and Cleared d (Rotterdam, 1678), p. 66.


gospel, so in its full accomplishment mustt answer to that remarkable day of Satan’s binding, and the saints reign with Christ, when the kingdoms of the earth become the Lord’s, which we find doth immediately preceed satan’s loosing, and his going forth to gather his broken forces, for that great battle which is to be very near the end.74 Like his English counterparts, Fleming expected a future blessed state of the church on earth, as described in the Apocalypse 20.75 However, Fleming disagreed with Mede and other English millenarian refugees f over the interpretation of the first resurrection. Fleming chose to adopt a spiritual interpretation because he understood the first resurrection to be in opposition of the second, and therefore completely different in nature.76 Robert Fleming’s son, also named Robert (younger), was educated in the Dutch universities of Leiden and Utrecht. He served as pastor to the refugee church in Leiden before accepting a call from the Scottish Church in Rotterdam after his father’s death in 1694. The younger Fleming published his comments on the Apocalypse in 1701,77 where he continued his father’s millenarian tradition in Rotterdam. His chief concern was the correct identification of the rise and fall of the Antichrist. From the outset Fleming recognized the accuracy of previous apocalyptic commentators, including Mede. Now in order to answer this distinctly (which hath exercised and wearied out all apocalyptical writers hitherto) there are some things I would premise as so many postulata, which generally all agreed d in, and which Mr. Mede, Dr. More, Mr. Durham and Dr. Cressener, have irrefragably proved.78 Fleming followed Mede’s mathematical synchronism in understanding the reign of Antichrist to be 1260 years.79 In contrast to Mede, however, Fleming marked 74

Fleming, The Fulfilling of Scripture, p. 161. “There is a special prediction of Satan’s binding up and restraint, and of some remarkable reign of the church with Jesus Christ held forth, Rev.xx.2. The full accomplishment of which we on clear ground my judge is not yet come…There can be no debate this solemn time of the saints reign with Christ concerns the militant condition of the church, and must be expected here in the earth not in heaven.” Ibid. 162. 76 Ibid. 163. 77 Published as Robert Fleming (younger), Apocalyptical Key. An Extraordinary Discourse on the Rise and Fall of Papacy; or the Pouring out of the Vials, in the Revelation of St. John, Chap. XVI (Rotterdam, 1701; reprinted: London, 1793). 78 Ibid. 16. 79 “That the three grand apocalyptical numbers of 1260 days, 42 moths, and time, times and an half, are not only synchronical, but must be interpreted prophetically, so as years must be understood by days. See Mede’s “Concerning the Numbers of years, Months and Days in the Apocalypse,” Mede, Works, p. 597. 75


225

the beginning of Antichrist in the later date of 758 A.D., because by that time the pope had become universal bishop, wielding secular and ecclesiastical power.80 Now by taking each year to be 360 days and adding 1260 years to 758, Fleming predicted that the end of the reign of Antichrist would be in the year 2000.81 Subsequently, the millennium would “begin immediately after the total destruction of Rome Papal, in or about the year 2000; and that therefore Christ himself will have the honour of destroying that formidable enemy, by a new and remarkable appearance of himself.”82 For Fleming, Christ then would establish his millennial kingdom, which would “be the most eminent and illustrious time of the Christocraty.”83 Yet, regardless of Fleming’s respect for Mede, he chose to differ on a point that many considered was Mede’s most ingenious discovery. Fleming did not identify the millennium with the Day of Judgment. He warned, “we must have a care of confounding this millenary peaceful State of the Church, with the Day of Judgment.”84 Still, the consistency between the Flemings, father and son, demonstrated the Scottish millenarian strand that added to the British influence in the Dutch Republic. It would be incorrect of course to assume that all British refugees were importing a monolithic millenarianism. The first minister of the Scottish Church in Rotterdam was not persuaded by the millenarian position. Instead Alexander Petrie maintained the same eschatological outlook that was most prevalent amongst his colleagues in Scotland.85 The great majority of theologians and ministers in Scotland were not millenarians. In fact the border separating England and Scotland can be viewed equally as an apocalyptic divide, a difference particularly evident at the Westminster Assembly. Robert Baillie, one of the Scottish delegates, complained over the number of “chiliasts” in attendance at the Assembly.86 No doubt he had in mind Twisse, Goodwin, Bridge and Burroughes, who were all in attendance. Baillie disapproved of this millenarian tradition first begun by Alsted and Mede and continued through divines like Archer and Goodwin.87 Subsequently Petrie, even after leaving 80

Fleming (younger), Apocalyptical Key, p. 27. Ibid. 27. 82 On this point Fleming mentioned that he was siding with Drue Cressener’s position (which originally is Mede’s) against Hugo Grotius and Henry Hammond. Ibid. 67. 83 Ibid. 72-73. 84 Ibid. 71. 85 For more details see: John Coffey, Politics, Religion and the British Revolutions: The mind of Samuel Rutherford (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 225-253. 86 Robert Baillie, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, ed. David Laing, vol. II (Edinburgh, 1841), p. 313. 87 Baillie, A Dissuasive, p. 224. Baillie was incorrect in attributing Mede’s millenarianism to Alsted. “Alstedius Heterodox Writings were not long abroad, when Mr Meade at Cambridge was gained to follow him: yet both these Divines were farre from dreaming of any personall raigne of Christ upon earth: Onely Mr Archer, and his Colleague T.G. [Thomas Goodwin] at Arnheim, were bold to set up the whole Fabrick of Chiliasm.” Both Alsted and Mede published their millenarian 81


Scotland, continued to follow many of his countrymen in rejecting the millenarian interpretation of the Apocalypse. In 1644, Petrie published his eschatological thoughts in his book Chiliastomastix, or The Prophecies in the Old and New Testament Concerning the Kingdome of our Saviour Iesus Christ. This was originally intended as a response to the English millenarian, Robert Maton.88 Maton was a committed millenarian, bearing a number of broad similarities with Mede.89 Petrie responded first by denying any future conversion of the Jews. He argued that the Jews would never accept Christ as their king and that promises made to the patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – must rightfully be applied, not to the their physical but to their spiritual descendents.90 Likewise Petrie remarked that even amongst millenarians there were inconsistencies in their interpretations. One example was Maton’s belief in Christ’s actual physical presence on earth during the millennium, which was not consistent with Mede’s placement of Christ in heaven during that period.91 Still, Petrie harshest criticism was against Mede’s method of synchronisms. “And here by the way we observe that the renouned Authour of Clavis Apocalytpica is mistaken in his seventh Synchronisme, wherin he sayth, that the powring furth of the seven viales is contemporarie with the end of the Beast and Babylon.”92 Additionally, “all other Synchronismes and expositiones of textes that ar grounded on that seventh Synchronisme of the first ar wrong. Which I mark, because these late Millenaries have been moved by the appearance of these Synchronismes to embrace this opinion.”93 Of course, for Mede and those like Maton who agreed with his synchronisms, the seventh synchronism off the vials was also synchronized with the sixth trumpet. Once the pouring out of the vials was completed and the sixth trumpet sounded, the reign of the Beast would cease with the inauguration of the millennial kingdom. Petrie believed this was a millenarian contrivance employed to justify a biased interpretation. Alternatively, he matched each vial with each

works in 1627, with no citations of Alsted in the first edition of the Clavis Apocalyptica. See Hotson, Paradise Postponed, pp. 1-32. 88 Robert Maton, Israel’s Redemption, or the Propheticall History of our Saviour’s Kingdom on Earth (London, 1642). 89 Maton agreed that the millennium would be a future literal one-thousand years kingdom of Christ, beginning with a corporeal first resurrection and the conversion of the Jews. Ibid. 1-3, 50, 60, 63. 90 Petrie, Chiliasto-matrix, p. 1. “And therefor the promises made unto the children of Abraham, Isaak, and Iacob are not to be restricted unto the Iewes according to the flesh (as the Iewes and Millenaries expone all these promises) but of the faithfull.” Ibid. 9. 91 Ibid. 37. 92 Ibid. 14. 93 Ibid. 14.


227

of the seven trumpets.94 For Petrie, the seventh trumpet was not the blessed millennial kingdom. Christ’s reign was not to be a future event, but he had spiritually reigned in the past (from the time of Constantine) until 1600.95 Interest in apocalyptic thought thus did not automatically assume a millenarian interpretation. Yet, in the Dutch Republic, even objections to millenarianism contributed to the overall growing apocalyptic ethos and consequent exposure to Mede’s conclusions. Such debate naturally stimulated further inquiry and study. Still, many off the English and Scottish millenarians who sought refuge in the Netherlands imported an eschatological position significantly shaped by Joseph Mede. Subsequently the developing Dutch tradition was continually exposed to British millenarianism influenced by Mede.

10.iv ANTI-MILLENARIAN RESPONSES FROM THE DUTCH UNIVERSITIES With the influx of foreign apocalyptic thought, it was the professors in the Dutch universities who began to respond to the various apocalyptic interpretations saturating the Dutch Republic. The works of these theologians marked the beginnings of an indigenous tradition of interpretation. Most of their responses are brief and buried deep within large tomes of dogmatic theology. Nevertheless these scholars felt the need to address this particular locus of theology and their response was overwhelmingly anti-millenarian, with many of them interacting directly with Mede’s interpretations. In Franeker, where Ames was teaching, Johannes Maccovius was unimpressed by the millenarian position.96 Maccovius denied any future earthly kingdom, and instead believed that when Christ returned, he would simply hand over the kingdom (in an allegorical sense) to the Father.97 He maintained that the reign of Christ would be a spiritual reign from heaven, and not an earthly physical reign; therefore the martyrs of Apocalypse 20 will not physically reign on earth either.98

94

Ibid. 14. Ibid. 50-51. Petrie marked the beginning of the millennium from Constantine, and he believed that he was living in the period in which Satan had been released from his bondage, Petrie, A Compendius History of the Catholick Church, From the Year 600 untill the year 1600 (The Hague, 1662), p. 2. 96 Maccovius taught at Franeker from 1615-1644, Muller, Post-Reformation, Volume 1, pp. 43-44; van Asselt, et. al., Inleideing in de Gereformeerde Scholastiek, pp. 103-104. 97 “Objicitur, Apocal. 20.4.5.6. Dicimus, haec non proprie, sed allegorice esse capienda, constare ex his, quae contra sententiam diximus, & hoc praeterea id confirmat, f quod ubi Paulus agit, de Christi adventu & judicio extremo, statim addit regni Christi fore finem. Diende, inquit, postquam resuscitandi sint, scilicet omnes, erit finis, cum tradiderit regum Deo ac Patri, at Adversarii tunc primum regnum illud caepturum statuunt, cum finem fit habiturum,” Johannis Maccovius, Loci communes theologici (Franeker, 1650), p. 883. 98 Ibid. 883; Maccovius, Collegia Theologica (Franeker, 1641), pp. 532-537. 95


Likewise members of the faculty in Leiden added their critique of millenarianism. For twenty years, from 1619-1639, Antonius Walaeus served as professor of theology.99 Walaeus included his thoughts on millenarianism in his Opera Omnia. It has been suggested that Walaeus was specifically refuting Piscator and Alsted. However he was not unaware of Mede. Although the correspondence between Walaeus and Mede no longer exists, Worthington mentions that Walaeus “did hugely applaud himself in the happiness he had to be acquainted with Mr. Mede’s unparallel’d Commentary upon that mysterious Book.”100 From the outset Walaeus pointed to the less than reputable past of previous millenarians. He cited the errors of Cerinthus (including the restoration of the Old Testament Jewish theocracy), the Anabaptists, and the recent revival by Piscator and Alsted.101 Distinctly anti-millenarian, Walaeus placed the beginning of Christ’s reign in his first advent, and not the second coming. Christ will hand his kingdom over to the Father at the second coming and Last Judgment.102 Consequently, according to Walaeus, Christ’s reign will not be over a terrestrial kingdom, but he reigns from heaven in the present age.103 Thus, while aware, but not specifically mentioning Mede, Walaeus rejected the revival of millenarianism. Following Walaeus, Johannes Cocceius was deeply interested in the interpretation of biblical prophecy.104 Cocceius taught at Leiden from 1650 to 1669.105 His views on the covenant distinguished him in seventeenth-century Dutch theology.106 There has been some confusion, beginning shortly after 99

Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae, p. IX-XII; Muller, Post-Reformation, Volume II, p. 46. 100 Mede, Works, “The Authour’s Life”, p. VII. 101 “Quidam enim existimarunt, regnum illud fore ita terrenum, ut Judaei interram suam sint reducendi, & una cum fidelibus viventibus omni corporearum delitiarum genere sint fruituri; interque delitias illas multitudinem uxorum, festa ac convivia perpetua, Judos carnales, &c. imaginati sunt. Item reaedificationem urbis Jerosolymorum, & restitutionem templi, ac reliquarum ceremoniarum ac legum Judaicarum…Et tamen nostro tempore rursum renovata est, primo per Anabaptistas in Germania & Westphalia; deinde per quosdom Photinianos, utt Socinus agnoscit in libro adversus Chiliastas; denique & ante annos non ita multos per quosdam in Belgio: & iam ante paucos annos exparte a Piscatore & Alstedio.” Antonio Walaeus, “De opinione chiliastarum,” in Opera Omnia (Lugd. Batavorum, 1647-1648), pp. 537-538. 102 “Scriptura testatur quod Christus manebit in coelo usque ad ultimum judicium, ergo antea non veniet ut hic regnum terrenum erigat.” Ibid. 539. 103 “Ibi non dicitur regnaturos cum Christo in terris existente; nam fideles possent cum Christo regnare in coelo; imo & cum eo regnare possunt in terra, esti Christus in coelo maneat.” Ibid. 539. 104 See, W. J. van Asselt, “Structural Elements in the Eschatology of Johannes Cocceius”, Calvin Theological Journal, 35 (2000), pp. 76-104. 105 Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae, p. IX-XII. 106 For details on Cocceius’ covenant theology see, W. J. van Asselt, Amicitia Dei. Een onderzoek naar de structuur van de theologie van Johannes Coccejus (1603-1669), (Utrecht, 1988); translated as The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669), trans. by Randy Blaketer (Leiden, 2001). Studies on the influence of Cocceius include: Ernestine van der Wall, “Orthodoxy and Scepticism in the Early Dutch Enlightenment”, in R. H. Popkin and A. Vanderjagt (eds.),


229

Cocceius’ death, as to whether he was or was not a millenarian. Willem van Asselt writes, “Cocceius has often been accused of millennialism,” to which accusations his son, Johannes Henricus Cocceius, replied extensively.107 Cocceius’ son identified three specific non-millenarian interpretations in hopes of exonerating his father from these accusations. He cited his father’s rejection of a bodily first resurrection, the terrestrial reign of Christ for one thousand years, and the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.108 However, van Asselt adds, “Cocceius’ description of the future glorious state of the church does make one think of those matters that were referred to by (some) millennialists in their description of the future millennium.”109 While this description does not confirm Cocceius as a millenarian in any sense of the term, perhaps it did open the possibility for others who followed him to explore a more thorough millenarian position. Later “Cocceians” like Jacobus Alting, Campegius Vitringa, Saloman van Til and Henricus Groenewegen all maintained a millenarian eschatology.110 One final scholar, Johannes Marck, taught at Leiden from 1689 to 1731.111 À Marck published a commentary on the Apocalypse in 1689.112 In the preface he demonstrated a thorough knowledge of recent apocalyptic commentators, including Brightman, Forbes, Napier, More, and of course Mede.113 À Marck

Scepticism and Irreligion in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Leiden, 1993), pp. 121141; Jonathan I. Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1577-18066 (Oxford, 1995; reprinted with correction in 1998), pp. 889-933. 107 van Asselt, “Structural Elements”, p. 95. 108 Regarding the first resurrection Cocceius wrote, “Accedit, quod beatitudo & sanctitas appropriatur illis, qui habent partem in prima resurrectione. Vs. 6. Sed si illa est resurrectio carnis, plures sunt beati & sancti, quam qui primo in carne resurrecturi esse dicuntur. Et vero absurdum est dicere, quod, qui pro Evangelio mortui sunt, resurrecturi sint, Patriarchae vero & Prophetae non sint resurrecturi, ut cum Christo regnent, qui tamen habent promissionem…Ergo ista non est resurrection carnis.” Cocceius, “Cogitationes De Apocalyps S. Johannis Theologi,” in Opera Omnia theologica (Amsterdam, 1701-1706), p. 109; van Asselt, “Structural Elements”, p. 95. 109 Ibid. 96. 110 Alting and Vitringa will be discussed in the final section of this chapter. For more details on van Til and Groenewegen see: van der Wall, “Antichrist Stormed”, pp. 158-159; Andrew Fix, Fallen Angels: Balthasar Bekker, Spiritual Belief, and C Confessionalism in the Seventeenth Century Dutch Republic (Dordrecht, 1999), pp. 94-96; W. van Asselt, “Structural Elements”, pp. 96-97. 111 Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae, p. IX-XII; Muller, Post-Reformation, Volume I, p. 48. 112 Johannes Marck, In Apocalypsin Johannis Commentarius, seu Analysis Exegetica (Amsterdam, 1689). I consulted the 1699 edition. 113 “Qualis subordinatio Visionum Apocalypticarum, sive omnium, sive quarundam, ut tempore se mutuo excipiant, placuit etiam Medo, Brightmanno, Forbesio, Napeiro, Moro, Cotterio, Cluvero, Grotio &c. quorum omnium sententias distincte hic persequi non possum. Verum, licet haec ratio interpretandi majorem habeat speciem quam prior, non potest tamen iterum satis recte conciliari cum Prophetarum aliorum methodo, in quorum vaticiniis non est unum continuum temporis filum, sed pro rerum varietate saepe subitus progressus, saepe celerior regressus.” Ibid. iii.


agreed with his Leiden colleagues in rejecting e the millenarian interpretation of the Apocalypse, regarding it as boastful vanity.114 He did not believe that Apocalypse 20 was depicting the millennium as a literal one thousand years; instead Marck considered that the period of Satan’s binding would be less than a thousand years.115 While rejecting a literal interpretation, Marck still assigned the millennium, or the reign of Christ, to a specific period in the history of the church. He marked the beginning of the millennium in the first century, where Christ and later the apostles bound Satan through the preaching of the gospel.116 Subsequently the reign of Christ was not a physical earthly reign, but a spiritual reign from heaven.117 À Marck ended the millennium and Satan’s release in the seventh century with the rise of the Antichrist in the popes and later the Turks. This satanic reign would last 1260 years and extend through the seventeenth century.118 Like his fellow theologians in Leiden, Marck was not impressed by millenarianism, but instead affirmed the previous Protestant tradition in placing the millennium firmly in the past. In the city of Utrecht, Gisbertus Voetius was appointed professor of theology at the newly established university in 1634.119 His thoughts on millenarianism were included in his Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum.120 Voetius’ criticism focused on the literal method of interpretation employed by the millenarians. He regarded the first resurrection as a spiritual resurrection or the act of regeneration accomplished through the power of the gospel.121 Voetius argued that the two resurrections in Apocalypse 20 detailed a movement from 114 “Ex textus expositione res omnis mox clarior erit, & patebit, Thrasonismis vanis uti aliter statuentes Chiliasmi fautores multos, veteres & recentes.” Ibid. 911. 115 “Quamquam apud eundem no perinde placeat iterum, quod longe minus mille annis spatium, ex hypothesi de ligatione Satanae sequenti ad bestiae interitum, videatur intelligere; & in eum finem mille annos in radicem cubicam decem annorum convertat, imo tempus prosperum atque felix, etsi revera brevius, prodiuturno atque logiori haveri observet.” Ibid. 916. 116 “Ex dictis hactenus non adeo difficile erit, quam vulgo quidem videtur, intelligere, quodam fit hoc mille annorum constricti Satanae tempus, atque ubi fere inchoandum & finiendum idem fit. Constat scilicet, quando Christus per praedicationem Euangelii & potentiam Spiritus ex coelo descenderit; quod utique tum factum est quam maxime, cum Spiritu exalto immisso in discipulos suos, hos constituit validos in orbe tot Euangelii sui praecones, regnique infernalis destructores.” Ibid. 917. 117 “Et significat hoc non tantum communionem cum Christo, tanquam causa vitae & regni omnis, sed & vitam & regnum simile, non mundanum aut externum quod non habuit nec habebit Christus, sed spirtuale & gloriosum; & praeterea praesentiam apud Christum in coelo, ubi tanquam rex in throneo Patris considet, atque illi uniuntur in morte fidelium animae…” Ibid. 925-926. 118 Ibid. 918-919. 119 Muller, Post-Reformation, Volume II, p. 49; van Asselt, et.al., Inleiding in de Gereformeerde Scholastiek, pp. 127-130. 120 Gisbertus Voetius, Gisberti Voetii Theologiae in Acad. U Ultrajectina Professoris, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, pars secunda (Utrecht, 1655), pp. 1248ff. 121 “Alli universalem intelligunt reviviscentiam & suscitationem ecclesiae per libertationem a cruce, & apertam ac publica authoritate munitam Euangelii propagationem.” Ibid. 1252.


231

grace to glory. The first resurrection was unto grace, through the gospel, while the second resurrection would bring the glorified state. For additional evidence Voetius cited the example of the Jews from Romans 11:15, which describes their future conversion as “life from the dead”– a virtual resurrection.122 Likewise Voetius specifically responded to Mede’s millenarian comments in the second edition of the Clavis Apocalyptica without knowing who the author was.123 Voetius rejected Mede’s placement of the millennium, and instead argued that Christ’s return would consummate all things, including the end of the world, the final destruction of his enemies and the giving of his kingdom to God the Father.124 For Voetius, the millennium would not occur after Christ’s second, but was to be identified with the period between Christ’s first and second comings.125 Furthermore Voetius objected to Mede and Alsted’s use of Old Testament prophecy. He compared their method to the patristic chiliasts, like Justin Martyr and Lactantius, and concluded that they incorrectly externalized the prophecies regarding Christ’s reign. They essentially committed the same error as the Jews. The reign of Christ was not to be a physical, earthly or political reality during the millennium, but a spiritual one.126 Like Cocceius,

122

“Nos omnibus sentiis collatis, putamus primam m resurrectionem accipi posse tum generaliter tam specialiter. Generaliter, pro quacunque spirituali animae suscitatione ex erroribus & peccatis, hoc est, pro salutari conversione: & consequenter secundam, pro suscitatione corporali, novissimo die futura. Et sic Augustinus lib.20.de civit.Dei cap.6. ait, primam fieri ad gratiam, secundam ad gloriam. Specialiter, pro magna illa Gentium conversione ac suscitatione per praedicationem euangelii: quae prima dicitur, vel quod ante eam talis ac tanta jam inde a condito mundo nunquam fuisset. Hujus descriptionem vide Rom. 11.v.12.15. & 13.vers. 11.12. Ephes. 2.16. & 3 v.5.9. Vel, quod post eam secunda aliqua futura fit, reviviscentia scil. Ecclesiae tempore reformationis pertendentis a. 1517. aut conversionis Judaeorum (quando vita erit ex mortuis Rom. 11.vers. 15.), aut utriusque.” Ibid. 1252. 123 “Eandem fere opinionem serio tuetur eruditius author Clavis Apocalypticae.a.1632, apud Thomam Buck Academie Cantabrigiensis typographum editae, pag. 276-294.” Ibid. 1260. 124 “quae repugnat regno Christi oeconomico seu mediatorio (ut & sessioni ad dextram); quod tantum unicum est, unicum habens terminum seu finem cum fine mundi & finali excidio hostium conjunctum, perdurans & decurrens a Christo eodem modo, eadem forma, eadem foederis seu novi Testamenti dispeansatione & exhibitione usque add illustrem ejus adventum, donec tradat regnum Deo & partri Ps.110.v.1. I Corinth.15.24.25.26.27.28. Ephes.I.v.19.20.21.” Ibid. 1261. 125 “Hinc tempus inter medium inter primum & secundum adventum Christi dictitur novissima hora, fines saeculorum, I Joh.2. I Corinth. 10. Ergo non intercidetur tempus hoc dicto millenario nec post illud erunt bella Gog & Magog.” Ibid. 1261. 126 “Decimum-quintum, arma Christianis eripiuntur contra Judaeos, dum tantum illis conceditur, ut omnia fere prophetarum testimonia de spirituali regno Christi ad externum & millenarium hoc regnum trahantur. Vide Authorem Clavis Apocalypticae, & Cl. Alstedium in Diatribe. Infelicem illam methodum interpretandi prophetias V.T. olim etaim adhibuerant cum Chiliastis Justinus & Lactantius. Sed si alicubi sistendum fit in disputationibus cum Judeis, ubi tandem pedem figent? quibus hypothesibus & regulis certo distinguenda sua debunt a dictis prophetis reliqua si quae sunt oracula de regno & adventu Christi spiritualiter intelligenda?” Ibid. 1263.


Voetius’ anti-millenarian eschatological position did not deter his followers. In fact it was more probable that his thoughts stimulated further apocalyptic interest in “Voetians” like Jacobus Koelman.127 Again, reactions to millenarianism were just as important as writings advocating the position in creating a dialogue over eschatological interpretations. Arguably the most ardent anti-millenarianism was Samuel Maresius. Maresius was educated in France and Switzerland and taught in Groningen from 1643 until his death in 1673.128 His disdain for millenarianism produced visceral responses directed at professing and suspected millenarians alike. Johannes Henricus Cocceius’ comments defending his father were aimed as a direct response to Maresius.129 Others like Jacobus Alting, Jan Amos Comenius, and Petrus Serrarius also debated in print with Maresius over the interpretation of the millennium.130 It is interesting to note that Maresius not only attacked the millenarians, but also criticized the preterist position of Hugo Grotius, specifically Grotius’ interpretation of the Antichrist.131 Maresius’ difficulties with millenarianism were explicitly demonstrated in his interaction with Petrus Serrarius. Serrarius published his Assertion du regne de mille ans in 1657 and later in 1663 defended millenarianism in response to Maresius.132 Against Maresius, Serrarius insisted that three events would occur at Christ’s second advent: the restoration of Israel, the destruction of the Man of Sin, and the inauguration of the glorious kingdom of Christ on earth.133 In addition Serarrius cited Mede’s legitimate use of the early Church Fathers (including Tertullian, Irenaeus, Jerome, and especially Mede’s edition of Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho appended to the Clavis Apocalyptica) to

127

van der Wall, “Antichrist Stormed”, pp. 159-161. Muller, Post-Reformation, Volume II, p. 48. 129 van Asselt, “Structural Elements”, p. 95. 130 Alting’s comments will be examined in the next section. On Maresius’ impression of Comenius see, Samuel Maresius, Antirheticus, sive defensio pii zeli pro retinenda recepta in Ecclesiis Reformatis doctrina, praesertim adversus chiliastas et fanaticos; contra Joh. A. Comenii fanatici zelum amarum scientiâ ett consicentiâ destitutum (Groningen, 1669); H. Hotson, Paradise Postponed, pp. 24-25. On Serrarius see, J. van den Berg, “Quaker and Chiliast”, pp. 180-198; Ernestine van der Wall, De mystieke chiliast Petrus Serrarius (1600-1669) en zijn wereldd (Leiden, 1987); idem, “A Precursor of Christ or a Jewish Imposter? m Petrus Serrarius and Jean de Labadie on the Jewish Messianic Movementt around Sabbatavi Sevi”, in Martin Brecht, et. al. (eds.), Pietismus und Neuzeit, pp. 109-124; idem, “Petrus Serrarius and Menasseh ben Israel: Christian Millenarianism and Jewish Messianism in Seventh-Century Amsterdam”, in Y. Kaplan, H. Méchoulan and R. H. Popkin, Menasseh ben Israel and His Worldd (Leiden, 1989), pp. 164-190; Andrew Fix, Prophecy and Reason, pp. 72-77; van der Wall, “Mystical Millenarianism”, pp.37-47. 131 Samuel Maresius, Dissertio de Antichristo, qua expenditur et refutatur nupera Commentatio ad illustriora ea de re Novi Testamenti Loca, Il.V. Hugonis Grotii credita…(Amsterdam, 1640). 132 Petrus Serrarius, Petri Serarii Apologetica Responsio, Ad Clarissimum Virum D. Samuelem Maresium, S. S. Theologiae Doctorem & Professorem (Amsterdam, 1663). 133 Ibid. 3, 11, 19, 22. 128


233

substantiate millenarianism as an orthodox eschatological position.134 Thus Serrarius attempted to demonstrate a continuity between the Patristic chiliasts and seventeenth-century millenarians.135 The following year Maresius responded to Serarrius point by point.136 Maresius rejected Serrarius original three points, along with an additional fourth point – the corporeal first resurrection.137 The debate between Maresius and Serrarius can be reduced to a fundamental exegetical difference between either a spiritual or physical fulfillment of the visions in the Apocalypse. Maresius asserted that the restoration of Israel, the reign of Christ, and the first resurrection should all be interpreted spiritually.138 Furthermore these events would be accomplished through Christ’s redemptive work and not in a future millennial period.139 These conflicting exegetical methods stood as a defining hermeneutical difference between millenarians and non-millenarians. The reaction from academics in the Dutch universities to the influx and domestic proliferation of millenarianism was mostly negative. Such response further demonstrated the increase of apocalyptic awareness in the Netherlands. However, debates were not restricted to the Dutch Republic. Dutch scholars responded to other continental theologians who were likewise wrestling with this revival of millenarianism. The writings of Mede (and other prominent millenarians) extended across Protestant Europe. At the academy of Saumur the controversial Moïse Amyraut wrote a response to millenarianism in 1654.140 Both Serrarius in the Netherlands and Pierre de Launay in France wrote rebuttals to Amyraut.141 Yet Saumur was not an anti-millenarian stronghold. Amyraut’s 134

Ibid. 25, 27, 33. “An fidem tuam testor, Vir Clarissimi; ipse tuu pro prudentia tua judica, quaeso, an quae ex Ireaneo, Justino Martyre, Lactantio allisque priorum Seculorum Millenariis, & quae novis, Hen. Alstedio, Joh. Piscatore, Josepho Medo, Nat. Homesio, And. Rallio allisve hodiernis sententiae nostrae Patronis, vel vidisti vel audivisti unquam, commune quid habeant cum viro isto a Gajo & Dionysio descripto.” Ibid. 28. 136 Samuel Maresius, Chiliasmus Enervatus, Ad D. P. Serarium (Groningen, 1664). 137 Ibid. 2. 138 Ibid. 3, 5. 139 “Vel si praedictionibus annumerentur, quod per no licet, censeri debebunt completae sensu literali ac diminuto, in Judaeorum libertation ex captivitate Babylonica, mystico vero ac spirituali in Israelis veri redemptione per Christum, prout utraque signatur Zach IX, II.” Ibid. 3. 140 Moïse Amyraut, Du règne de mille ans ou de la propseritié de l’Eglise (Saumur, 1654). For details on other theological controversies surrounding Amyraut see, Roger Nicole, Moyse Amyraut (1596-1664) and the Controversy on Universal Grace First Phase (1634-1637), (Harvard University, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1966); Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy; James T. Dennison, Jr., “The Twilight of Scholasticism: Francis Turretin at the Dawn of the Enlightenment”, in Trueman and Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism, pp. 244-255. 141 The second edition of Amyraut’s book was published in Leiden in 1655. Serrarius’ Assertion du règne de mille ans was written against Amyraut. Similarly, de Launay’s responded in Response au livre de M. Amiraut du regne de mil ans ou de la properite de l’eglise (Charenton Vendosme, 1655). Also see, van der Wall, “Mystical Millenarianism”, p. 39. 135


colleague Paul Testard was a great admirer of Mede. Testard received a copy of Mede’s Clavis Apocalyptica and apparently translated it into French.142 Mede, of course, could not endorse this translation because he was forbidden by the Laudian establishment to republish any new editions of his books whether at home or abroad, in English or any other language. He was only allowed to include his apocalyptic comments in private correspondence.143 Clearly, apocalyptic thought in the broader European context illustrated the extensive communication and cross-fertilization of thought that permeated the seventeenth century. The circulation of millenarianism, in particular Mede’s writings, solicited both positive and negative reactions, yet stimulated a greater interest in eschatology.144 Most of these scholars choose to follow some form of Augustinian eschatology and rejected a future millennium. Yet they understood that the mounting popularity and scholarly profundity of millenarian writings needed to be addressed. Mede, Alsted, and others who perpetuated their teachings were present and active in the Dutch Republic, especially in the English, Scottish, German and Czech refugee communities. Why did these Dutch scholars feel such a need to respond? Perhaps they feared the shadow of Munster and a resurgence of radical millenarianism; likewise they may have feared the rise of heterodox doctrines in the Republic. However the shift towards millenarian

142

In a letter to John Brooks dated June 1634, Testard wrote, “I have translated into French, that I might communicate it to divers friends, the Book you sent upon the Revelation, which seems to me worthy admiration, and full of comfort to those that expect the consolation of Israel.” Mede, Works, p. 792. 143 Mede wrote, “Hoc ideo te celatum nolui, ut inde pro prudentia tua judicium faceres, quantopere mea intersit, ne ipse in novam libelli mei apud exteros editionem, sive sua sive aliena lingua consentirem; cui domi nedum m ulteriori editione, sed & hujus distractione publica, a superioribus interdictum sit, sola communicatione privata mihi permissa,” letter dated January 1635/36 from Mede to Testard. Mede, Works, p. 795. 144 Further it is interesting to note that millenarianism and anti-millenarianism were not defined by other polemically charged issues. In England, loyalty to Calvinism or Arminianism did not identify an individual as a millenarian or anti-millenarian. This was the same case on the Continent. Amyraut’s greatest theological detractor was the Genevan theologian Francis Turretin, a strict Calvinist. Turretin studied in Leiden, Utrecht, Paris and Saumur (under Amyraut), where he encountered first-hand millenarians and non-millenarians alike. While he was adamantly opposed to Amyraut’s hypothetical universalism, Turretin agreed with his scathing anti-millenarian critique. He specifically objected to the errors of Piscator, Alsted, de Launay and Joseph Mede. “There was not wanting also those who in this our age wished to bring back Chiliasm; such as Piscator among the evangelicals, who asserts that the martyrs alone will rise before the universal resurrection, and will reign a thousand years with Christ in heaven, and then the rest of men will be recalled from death to life…Alsted, Joseph Mede, Peter Launaeus and others follow him.” Francis Turretin, Institutio theologiae elencticae (Geneva, 1696), Twentieth Topic, Question III. Quoted from Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 575. For further details on Turretin see: James T. Dennison Jr., “The Life and Career of Francis Turretin”, Ibid. 639-658.


235

acceptance amongst Dutch academics is extremely revealing. Interaction with British academic millenarianism most likely helped to eleviate the initial suspicion against a millenarian eschatology. As van der Wall notes, “from 1660 onwards there was a shift towards a more positive judgement, even to the point of millenarianism being accepted within the orthodox Reformed church.”145 Scholarship like Mede’s introduced a conservative intellectual millenarianism that was biblically rooted and theologically cogent.

10.v THE DUTCH LEGACY Although millenarianism was not dominant in the Dutch universities, the necessity to respond to this controversial eschatology in print at the very least demonstrates the perceived threat of millenarianism. Obviously this position was popular amongst the British refugee communities. Yet, sympathies for millenarianism were evident in domestic theologians and ministers as well. Daniel van Laren and Petrus Serrarius have already been mentioned. Additionally, Jacobus Alting, professor in Groningen and son of the theologian Heinrich Alting, defended the millenarian position against his colleague Maresius.146 Alting argued that the scriptures taught a logical sequence between the present world and the future world as articulated by the millenarians. He explained that the present world was subjected to Demons, but the future world will not be subjected to such spirits (he cited Hebrews 2:5, which speaks of the world to come not being subjected to Angels). Instead all things will be put under the feet of Christ (Hebrews 2:8).147 The present world, for Alting, is ruled by evil Angels who are currently not subjected to Christ. But when Christ returns all power in heaven and earth will be given to him. This reign will continue until Satan is released from his bondage and then afterward Christ will crush the last enemy, death itself.148 Alting saw a consistency in this interpretation against the 145

van der Wall, “Mystical Millenarianism”, p. 38. van Asselt, et. al, Inleiding in de Gereformeerde Scholastiek, p. 104. Alting defense is found in: Jacobus Alting, Opera Omnia theologica, analytica, exegetica, practica, problematica, philogica (Amsterdam, 1685-1687). Alting also opposed Maresius’ strict confessional Calvinism. Israel, The Dutch Republic, pp. 895-896; Fix, Fallen Angels, pp. 13-14. 147 “In duobus sequentibus articulis…Mundum futurum quem Deus non subjecit Angelis, Heb. 2.5. esse regnum Chiliasticum opposite ad mundum praesentem qui subest Daemonibus…In regno Chiliastico omnia visum iri subjecta pedibus Christi, Heb. 2.8.” Alting, Opera Omnia, p. 472. 148 “Mihi adscribit, quourum neutrum hoc modo a me propositum: sed adstringendo argumento superiori de ligatione Satanae, dixi Angelos illos, quibus non est subjectus mundus futurus, recte intelligi posse de illis, qui jam adhuc de facto (de jure enim quis ambigit?) Christo subjecti non sunt, hoc est, de malis Angelis, qui ab Apostolo adhuc suo tempore mundi prinicipes appelantur Eph. Cap. 6.vers. 11.12. Deo hujus seculi excaecante mentes infidelium, ne adsentiantur Euangelio, 2 Corinth. 4. Ephes. 2. vers. 2. Quod opponit Matth.28.18 de potestate omni in coelo & in terra Christo data, de jure ipsius loguitur, cui solutio Satanae nihil derogat; observante Christo tempora quibus jam his jam aliis spoliis eum exuat, Coloss.1:12. Act. 26.18. Atque ad hunc ordinem 146


non-millenarians who placed the binding of Satan during the present church age, at the same time when evil Angels are said to be ruling. Additionally Alting noted a significant distinction between the “chiliasmus crassus” of Cerinthus, the Anabaptists, Fanatics and Quakers, and the eschatology of the early Church Fathers, as well as contemporaries like Piscator, Alsted and van Laren.149 He also believed that Walaeus recognized this same distinction.150 This is important for understanding the academic millenarian tradition as it developed on the continent and in Britain. Scholars began to distinguish between the radicals and the academics. Dutch millenarianism, as expressed by Alting, was consonant with Mede’s millenarianism which was also distinct from radical elements in England like the Fifth Monarchists. At the University of Franeker, Campegius Vitringa served as professor of oriental languages from 1680 until his death in 1722.151 Vitringa’s comments on the Apocalypse demonstrated a strong, although not uncritical, dependence on Mede.152 As van der Wall has observed, With regard to the prophecies of the Book of Revelation Vitringa maintains that he has been more intensely engaged in finding the correct hypotheses than any of his predecessors, with the exception of Joseph Mede, who has devised the best method of interpreting the Apocalypse, though his hypotheses may not be without their faults.153 Vitringa acknowledged his debt to Mede, yet disagreed with his interpretation of the vision of the trumpets and seals. Mede matched the first six trumpets with the opening of the seventh seal; Vitringa instead preferred to complete the opening of the seventh seal before the beginning of the trumpets.154 Why did this matter? Mede separated the entire Apocalypse into two prophecies – the prophecy of the temporis quoque perinent I Corinth. 15:25,26. De ultimo hoste morte abolendo, postquam videlicet solutum a ligatione sua Satanam ultima vice superaverit.” Ibid. 472. 149 Alting spoke of the “crassiores illi Chiliastae.” Ibid. 471. 150 Ibid. 471. 151 Muller, Post-Reformation, Volume II, pp. 51-52; van der Wall, “Between Grotius and Cocceius: The ‘Theologia Prophetica’ of Campegius Vitringa (1659-1722)”, in Nellen and Rabbie (eds.), Hugo Grotius Theologian, pp. 197-198. 152 “Id igitur primum est, quod in hac prophetia interpretanda tentavi, & forte operosius exequutus sum, quam qui ante me se in hoc stadio exercitarunt: etsi sua hic neganda non est laus Josepho Medo, qui Commentationibus suis in hunc Librum Clavim praemisit Apocalypticam, qua hypothese hujus Prophetiae interpretande ex Vaticiniorum Synchronismis constructuas, jecit, atque adeo methodum demonstravit rei feliciter gerendae optimam; licet forte hypotheses ipsae vitio non careant.” Campegius Vitringa, ANAKRISISS [Romanized Form] Apocalypsios Johannis Apostoli (Amsterdam, 1719), Praefatio, ***3. 153 van der Wall, “Between Grotius and Cocceius”, p. 209. 154 Vitringa, ANAKRISIS, pp. 424-426.


237

seals and the little book. “The first prophecie of the seales, comprehendeth the destines of the Empire. The other of the little book, destinies of the Church or of christian religion; until at length both shall be united in the Church raigning.”155 Mede placed the six seals and the six trumpets in the first prophecy of the seals, detailing the fate of the world Empires, while the seventh seal was included in the second prophecy of the little book, and thus pertained to the events of the church. Likewise Mede interpreted the seventh trumpet as the blessed millennium. In contrast Vitringa followed a strict chronological order, with the seven seals completed before the trumpets begins. Additionally all the seals and trumpets were placed in the first prophecy, describing the fate of the secular kingdoms; and they will be fulfilled prior to the millennium. Consequently none of the seals or trumpets were applied to the fate of the church.156 Vitringa made this exegetical modification a in order to avoid what he thought was an incorrect consensus amongst Protestant commentators. The events of the seals and trumpets did not describe the fate of the papacy or the Roman Catholic Church. Van der Wall notes that on this point Vitringa sided with Grotius’ understanding. Vitringa interpreted the Beast of chapter 17, who appears during the period of the sixth trumpet, as the pagan Roman Empire and not the ecclesiastical institution.157 It was important for Vitringa to deviate from the Protestant identification of the Beast with the Roman Catholic Church because he could not accept that the Christian church could be transformed into such a horrific entity.158 Instead he interpreted the first beast as the Roman Empire, and the second beast as false teachers, like the Dominicans and Franciscans.159 Thus, Vitringa departed from Mede’s interpretation of the seals and trumpets in order to avoid further indicting the Roman Catholic Church as a Satanic institution.160 Sympathies with Grotius extended only so far, and did not include Vitringa’s interpretation of the millennium. Against Grotius and Hammond,

155

Mede, The Key, Part I, p. 38. “Fata enim Sigillorum & Tubiciniorum quae hactentus hubimus, omnia interpretatus est de Fatis Romani Imperii: quod fieri ab ipso non potuit, nisi quasdam Prophetias superores non absque vi quadam ad hanc hypothesin accommodando, earumque extenuando sensum.” Vitringa, ANAKRISIS, p. 425. 157 van der Wall, “Between Grotius and Cocceius”, p. 211. 158 Ibid. 212. 159 Vitringa, ANAKRISIS, p. 585, 612-613. 160 van der Wall adds, “he [Vitringa] hesitates to pointt to the faults of the Church of Rome, since Reformed churches have also deviated from their first perfection and have often been unnecessarily driven apart by their polemics. He thinks it is hypocritical not to mention the sins of the Protestant churches, while exposing the faults of the Roman Catholic Church in sharp terms.” van der Wall, “Between Grotius and Cocceius”, p. 212. 156


Vitringa placed the millennium in the future.161 Vitringa argued that it was inconsistent to locate the millennium in the present church age because then the blessed millennium would occupy the same period as the Empire of the Beast. The martyrs who did not bow down to the Beast or his image are said to reign with Christ during the millennium. How then could they be reigning when the Beast has not yet been destroyed? Vitringa saw no other consistent alternative but to expect a future millennial reign of Christ.162 Likewise, Vitringa followed Mede’s hallmark interpretation regarding the relation between the millennium and the Day of Judgement. He agreed that the Day of Judgement would extend for the entire period of the millennium.163 Again this avoided any accusations from those who argued that Christ’s second coming should be associated with the Day of Judgement, and these two events should not be separated by a one thousand year period.164 Clearly, in Vitringa the Dutch had a committed millenarian who was aware of the foreign apocalyptic traditions and intent on incorporating many aspects of those traditions into his own. Specifically the millenarianism of Mede was thoroughly studied. Vitringa did not examine other writers uncritically, but continued to investigate the interpretation of the Apocalypse in a Dutch university without the stigma of radicalism. The acceptability of millenarianism as a legitimate eschatological position was tolerated in Franeker. Although not Dutch by ethnicity, the French theologian Pierre Jurieu moved to the Netherlands after 1681, following the closure of the Protestant academy in Sedan by the French authorities. The grandson of the famous French scholar Pierre du Moulin, Jurieu was appointed professor at Rotterdam and called as a 161

“Alterum, quod ex hypothesi, quam hactenus sequuti sumus, per Bestiam supponens intelligendum esse Imperium Romanum mysticum & Antichristianum, Millennium hoc interpretatur de tempus Ecclesia hactenus non vidit, sed adhuc in futurum expectat.” Virtinga, ANAKRISIS, p. 835. 162 “Fundamentum Regni Sanctorum & Martyrum hic manifeste ponitur non-adoratio Bestaie & imaginis ejus. Regni autem illus Mille annorum dicuntur consortes fore omnes Martyres, qui Bestiam & imaginem ejus non fuerant venerati… Si enim inciderent hi Mille Anni in ipsum tempus Imperii Bestiae, & ante finitum tempus Imperii Bestiae expirarent: (quae hypothesis est Doctorum Virorum qui hic a nobis diffentiunt:) fieri posset, ut quis non adorasset Bestiam, qut imaginem ejus, & tamen non regnaret cum Christo per Mille annos.” Ibid. 835. 163 “Ego vero hic polixus non ero, cum Josephus Medus, in Dissertatione elegante & erudita, quam Commentationibus suis in Apocalypsin subjecit, Doctorum Hebraeorum placita de hac re industrie collegerit; nec intactum reliquerit hoc argumentum, quem modo laudabam, Burnetus.” Ibid. 846. 164 It should be noted that Vitringa disagreed with another important millenarian interpretation, the corporeal first resurrection. Instead he chose to interpret it symbolically and mystically as the rise of the church from a dead state. “Simplex & clarus r horum verborum sensus est, symbolicam hanc & figuratam Resurrectionem Martyrum & illustrium Ecclesiae Doctorum, a calumniis, quibus impetita fuerat illorum existimatio, publice vindicandorum & justificandorum, non esse confundendam cum generali & vera resuscitatione omnium hominum, quae novissimo die esset expectanda post expletos illos mille annos, quando ipsi quoque illi Martyres, qui nunc symbolice resurrexerent, resurgerent vere,…resurrectione secunda.” Ibid. 864.


239

second minister to the Walloon church. He remained in Rotterdam until his death in 1713.165 Following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, Jurieu wrote his comments on the Apocalypse in hopes of comforting and encouraging the French Protestants.166 Jurieu published L’Accomplissement des propheties ou la delivrance prochaine de l’Eglise in Rotterdam in 1686. The immediate popularity of this work lead to the reprinting of additional editions and its translation into English.167 One criticism leveled against Jurieu’s commentary claimed that it was simply “unoriginal.”168 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz observed that Jurieu was basically reproducing Mede’s interpretations.169 This is not entirely surprising. By his own admission Jurieu was indebted to Mede’s work. I betook my self to read over the Apocalypse, not the several Commentators on that Book, but the Book it self, only with the Exposition of Ioseph Mede, whom I formerly look’t upon as a man inspired for the Interpretation of the Prophecies. His Key of the Apocalypse, and annexed commentary, did theretofore charm me. I could find nothing like it in all the other Expositors.170

165

F. R. J. Knetsch, “Pierre Jurieu and the Glorious Revolution according to his ‘Lettres Pastorales’”, in J. vand den Berg and P. G. Hoftijzer (eds.), Church, Change and Revolution: Transactions of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch Church History Colloquium (Leiden, New York, Copenhagen, and Cologne, 1991), p. 146-149; Harry M. Bracken, “Pierre Jurieu: The Politics of Prophecy”, in Lauresen and Popkin, Millenarianism and Messianism, Volume IV, V pp. 85-86. 166 F. R. J. Knetsch, Pierre Jurieu: Theoloog en Politikus der Refuge (Kampen, 1967); Hubert Bost, “La Révocation, Apocalypse des Protestants?”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses 65 (1990/2), pp. 205-219; Antognazza and Hotson (eds.), Alsted and Leibniz, pp. 158-165; Bracken, “Pierre Jurieu”, pp. 85-94. 167 Jurieu’s work was translated as The Accomplishment of the Scripture Prophecies, or the Approaching Deliverance of the Church, 2 parts (London, 1687), with A Continuation of the Accomplishment of the Scripture-Prophesies, orr a Large Deduction of Historical Evidences; Proving, that the Papacy is the Real Antichristian-Kingdom (London, 1688). 168 Antognazza and Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, p. 160. 169 Ibid. 160, n. 114. Other critics of Jurieu include Bishop Jacques-Bénigne de Bossuet and his friend and colleague Pierre Bayle. See: Bossuet, L’Apocalypse, avec une Explication (Paris, 1689); Bayle, Dictionaire historique et critique (Rotterdam, 1687). Likewise see, Antogonazza and Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, pp. 160-162; J. C. Laursen, “Bayle’s Anti-millenarianism: The Dangers of Those Who Claim to Know the Future”, Laursen and Popkin (eds.) Millenarianism and Messianism, Volume IV, V pp. 95-106. 170 Jurieu adds, “I must acknowledg my great obligations to my forementioned Author, Joseph Mede; for no man hath taken pains upon that subject with so much success as he.” Jurieu, The Accomplishment, pp. 24-25, 28-29.


He followed Mede’s basic structure in dividing the entire Apocalypse into two prophecies, the prophecy of the seals and the little book.171 Likewise he acknowledged that the present church age was not the millennium, but instead was exemplifying the reign of the Antichrist. Jurieu followed Mede’s interpretation of I Timothy 4, where Mede identified the great apostasy by the Roman Catholic Church’s introduction of the pagan “Doctrine of Demons” through the veneration of the saints.172 Therefore the millennium would come after the fall of Antichrist. Essentially Jurieu divided the history of the church into three periods. The first period was during the first four centuries when the church was in her purity. Following that was a period of corruption, idolatry, and Antichristianism that would endure for 1260 years. Finally, the third period contained the millennium where the church would experience peace under the reign of Christ.173 He added, “at the sounds of the Last Trumpet, the last blow must be given to the Babylonish Empire & at the same time shall begin the reign of Iesus Christ, to which is assign’d a Period of 1000 Years.”174 Regarding these interpretive points, Jurieu’s critics were quite right. He was unashamedly recapitulating what, in his opinion, was the best interpretation to date. However Jurieu could not resist assigning apocalyptic meaning to certain recent political and ecclesiastical events. His blatant anti-Roman Catholic bias was transparent in his writings. Naturally, as a refugee, Jurieu watched events in his home country with great anxiety. The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes held great significance in Jurieu’s apocalyptic interpretations. “We must therefore see, if the Characters of this present persecution that the Church suffers, agree with those of the last persecution which the Church must suffer from the Beast, according to the Text of the Revelation.”175 Jurieu marked the beginning of the papal Antichrist’s reign in 450 or 455 A.D. It would last for 1260 years and be 171

“We believe with the learned Joseph Mede that his book is divided into two parts. The first is contained in the book sealed with seven seals, which is to be seen in the beginning of the 5th.Ch. And the second in the book whih the Angel gave to St. John in the 10th.Ch.” Ibid. 2. 172 “Joseph Mede hath made a new conjecture upon it, and which I believe we owe to him. He understands by Daemons, not wicked spirits, that are represented as dwelling in Hell; but those spirits, which the Heathens worshipt as Mediatours between God and men, whom in truth in their Theology they called Daemons. For then the word was not taken in an ill sense, and Daemons were properly in the Heathen Religion, secondary Gods, subject to the great Gods. By the Doctrine of Daemons he understands a Doctrine of which Daemons are the object, not the authors. And according to him, the sense is, that men in the Antichristian Religion would renew the Divinity and the worship of the mediatory spirits called Daemons; that Paganism shall be introduced into the Religion of Jesus Christ; that therein shall be establisht a second order of Divinities, besides the three adorable persons of the Trinity; that dead men shall be invocated in this new Paganism, in the same manner as was practised under the old.” Ibid. 201-202. Also see Mede’s The Apostasy. 173 Jurieu, The Accomplishment, pp. 85-86. 174 Ibid. 94. 175 Ibid. 244-245.


241

concluded around 1710 or 1715.176 Yet before that, the two witnesses from Apocalypse 11 would be slain and lay dead for three and a half years. Jurieu believed this was fulfilled in the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in France, with the complete suppression of the true Reformed gospel.177 Since the Edict was revoked in 1685, Jurieu expected the resurrection of the witnesses, prophesied also in chapter 11, to occur sometime in 1689, and specifically in France where the witnesses were slain. “The resurrection of the two Witnesses… The Reformation shall within a few years rise again in FRANCE: after that, it shall be establisht by Royal Authority. FRANCE shall renounce Popery, and that Kingdom shall be converted.”178 Subsequently, with the final destruction of the Beast in either 1710 or 1715, Jurieu used Judas Maccabees as a typological prefigurement of the period before Christ’s millennial reign. Maccabees took thirty days to purify the temple of Jerusalem and another forty-five days to prepare the vessels for dedication. Thus, these seventy-five days were typological of the years that would be needed to prepare the millennial kingdom. With the destruction of the Antichrist around 1710, the millennium would then begin around 1715.179 Unmistakably, Jurieu saw these prophecies as having fulfillment in his own time. Hotson observes that he alluded to the 1686 negotiations, “which would lead to the War of the League of Augsburg against Louis XIV between 1688 and 1697,” as a possible realization of Roman Catholic France’s downfall.180 Likewise Jurieu saw the advancement of William of Orange as another possible apocalyptic instrument against France. This apocalyptic interpretation of the Glorious Revolution influenced British millenarians like Drue Cressener as well.181 Yet the British were not the only ones who shared this hope for William 176

Ibid. 243. “The Kings of France have by their liberalitites made the Popes great at this day; it is the most flourishing State of Europe. It is the middle of the popish Empire, betwixt Italy, Spain, Germany, England, exactly as a street, or place of concourse is in the middle of a City. ‘Tis also foursquare, as such a place, i.e. almost as long as broad. In a word, ‘tis the place or street of the great City. And I believe, that ‘tis particularly in France, thatt the witnesses must remain dead, i.e. that the profession of the true Religion must be utterly aabolisht. This is already done by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and by the enormous cruelties of the Souldiers, who have bin let loose upon the Protestants, of whatsoever sex, quality and condition. If they stand firm, they must either leave the Kingdom, or be destroyed. Thus within a little while, the external profession of the Reformed Religion will be wholly abolisht there.” Ibid. 248. 178 Ibid. 251. 179 Ibid. 59. 180 Antgonazza and Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, p. 159. Also see: G. H. Dodge, The Political Theory of the Huguenots of the Dispersion with special Reference to the Thought and Influence of Pierre Jurieu (New York, 1947), pp. 34-41. 181 Jurieu, Lettres pastorales addressées aux fidèles de France, qui gémissent sous la captivité de Babylon (Rotterdam, 1686-1689), year III, letter xxi, p. 518; letter viii, pp. 187-192. J. van den Berg, “Glorious Revolution and Millennium: The ‘Apocalyptic Thoughts’ of Drue Cressener”, in 177


and Mary; Jurieu was joined in his opinion by some of his Dutch colleagues, although van der Wall remarks that their excitement over William of Orange was much less than the British.182 Jurieu’s writings continued to reinforce Mede’s millenarianism, although certain differences must be clearly noted. While Mede displayed no political agenda in his millenarianism, Jurieu saw significant political implications for a millenarian reading, especially in his homeland. Mede was reluctant to speculate on the prophetic significance of specific current events. In contrast, Jurieu was intent on discovering the applicability of biblical prophecy in his present time. Amongst refugees in the Netherlands, millenarianism offered a glimmer of hope in the face of severe persecution. While owing a tremendous debt to Mede’s interpretations, Jurieu’s millenarianism moved in a more radical direction. Jurieu’s advancement of the millennium through political means revealed an imperfect application of Mede’s conclusions. Yet, millenarianism in the Dutch Republic was not limited to the refugee communities. The Dutch prophetic tradition included indigenous millenarians who interacted with and were influenced by these foreign apocalypticists.

10.vi CONCLUSION In his seminal article, “British History: A Plea for a new subject,” Professor J. G. A. Pocock called for a new approach to the study of British history.183 Pocock recognized the insular character of British history which had previously neglected the critical dialogue and interaction with other nations in the wider political, social, and intellectual world beyond the British Isles. This criticism is nowhere more applicable than in the study of seventeenth-century British apocalyptic thought.184 Seventeenth-century interest in biblical prophecy was equally prevalent on the continent as in Britain. By broadening the historical landscape to include the continent, conclusions about millenarianism, both its character and influence, are greatly enriched. The same revisionist questions are addressed with more evidence and from a slightly different perspective resulting in a more accurate discussion and conception of seventeenth-century millenarianism.

J. van den Berg and P. G. Hoftijzer, Church, Change and Revolution, p. 130-143; Knetsch, “Pierre Jurieu”, p. 155-159. 182 van der Wall, “Antichrist Stormed”, p. 163. 183 J.G.A. Pocock, “British History: A Plea for a new subject”, Journal of Modern History, 47, no. 4 (1975), pp. 601-628. Recently revised in: “The New British History in Atlantic Perspective: An Antipodean Commentary”, American Historical Review, 104, no.2 (1999), pp. 490-500. 184 In previous studies only the works of Professors J. van den Berg and E. van der Wall addressed the relation between British and Continental apocalyptic thought.


243

The study of British millenarianism in a European context introduces another body of evidence that helps to define this eschatological position in the early modern period. Particularly valuable is the interaction between Joseph Mede’s millenarianism and scholars in the Netherlands. Since the Dutch apocalyptic tradition was so heavily dependent on foreign influences, including British, the characteristics of millenarianism in the Dutch Republic, in many ways, mirrored the British. As was the case in Britain, interaction with millenarianism in the Netherlands, whether positive or negative, often required a response to the interpretations of Joseph Mede (or those who adopted his position). For Mede, millenarianism was first and foremost a product of interpreting Holy Scripture. His writings were steeped in rigorous exegetical biblical study. To interact with Mede required similar linguistic, philosophical and theological abilities. As a result, those in the Netherlands who were interested in Mede’s writings, both positively and negatively, were highly educated university professors and ministers. The study of the Apocalypse – in the same fashion as Mede – was a scholarly enterprise which attracted intellectually and a academically competent individuals. As exposure to Mede’s millenarianism increased in the Netherlands, through his correspondence, the circulation of his books, and the influx of British refugees, the Dutch apocalypticists interacted with aand incorporated many of his conclusions. Moreover, it is quite natural given the influence of and the commonalities between Mede and his British followers aand the Dutch scholars to observe similar characteristics between British and Dutch millenarianism. This was not a theological position inherently given to a political or social agenda. Millenarian studies, although not necessarily the advocating and application of millenarianism, required the special skills and training of the best scholars in the early modern period. Such expertise was lost on the sectarians, enthusiasts and radicals. It was discussed amongst sober academics that gave serious attention to the proper interpretation of biblical prophecy. A proper conception of early modern millenarianism cannot be focused exclusively on the radical contingent, but it must include those who pursued this eschatological position with scholarly diligence and caution. True, historical events like political persecution did lead to apocalyptic speculation – as was the case with Jurieu – yet, the continual interest in millenarianism outlived supposed incorrect prophetic applications and disappointments. As the Dutch tradition continued to develop into the early eighteenth century, because of the significant influence of British thought – and specifically Mede’s millenarianism – the character of Dutch millenarianism maintained some of the same distinctions as its British counterpart. Tracing the


development of Dutch millenarianism has served to introduce an additional legacy, as well as a coordinate tradition, to redefine and revise British millenarianism in light of the influence of Joseph Mede. Such an approach can be labeled appropriately a New British History of Apocalyptic Thought.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Conclusion: Revising British Millenarianism

In 1691, Cotton Mather wrote: I confess…Apocalyptical Studies, are fittest for those Raised Souls, whose Heart strings are made of a Little Finer Clay, than other mens; and it is to them especially, that I take leave to say, There is a World of Sweetness in Diligent and Regular Studies upon the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus.1 It would seem as if Mather’s words were written with Joseph Mede directly in mind. Undoubtedly Mede’s studies were preoccupied with the future kingdom of Christ. He paid careful attention to the prophetic charge of Apocalypse 1:3, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.” Mede and other apocalyptic writers heeded this verse with great diligence as their fascination with this biblical book fueled their scholarly projects. Mede’s attempt to “read,” “hear” and “heed” these visions resulted in one of the most influential apocalyptic writings of the seventeenth century; and he had a great impact on the subsequent rebirth of Protestant millenarianism. Yet defining millenarianism in the early modern period has proved to be a difficult task. The temptation is to seek a simple and easy conception that can help to explain the tumultuous events of the early seventeenth century. Speaking about the apocalyptic climate in general, which includes millenarianism, Paul

1

Cotton Mather, Things to be Look’d Forr (Boston, 1691), pp. 46-47.

245

Conclusion Christianson stated, “Apocalyptic visions strengthened people to take action.”2 Christianson’s comments point to his commitment to define apocalypticism (including millenarianism) as inextricably linked to social and political radicalism. Certain conclusions have been deduced from this definition. First, millenarianism in seventeenth-century England was one motivation for Calvinist puritans, both clergy and laypersons, to take arms against the Laudians, who were considered crypto-papists and therefore f followers of the Antichrist. Second, following the same bipartisan interpretation, millenarianism drove other puritans towards a different response. Instead off combating the forces of Satan, some abandoned the old world and set off on an errand into a North American wilderness in order to establish the New Jerusalem. Third, the continental millenarian tradition likewise mirrored the British as a motivation for radical action during the Thirty Years War. Fourth, as a result of the first three conclusions, the end to the violence and the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 coincided with the decline of millenarian interest. The climate of peace was not conducive to apocalyptic interest of any sort, and especially not the most radical millenarian approach. The conception of millenarianism proposed by previous studies like that of Christianson, however, is not withoutt its problems. The millenarianism introduced by Mede is inconsistent with Christianson’s conception in a number of respects. In the context of the Stuart Church, Mede did not fit within a neat historiography which pitted Calvinist puritans against Arminian Laudians. Party lines were not so simple. Depending upon the theological or ecclesiological topic, Mede could be considered eitherr a puritan or a supporter of the church headed by Archbishop Laud.3 His millenarianism did not automatically locate him as a puritan. In addition, as much as possible Mede was extremely cautious about sharing his opinions on the most controversial issues of his day. He was not moved to political action because of his belief that a future millennial kingdom would appear and bring an end to the reign of all of Christ’s enemies. In a personal correspondence, containing some of his most explicit comments on the millennium of Apocalypse 20, Mede wrote: Yet thus much I conceive the Text seems to imply, That these Saints of the First Resurrection should reign here on earth in the New Jerusalem in a state of beatitude and glory, partaking of Divine presence and Vision of Christ their King; as it were in an Heaven upon earth, or new Paradise immutable, unchangeable.4

2

Christianson, Reformers and Babylon, p. 5. Mede never separated from the Church of England headed by Archbishop Laud, yet his biography is included in Benjamin Brooks, The Lives of the Puritans, vol. 2, pp. 429-434. 4 Mede, Works, p. 772. [Italics mine] 3

Conclusion 247 This sentence captures succinctly the apocalyptic thought of Joseph Mede which inaugurated the rebirth of Protestant millenarianism. In Mede’s own words, the millennium would be a veritable “Heaven upon earth,” where the saints will dwell in the blessedness of God. For Mede millenarianism was historically confirmed by patristic and Judaic sources, philosophically informed by neoplatonic ideas, and above all else exegetically substantiated by reference to the Holy Scripture. This was an eschatological position reached through careful reflection by mature scholars who possessed the intellectual skills capable of mastering multiple disciplines and consulting various sources. The intricacies of millenarianism required the attention of the best biblical scholars of the seventeenth century, regardless of whether or not one agreed with its conclusions. This was not a doctrine embraced exclusively by theological amateurs bent on political or social revolution, but an ongoing subject for dialogue by competent academics and ministers. Producing an accurate description of early modern millenarianism requires careful attention to the works and context of Mede. The remarkable and mysterious visions of the Apocalypse, especially the seeming depictions of a cosmic spiritual struggle between God and the devil, can and did fuel some of the more radical social and political agendas. However, the most learned and knowledgeable advocates of millenarianism, beginning with Mede, viewed the study of the Apocalypse as a task that required scholarly tools along with a sober mind. This was exemplified by Mede and by many of those who followed in his footsteps. A millenarian genealogy in Britain can be traced from the mid to late seventeenth century and into the early eighteenth century, which was faithful to Mede in both attitude and content. It is no surprise that many latitudinarians, who no longer wished to focus on divisive polemics, nevertheless were captivated by the study of Apocalypse and Mede’s millenarian interpretations. This legacy produced a sustained interest in millenarianism that was not bound exclusively to the political circumstances of the 1640-50s. Instead the study of the Apocalypse from a millenarian perspective continued well after the restoration of Charles II. Focusing on another aspect of Mede’s legacy is helpful for defining millenarianism in the seventeenth century. The problems with an Anglo-centric approach to British political, economic and social history have been well documented; and as a result new studies have emerged broadening the geographical scope of study to include continental Europe and North America.5 5

Pocock, “The New British History in Atlantic Perspective”, p. 493; David Armitage, “Greater Britain: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis?”, American Historical Review, 104 (April 1999), pp. 427-445; Jane Ohlmeyer, “Seventeenth-Century Ireland and the New British and Atlantic Histories,” American Historical Review, 104 (April 1999), pp. 446-462; Ned C. Landsman, “Nation, Migration, and the Province in the First British Empire: Scotland and the Americas, 1600-1800”, American Historical Review, 104 (April 1999), pp. 463-475; Eliga H. Gould, “A Virtual Nation: Greater Britain and the Imperial Legacy of the American Revolution”, American Historical Review, 104 (April 1999), pp. 476-489.

Conclusion It is, of course, deficient historically to look at the events and situations within Britain without exploring the connections with other nations. The influences of political, economic and social exchanges were extremely significant. Likewise the cross-fertilization of intellectual thought stimulated ideas beyond the borders of an individual’s particular nation. The latest biblical and theological writings were circulated and read by scholars in Britain, on the continent and North America. The legacy of Mede further demonstrates this through the millenarian traditions that developed outside of Britain. Tracing these coordinate traditions reveals a vibrant millenarianism that appreciated, yet did not hesitate to modify Mede’s interpretations. Millenarianism on the continent and in North America was influenced by the writings of Mede. His works were republished, translated and well circulated. Moreover the attitudes of those reading and adopting Mede’s millenarianism reflected scholars of similar skill and learning. The academic nature of Mede’s millenarianism, in fact, was mirrored in these other regions. The tradition of Mede was not isolated in England, but extended chronologically after 1660 and geographically beyond the Britain. In a transatlantic context, the academic character of millenarianism attracted many who had studied in British universities. Many were directly exposed to Mede at Cambridge, yet this eschatological position did not motivate their migration to the new world. In the same way those academic millenarians on the continent, especially in the Dutch Republic, pursued the study of the Apocalypse with the same careful scholarly effort demonstrated by Mede. It is true that the Dutch millenarian tradition bore great similarity with the British; however the similarity was not a common radical activism, but a correspondingly profound intellectual reflection on the prophetic texts of the Bible by seasoned theologians. The significance of Joseph Mede for defining early modern millenarianism lies in his attitude and writings during years of tension in the early seventeenth century, as well as the legacy of millenarian interpreters that built upon his work. As late as 1754, Charles Wesley wrote in a letter: “Let me also recommend to you to look into the passages of Sir Isaac Newton on Daniel and the Revelations, and into Mead’s [sic] commentary on the Revelations, both of whom come very near the truth.”6 For over a century of apocalyptic studies, Mede’s interpretations stood as the standard for millenarianism. Even modern day premillennialists trace their theological roots to Mede.7 This suggests the need for more comparative studies of the relationship between Mede and the millenarian legacy

6

Mead is an alternate spelling for Mede. Letter of Charles Wesley to an Unknown Correspondent, 25 April 1754, as cited in Kenneth Newport, Apocalypse and Millennium: Studies in Biblical Eisegesis (Cambridge, 2000), p. 148. 7 Clouse, et. al., The New Millennium Manual, pp. 89-90.

Conclusion 249 that continued into the nineteenth and twentieth century, especially the millenarian legacy of dispensationalism introduced by John Nelson Darby and C. I. Scofield in the nineteenth century, which had some significant exegetical differences with Mede.8 With a proper conception of early modern millenarianism, future research can trace more accurately succeeding apocalyptic interpretations which did and did not subscribe to a millenarian eschatology as articulated by Joseph Mede.

8 One example is Darby and Scofield’s interpretation of Daniel 9. Dispensationalists interpret the seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy as a future u seven years tribulation period, which is not consistent with Mede. This is best exemplified in: C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford, 1909; revised 1917).

Bibliography

A. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF JOSEPH MEDE PUBLISHED IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY The Apostasy of the latter times (London, 1641; 1642, 2ndd edition; 1644, 3rdd edition). Churches, that is, appropriate places for Christian worship both in and ever since the Apostles times (London, 1638). Daniels weeks an interpretation of part of the prophecy of Daniell (London, 1642). Diatribae discovrses on divers texts of scripture: deliverd upon severall occasions (London, 1642). Dissertationum ecclesiasticarum triga De sanctitate relativa De veneratione sacra, De sortitione & alea (London, 1653). Clavis Apocalyptica, (Cambridge, 1627; 1632, 2ndd edition with commentary; 1649, 3rd edition). Opuscula Latina ad rem Apocalyptican fere spectantia quorum catalogum dabit versa pagina (Cambridge, 1652). The key of the Revelation, searched and demonstrated out of the Natural and proper Characters of the Vision, translated by Richard More (London, 1643; 1650, 2nd edition). The name altar or Thysiaterion, anciently given to the holy table a common-place (London, 1648). Paraleipomena remaines on some passages in the Revelation: whereunto are added Severall discourses concerning the holiness of the churches (London, 1650). A paraphrase and exposition of the prophesie of Saint Peter concerning the day of Christ’s second coming described in the third chapter of this second Epistle (London, 1642; 1649, 2nd edition; 1652, 3rdd edition). The reverence of Gods house, a sermon preached at St Maries in Cambridge before the universitie on St. Matthies [sic] day anno 1635/6 6 (London, 1638). The works of the reverend, iudicious and learned divine, Mr. Iospeh Mede (London, 1648). The works of the pious and profoundly-learned Joseph Mede, B.D., sometime fellow of Christ’s Colledge in Cambridge, edited by John Worthington (London, 1664; 1672, 2nd edition; 1677, 3rdd edition).

251

252 Bibliography

Unpublished Manuscripts British Library, Harleain Manuscripts 389, 390. Correspondence of the Reverend Joseph Mead [sic] and Sir. Martin Stuteville, [389, February 1620/21 – December 1625; 390, January 1625/26 – May 1631]. Christ’s College Archives, Box M72(f). The Last Will and Testament of Joseph Mede; Box M72(g). The Account of the estate of Joseph Mede, 25 October 1641, prepared by John Alsop, Fellow of Christ’s College. Northamptonshire Record Office, Isham Correspondence 205-207, 210, 221, 4814, 4832-4833, 4835-4838. Correspondence from Joseph Mede to Justinian Isham dated 16 January 1632 to 9 August 1637.

B. PRIMARY SOURCES Printed Texts Acta

Synodi Nationalis…Dordrechti habitae anno 1618 et 1619. Accedunt lentissimo de quinque articulis theologorum judicia (Dordrecht, 1620). A Glimpse of Sions Glory: or, The Churches Beautie specified d (London, 1641). Alsted, Johann Heinrich, Diatribe de mille annis apocalypticis, non illis chiliastarum et phantastarum sed B.B. Danielis et Johannis (Frankfurt, 1627). — Prodromvs religionis triumphantis. In quo methodicè repetuntur etbreviter examinantur libri sex de vera religione; qvorum primus à Johanne Crellio, quinq; reliqvi a Johanne Volkelio suntt conscripti. Praemissus Triumpho verae religionis, in quo sex isti libri pleniùs examinanturr (Gyulafehérvár, 1635). — Encyclopedia septem tomis distincta (Herborn, 1630). — The Beloved City; or the Saints Reign on Earth a Thousand Years, trans. by William Burton (London, 1643). Alting, Jacobus, Opera Omnia theologica, analytica, exegetica, practica, problematica, philogica (Amsterdam, 1685-1687). Ames, William, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London, 1642). Amyraut, Moïses, Du règne de mille ans ou de la prosperitié de l’Eglise (Saumur, 1654). An Answer of the Assembly of Divines (London, 1648). Archer, John, The Personall Reign of Christ Upon Earth (London, 1642). Augustine, City of God, trans. by Henry Bettensem (Harmondsworth, 1972). Baillie, Robert, A Dissuave from the errours of the time wherein the tenets of the principall sects, especially the Independents are drawn together (London, 1645). Bale, John, The Image of bothe churches (Wittreich, 1548) in The selected works of John Bale, ed. Henry Christmas (Cambridge, 1849). Baxter, Richard, A Key for the Catholicks (London, 1659). — The Glorious Kingdom of Christ…Answering Mr. Tho Beverley, who imposed this Task, by his oft and earnest Challenges of all the Doctors and Pastors, and his

Bibliography 253 Censure of Dissenters as Semi-Sadduces of the Apostasie, in his Twelve Principles and Catechisms, & c. (London, 1691). — A Reply to Mr. Tho. Beverley’s Answer to my Reasons Against his Doctrine of the Thousand Years, Middle Kingdom, and of the Conversion of the Jews. (London, 1691). Bayle, Pierre, Dictionaire historique et critique (Rotterdam, 1687). Beverley, Thomas, The catechism of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ: In the Thousand Years (London, 1690). The Thousand Years Kingdom of Christ, in its full Scripture-State: Answering — Mr. Baxter’s New Treatise, In Opposition to itt (London, 1691). — The Universal Christian Doctrine of the Day of Judgment: Applied to the Doctrine of the Thousand Years Kingdom of Christ (Herein Guided by Mr. Baxter’s Reply)To Vindicate It from all Objections (London, 1691). Beza, Theodore, Iesu Christi domini nostri Nouum Testamentum siue Nouum Foedus, cuius Graeco contextui respondent interpretationes duae: una vetus, altera Thedori Bezae (Cambridge, 1642). Bossuet, Jacques-Bénigne de, L’Apocalypse, avec une Explication (Paris, 1689). Bridge, William, Babylons Downfall. A Sermon Lately Preached at Westminster before sundry of the Honourable house of Commons (London, 1641). — Christs coming Opened in a Sermon before the Honourable House of Commons in Margarets Westminster: May 17, 1648 (London, 1648). Brightman, Thomas, Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, Id est, Apocalypsis D. Joannis analysis et scholiis illustrata (Frankfurt, 1609) [translated and republished in English in 1615]. Bulkeley, Peter, The Gospel-Covenant; or The Covenant of Grace Opened (London, 1646). Bullinger, Heinrich, A Hundred Sermons on the Apocalips (London, 1561). Burroughes, Jeremiah, Sions Joy, A Sermon Preached to the Honourable House of Commons assembled in Parliamentt (London, 1641). — Jerusalem’s Glory Breaking forth into the World d (London, 1697). Buxtorf, John, Thesauraus Grammaticus Linguae Sanctae Hebraicae (Basel, 1609). Buxtorf, John (ed.), Biblia Sacra Hebraica & Chaldaica cum Masora, quae Critica Hebraeorum sacra est, Magna & Parva, ac selectissimis Hebraeorum interpretum Commentariis, Rabbi Salomonis Jarchi, R. Abrahami Aben Esrae, R. Davidis Kimchi, R. Levi Gerson, R. Saadie Gaon, R. Jeschaiae, & Notis ex authore, quem Baal Turim vocant, collectis, quibus textus Grammatice & historice illustratur. (Basel, 1619). Calvin, John, Institutes of Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeil, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Volumes I & II (Philadelphia, 1960). Cawdry, Daniel, Vindicae Clavium (London, 1648). Cocceius, Johannes, Opera Omnia theologica (Amsterdam, 1701-1706). Colladon, Nicholas, Methodus facilima ad explicationem sacrasanctae Apocalypsews Ioannis Theologi ex ipso libro desumpta. (Morgis, 1584, 3rdd edition). Cotton, John, The Churches Resurrection, or the Opening of the Fift and sixt verses of the 20th Chap. of the Revelation (London, 1642). — The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (London, 1644).

254 Bibliography — An exposition upon the thirteenth chapter of the revelation (London, 1655). Cressener, Drue, The Judgments of God upon the Roman-Catholick Church, From its First Rigid Laws for Universal Conformity to it, unto its Last End d (London, 1689). — A Demonstration of the First Principles of the Protestant Application of the Apocalypse (London, 1690). Cudworth, Ralph, A Treatise of Freewilll (London, 1838). Danforth, Samuel, A Brief Recognition of the New Englands Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge, Mass., 1671). Davenant, John, Ad fraternam communionem inter Evangelicas Ecclesias restaurandam Adhortatio (Canterbury, 1640). — Dissertationes Duae; Prima, de Morte Christi; Altera, de Praedestinatione et Electione (Cambridge, 1650). — “A Dissertation on the Death of Christ”, in John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, trans. by Josiah Allport (London, 1831). Du Pinet, Antoine, Eposition sur l’Apocalypse de Sainct Iehan, l’Apostre extricte de plusieurs docteurs tant anciens que modernes (Geneva, 1545). Durham, James, Clavis Cantici: or, An Exposition of the Song of Solomon (London, 1669). Dury, John, Irenicorum Tractatuum Prodromus (Amsterdam, 1662). Eliot, John, The Christian Commonwealth: or, The Civil Policy of the Rising Kingdom of Jesus Christt (London, 1659; New York, 1972 modern facsimile). Eusebius, An Ecclesiastical History of the twentieth year of the reign of Constantine, being the 324th of the Christian Aera, trans. by C. F. Cruse (London, 1843). Fleming, Robert, The Fulfilling of the Scripture Complete (Rotterdam, 1669; reprinted: London, 1726). — Scripture Truth Confirmed and Cleared d (Rotterdam, 1678). Fleming, Robert (younger), Apocalyptical Key. An Extraordinary Discourse on the Rise and Fall of Papacy; or the Pouring out of the Vials, in the Revelation of St. John,Chap. XVI (Rotterdam, 1701; London, 1793 . Foxe, John, Commentarii rerum in ecclesia gestarum, maximarumque per totum Europam Persecutioneum, a Wiclevi temporibus ad hanc usque aetatem descriptio (Frankfurt, 1554). Gallus, Carolus, Clavis prophetica (Antwerp, 1592). Goodwin, Thomas, Philip Nye, William Bridge, Sidrach Simpson, Jeremiah Burroughes, An Apologeticall Narration (London, 1644). Goodwin, Thomas, A Sermon on the Fifth Monarchy (London, 1654). — The World to Come: or, The Kingdome of Christ asserted. Second Sermon (London, 1655). — The Works of Thomas Goodwin, D.D., sometime President of Magdalene College Oxford, Vol. 3 (Edinburgh, 1861-1866). Grotius, Hugo, Commentario ad loca quaedam N. Testamenti de Antichristo (Amsterdam, 1640). — Annotationes in libros Evangelicorum (Amsterdam, 1641).

Bibliography 255 Hammond, Henry, A Paraphrase and Annotations Upon all the Books of the New Testament, briefly explaining all the difficult passages thereoff (London, 1653). Hartlib, Samuel (ed.), Clavis Apocalyptica (London, 1655). Hayne, Thomas, Christs Kingdome on Earth, Opened according to the Scriptures. Here in is examined What Mr. Th. Brightman, Dr. J. Alstede, and Mr. J. Mede, Mr. H. Archer, The Glympse of Sions Glory, and such as concurre in opinion with them (London, 1645). d (Cambridge, Mass., Higginson, John, The Cause of God and His People in New-England 1663). Hooke, William, The Priviledge of Saints on Earth, Beyond Those in Heaven…To which is added, A short Discourse of the Nature and Extent of the Gospel-day (London, 1673). Illyricus, Matthias Flacius, Clavis Scripturae S. seu de sermone sacrarum literarum (Basel 1567; 1609, 2ndd edition). Irenaeus, The Writings of Irenaeus, trans. by A. Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, vol. II (Edinburgh, 1868-1869). Jackson, Thomas, The Works of Thomas Jackson, D.D., Vol. V. (Oxford, 1844). James VI, A Fruitful Meditation containing a Plaine and easie exposition, or laying open of the VII, VIII, IX, X Verses of the 20 Chapter of the Revelation in forme and matter of a Sermon (Edinburgh, 1588). Johnson, Edward, Wonder-Working Providence of Sions Saviourr (London, 1654). Junius, Franciscus, The Apocalyps or Revelation of S. John the Apostle and evangelist of our Lord Jesus Christt (Cambridge, 1596). Jurieu, Pierre, The Accomplishment of the Scripture Prophecies, or the Approaching Deliverance of the Church, two parts (London, 1687). — A Continuation of the Accomplishment of the Scripture-Prophesies, or a Large Deduction of Historical Evidences; Proving, that the Papacy is the Real Antichristian-Kingdom (London, 1688). Keckermann, Bartholomew, Systema Logicae (Hanover, 1600). — Systema S. S. Theologiae (Hanover, 1602). — Systema Physicum (Hanover, 1610). Laren, Daniel van, In Apocalypsin beati Ioannis theologi prolegomena sive notationes proemiales (1627; reprinted 1642). Launay, Pierre de, Response au livre de M. Amiraut du regne de mil ans ou de la prosperite de l’eglise (Charenton Vendosme, 1655). L’ Empereur, Constantine, Hoc est, Talmudis Babylonici Codex Middoth (Leiden, 1630). — Paraphrasis Dn. Josephi Jachiadae in Danielem (Amsterdam, 1633). — Clavis Talumdica, Complectens Formulas, loca Dialectica & Rhetorica priscorum Judaeorum (Leiden, 1634). Luther, Martin (ed.), Commentarius in Apocalypsin ante Centum Annos aeditus (Wittenberg, 1528). Maccovius, Johannis, Collegia Theologica (Franeker, 1641). — Loci communes theologici (Franeker, 1650). Marck, Johannes à, In Apocalypsin Johannis Commentarius, seu Analysis Exegetica (Amsterdam, 1689).

256 Bibliography Maresius, Samuel, Dissertio de Antichristo, qua expenditur et refutatur nupera Commentatio ad illustriora ea de re Novi Testamenti Loca, Il.V. Hugonis Grotii credita…(Amsterdam, 1640). — Chiliasmus Enervatus, Ad D. P. Serarium (Groningen, 1664). Antirheticus, sive defensio pii zeli pro retinenda recepta in Ecclesiis — Reformatis doctrina, praesertim adversus d chiliastas et fanaticos; contra Joh. A. Comenii fanatici zelum amarum scientiâ et conscientiâ destitutum (Groningen, 1669). Mather, Cotton, Things to be Look’d Forr (Boston, 1691). — Theopolis Americana (Boston, 1710). Mather, Increase, The mystery of Israel’s salvation (London, 1669). — A Dissertation Concerning the Future Conversion of the Jewish Nation. Answering the Objections of the Reverend and Learned Mr. Baxter, Dr. Lightfoot, and others. With an Enquiry into the First Resurrection (London, 1709). Mather, Samuel, The Figures or Types of the Old Testament, by which Christ and the Heavenly Things of the Gospel were Preached and Shadowed to the people of God of Old d (London, 1705). Maton, Robert, Israel’s Redemption, or the Propheticall History of our Saviour’s Kingdom on Earth (London, 1642). More, Henry, The Grand Mystery of Godliness (London, 1660). — A Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity (Cambridge, 1664). — An Exposition of the Seven Epistles to the Seven Churches (London, 1669). — Visionum Apocalypticarum Ratio Synchronistica (London, 1674). — Apocalypsis Apocalypseos; or the Revelation l of St. John the Divine unveiled (London, 1680). — A plain and continued Exposition of the several Prophecies or Divine Visions of the Prophet Daniell (London, 1681). — Some cursory reflexions [sic] impartially made upon Mr. Richard Baxter his way of Writing Notes on the Apocalypse (London, 1685). — Parlipomena Prophetica (London, 1685). — The Theological Works of the most pious and learned Henry More, D.D. sometime fellow of Christ’s College in Cambridge (London, 1708). Morton, Thomas, John Davenant and Joseph Hall, De pace inter evangelicos procuranda sententiae quatuorr (London, 1638). Napier, John, A Plaine Discovery of the whole Revelation of Saint John (Edinburgh, 1593). d (London, 1728). Newton, Isaac, The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended — Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (Dublin, 1733). Noyes, Nicholas, New-Englands Duty and Interest, To be a Habitation of Justice, and Mountain of Holiness (Boston, 1698). Pareus, David, Irenicum sive de unione et synodo evangelicorum concilianda liber vitivus (Heidelberg, 1614). — In divinam Apocalypsin commentarius (Heidelberg, 1618). Operum theologicorum exegeticorum (Frankfurt, 1628). —

Bibliography 257 A Commentary upon the Divine Revelation of the Apostle and Evangelist John, trans.by Elias Arnold (Amsterdam, 1644). g (London, 1609). Perkins, William, The Arte of Prophesying Petrie, Alexander, Chiliasto-mastix, or The Prophecies in the Old and New Testament Concerning the Kingdome of our Saviour Iesus Christ (London, 1644). — A Compendium History of the Catholick Church, From the Year 600 untill the year 1600 (The Hague, 1662). Piscator, Johannis, Animadversiones in Dialectiam P. Rami (Frankfurt, 1580). — In Apocalypsin Johannis Commentarius (Herborn, 1613, 1621, 2ndd edition). — Johannis Piscatoris Commentarii in omnes labores Noui Testamenti, 2 volumes, (Herborn, 1621). Primasius, Commentarius in Apocalypsin, ed. A. W. Adams (Turnholti, 1985). Rogers, Richard, Seaven [sic] Treatises containing such directions as is gathered out of the Holie Scriptures, leading and guiding to true happiness, both in this life, and in the life to come: and may be called the practice of christianite (London, 1603). Serrarius, Petrus, Petri Serarii Apologetica Responsio, Ad Clarissimum Virum D. Samuelem Maresium, S. S. Theologiae Doctorem & Professorem (Amsterdam, 1663). — Assertion du règne de mille ans (1657). Sewall, Samuel, Phaenomena quaedam Apocalyptica (Cambridge, Mass., 1697). — The Letter-Book of Samuel Sewall, 1674-1729, in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, sixth series, II (Boston, 1886-1888). Smith, John, Select Discourses (Cambridge, 1673). Tertullian, The Five Books of Quintus Sept. Flor. Tertullianus Against Marcion, trans. by P. Holmes (Edinburgh, 1868). Turretin, Francis, Institutio theologiae elencticae (Geneva, 1696). [English edition: The Institutes of Elenctic Theology by Francis Turretin, volume three: Eighteenth through Twentieth Topics, ed. J. T. Dennsion Jr., trans. by G. M. Giger (Philipsburg, New Jersey, 1997)]. Twisse, William, A Discovery of D. Jackson’s Vanitie (Amsterdam, 1631). Vermigli, Peter Martyr, Loci Communes (London, 1583). Vitringa, Campegius, ANAKRISISS [Romanized Form] Apocalypsios Johannis Apostoli (Amsterdam, 1719). Voetius, Gisbertus, Gisberti Voetii Theologiae in Acad. Ultrajectina Professoris, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, pars secunda (Utrecht, 1655). Waleus, Antonio, Opera Omnia (Lugd. Batavorum, 1647-1648). Westminster Confession of Faith (London, 1646; Glasgow, 1990, 6th edition). Winthrop, John, A Modell of Christian Charity, in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third series, VII (1838). Whichote, Benjamin, The Works of Benjamin Whichote, vol. I-IV (Aberdeen, 1751; reprinted: New York, 1977). — Moral and Religious Aphorisms (London, 1753). Whiston, William, A New Theory of Earth, From its Original, to the Consummation of all Things, Where in the Creation off the World in Six days, the Universal Deluge, And the General Conflagration, As laid down in the Holy Scriptures, —

258 Bibliography Are Shewn to be perfectly agreeable to Reason and Philosophy. With a large Introductory Discourse concerning the Genuine Nature, Stile, and Extent of the Mosaick History of the Creation (London, 1696). An Essay on the Revelation of St. John, So far as concerns the Past and Present — Times (London, 1706, 1744, 2ndd edition). — The Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecy (London, 1708). — The Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies. Being a full Answer to a late Discourse, Of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (London, 1724). Worthington, John, The Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John Worthington, ed. J. Crossley, 3 vols (Manchester, 1847-86).

Unpublished Sources Baxter Correspondence, III, Dr. William’s Library, London. Baxter Treatises, Dr. William’s Library, London. Hartlib Papers, Sheffield University Library. Northamptonshire Record Office, Isham Correspondence MS 221.

C. SECONDARY SOURCES

Monographs Adams, C. F. (ed.), Antinomianism in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay 1636-8 (New York, 1967). Ahlstrom, Sidney, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven, 1972). Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae MDLXXV-MDCCCLXXV V (The Hague, 1875). Antognazza, Maria Rosa and Howard Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz On God, The Magistrate and The Millennium (Wiesbaden, 1999). Armitage, David, and Michael Braddick (eds.), The British Atlantic World 1500-1800 (New York, 2002). Armstrong, Brian G., Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France (London, 1969). Asselt, W. J. van, Amicitia Dei. Een onderzoek naar de structuur van de theologie van JJohannes Coccejus (1603-1669), (Utrecht, 1988) [English translation: The Federal Theology off Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669), trans. by Randy Blaketer (Leiden, 2001)]. Asselt, W.J. van, and P.L. Rouwendal, (eds.), Inleiding in de Gereformeerde Scholastiekk (Boekencentrum, 1998). Backus, Irena (ed.), The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists (Leiden, 1997).

Bibliography 259 Les Sept Visions et la Fin des Temps: Les Commentaires Genevois de l’Apocalypse entre 1539 et 1584 (Geneva, 1997). — Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse: Geneva, Zurich, and Wittenberg (Oxford, 2000). Balke, Willem, Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals, trans. by W. Heynen (Grand Rapids, 1981). Ball, Bryan W., A Great Expectation: Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism to 1660 (Leiden, 1975). Baritz, Loren, City on a Hill: A History of Ideas and Myths in America (New York, 1964). Barnes, Robin B., Prophecy and Gnosis: Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation (Stanford, 1988). Batten, J. M., John Dury, Advocate of Christian Reunion (Chicago, 1944). Bauckham, Richard, Tudor Apocalypse: Sixteenth Century Apocalypticism, Millenarianism and The English Reformation (Oxford, 1978). Baumgartner, Frederic, Longing for the End: A History of Millennialism in Western Civilization (New York, 1999). Bell, Mark R., Apocalypse How? Baptist Movements During the English Revolution (Macon, Georgia, 2000). Bercovitch, Sacvan (ed.), Typology and Early American Literature (Amherst, 1972). — The Puritan Origins of the American Selff (New Haven, 1975). — The American Jeremiad d (Madison, 1978). Berens, John F. Providence and Patriotism in Early America, 1640-1815 (Charlottesville, 1978). Berg, Johannes van den and E.G.E. van der Wall (eds.), Jewish-Christian Relations in the Seventeenth Century: Studies and Documents (Dordrecht and London, 1988). Berkvens-Stevelinck, C., J. Israel, and G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes (eds.), The Emergence of Tolerance in the Dutch Republic (Leiden, 1997). Beveridge, William, A Short History of the Westminster Assembly (Edinburgh, 1904). Bloch, Ruth, Visionary Republic: Millennial Themes in American Thought, 1756-1800 (Cambridge, 1985). Bonomi, Patricia, Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society, and Politics in Colonial America (New York, 1986). Bostick, Curtis V., The Antichrist and the Lollards: Apocalypticism in Late Medieval and Reformation England d (Leiden, 1998). Bozeman, Theodore Dwight, To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension in Puritanism (Chapel Hill and London, 1988). Brady, David, The Contribution of the British Writers between 1560 and 1830 to the Interpretation of Revelation 13.16-18 (The Number of the Beast): A Study in the History of Exegesis (Tübingen, 1983). Bray, Gerald, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Presentt (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1996). Bremer, Francis J., The Puritan Experiment: New England Society from Bradford to Edwards (New York, 1976, reprinted 1995). John Winthrop: America’s Forgotten Founding Fatherr (Oxford, 2003). — Brooks, Benjamin, The Lives of the Puritans (London, 1813, republished in 1996). —

260 Bibliography Bull, Malcom, Apocalypse Theory and the Ends of the World d (Oxford, 1995). Burnett, Stephen G., From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf (1564-1628) and Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Centuryy (Leiden, 1996). Bussman, Klaus, and Hans Schilling (eds.), 1648:War and Peace in Europe, vols. I-III (Münster and Osnabrück, 1998). Butler, Jon, Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People (Cambridge, Mass., 1990). Brumm, Ursula, American Thought and Religious Typology, trans. by J. Hoaglund (New Brunswick, 1970). Cameron, Euan, The European Reformation (Oxford, 1991). Campagnac, E.T., The Cambridge Platonists (Oxford, 1901). Capp, Bernard, The Fifth Monarchy Men: A Study in Seventeenth-Century Millenarianism (London, 1972). Carey, Frances (ed.), The Apocalypse and the Shape of Things to Come (London, 1999). Carter, Alice C., The English Reformed Church in Amsterdam in the Seventeenth Century (Amsterdam, 1964). Christianson, Paul, Reformers and Babylon: English Apocalyptic Visions from the Reformation to the Eve of the Civil Warr (Toronto, 1978). Clouse, Robert G., Robert N. Hosack and Richard V. Pierard, The New Millennium Manual: A Once and Future Guide (Grand Rapids, 1999). Cohn, Norman, The Pursuit of the Millennium (Oxford, 1957; New York, 1961, 1970). Coffey, John, n Politics, Religion and the British Revolution: The Mind of Samuel Rutherfordd (Cambridge, 1998). Colie, Rosalie L., Light and Enlightenment: A Study of the Cambridge Platonists and the Dutch Arminians (Cambridge, 1957). Collins, John J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1 (New York, 1998). d (London, 1998). Collinson, Patrick, Birthpangs of Protestant England — The Elizabethan Puritan Movementt (London, 1967). — The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559-1625 (Oxford, 1982). Conforti, Joseph A., Jonathan Edwards, Religious Tradition & American Culture (Chapel Hill, 1995). — Imagining New England: Explorations of Regional Identity from the Pilgrims to the Mid-Twentieth Century (Chapel Hill and London, 2001). Costello, William T., The Scholastic Curriculum att Early Seventeenth-Century Cambridge (Cambridge, Mass., 1958). Cragg, Gerald (ed.), The Cambridge Platonists (New York, 1968). Crocker, R., Herny More. 1614-1687: A Biography of Cambridge Platonist (Dordrecht, 2004). Cunningham, Andrew and Ole Peter Grell, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine and Death in Reformation Europe (Cambridge, 2000). Daley, Brian E., The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge, 1991).

Bibliography 261 Davidson, James W., The Logic of Millennial T Thought: Eighteenth-Century New England d (New Haven and London, 1977). DeJong, Peter Y., Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in commemoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 (Grand Rapids, 1968). Delbanco, Andrew, The Puritan Ordeall (Cambridge, Mass., 1989). De Pauley, W.C., The Candle of the Lord: Studies in the Cambridge Platonists (London, 1937). Deppermann, Klaus, Melchoir Hoffman: Social Unrest and Apocalyptic Visions in the Age of the Reformation (Edinburgh, 1987). Dickens, A.G., The English Reformation (London, 1965). Dodge, G. H., The Political Theory of the Huguenots t of the Dispersion with special Reference to the Thought and Influence of Pierre Jurieu (New York, 1947). Duke, Alastair, Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries (London, 1990). Duffy, Eamon, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c.1400c.1580 (New Haven, 1992). d (Princeton, 1975). Elliot, Emory. Power and the Pulpit in Puritan New England Emmerson, Richard K. and Bernard McGinn (eds.), The Apocalypse in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, New York, 1992). Erwin, John Stuart, The Millenialism of Cotton Mather: An Historical and Theological Analysis (Lewiston, New York, 1990). Fatio, Olivier and Pierre Fraenkel, Histoire de l’exégèse au XVIe siècle: Textes du Colloque International tenu a Genève en 1976 6 (Geneva, 1978). Fincham, Kenneth (ed.), The Early Stuart Church, 1603-1642 (London, 1993). Firth, Katherine, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain 1530-1645 (Oxford, 1979). Fix, Andrew C., Prophecy and Reason: The Dutch Collegiants in the Early Enlightenmentt (Princeton, 1991). Fletcher, Anthony, The Outbreak of the English Civil Warr (London, 1981). Force, James E., William Whiston: Honest Newtonian (Cambridge, 1985). Force, James E. and R.H. Popkin (eds.), Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology (Dordrecht, Boston and London, 1990). — The Books of Nature and Scripture: Recent Essays on Natural Philosophy, Theology, and Biblical Criticism in the Netherlands of Spinoza’s Time and the British Isles of Newton’s Time (Dordrecht, Boston and London, 1994). — Newton and Religion: Context, Nature and Influence (Dordrecht, Boston and London, 1999). — Millenarianism and Messianism in Early l Modern European Culture, vol. III: The Millenarian Turn: Millenarian Context t of Science, Politics and Everyday Anglo-American Life in the SSeventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Dordrecht and Boston, 2001). Foster, Stephen, The Long Argument: English Puritanism and the Shaping of New England Culture, 1570-1700 (Chapel Hill, 1991). Freeman, Thomas, The Historical Antichrist in John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (Ashgate, 1999). Friedman, Jerome, The Most Ancient Testimony: Christian i Hebraica in the Age of the Renaissance Nostalgia (Athens, Ohio, 1983).

262 Bibliography Froom, Leroy E., The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation Volumes 1-4 (Washington D.C., 1950). Fuller, Robert C., Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession (New York, 1995). Gardiner, S. R., The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution (London, 1876). Garrett, Clarke, Respectable Folly: Millenarians and the French Revolution in France and England d (Baltimore and London, 1975). Goertz, Hans Jurgen, Thomas Muntzer: Apocalyptic Mystic and Revolutionary (Edinburgh, 1993). Goldish, Matt, Judaism in the Theology of Sir Isaac Newton (Dordrecht, 1998). Goldish, M., & R. H. Popkin (eds.), Millenarianism and Messianism i in Early Modern European Culture, vol. I: Jewish Messianism in the Early Modern World (Dordrecht, 2001). Gow, Andrew C., The Red Jews. Antisemitism in an Apocalyptic Age, 1200-1600 (Leiden, 1994). d (Oxford, 2000). Green, Ian, Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England Greengrass, Mark, Michael Leslie & Timothy Raylor (eds.), Samuel Hartlib & Universal Reformation: Studies in Intellectual Communication (Cambridge, 1994). Gregory, Brad S., Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, Mass., 1999). Gribben, Crawford, The Puritan Millennium: Literature & Theology 1550-1682 (Dublin, 2000). Griffin Jr., Martin I. J., Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth Century Church of England (Leiden, 1992). Gura, Philip, A Glimpse of Sion’s Glory: Puritan Radicalism in New England, 16301660 (Middleton, 1984). Hägglund, Bert, History of Theology, trans. Gene J. Lund (St. Louis, MO., 1968). Haigh, Christopher. The English Reformation Revised d (Cambridge, 1987). — English Reformations: Religion, Politics and Society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993). Hall, David (ed.), The Antinomian Controvery, 1636-1638: A Documentary History (Connecticut, 1968). — Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgement: Popular Religious Belief in Early New England d (New York, 1989). Hall, Rupert A., Henry More: Magic, Religion and Experimentt (Oxford, 1990). Harrison, A. W., The Beginnings of Arminianism to the Synod of Dortt (London, 1926). Hatch, Nathan O., The Sacred Cause of Liberty: Republican Thought and the Millennium in Revolutionary New England d (New Haven, 1977). Hayes, John H., (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 1 (Nashville, 1999). Hebermann, Charles, G. (ed.), The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1913). Heimert, Alan, Religion and the American Mind d (Cambridge, Mass., 1966). Hellhom, David (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979, (Tübingen, 1989, 2ndd edition). Helm, Paul, Calvin & the Calvinists (Edinburgh, 1982).

Bibliography 263 Hetherington, William M., History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edinburgh, 1843). Hill, Charles E., Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity (Oxford, 1992; Grand Rapids, 2001, 2ndd edition). Hill, Christopher, The Century of Revolution (London, 1961). — Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution (Oxford, 1965). — Reformation to Industrial Revolution (London, 1967). — Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in the Interpretation of the English Revolution of the 17th Century (London, 1958). The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution — (London, 1972). — Antichrist in Seventeenth-Century England d (Oxford, 1971). Hillerbrand, Hans J. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of the Reformation, vols. 1 & 2 (Oxford, 1996). Hodge, Archibald Alexander, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith (London, 1870). Hoffman Ronald, and Peter Albert (eds.), Religion in a Revolutionary Age (Charlottesville, 1994). t of Seventeenth-Century Holstun, James, A Rational Millennium: Puritan Utopias England & American (New York, 1987). Hotson, Howard B., Paradise Postponed: Johann Heinrich Alsted and the Birth of Calvinist Millenarianism (Dordrecht, 2000). Johann Heinrich Alsted, 1588-1638: Between Renaissance, Reformation and — Universal Reform (Oxford, 2000). Huehns, Gertrude, Antinomianism in English History, with special reference to the period 1640-1660 (London, 1951). Hughes, Ann, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620-1660 (Cambridge, 1987). Hunt, W., The Puritan Movementt (Cambridge, Mass., 1983). Hutson, James H., Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington D.C., 1998). Hutton, Sarah and R. Crocker (eds.), Henry More (1614-1687): tercentenary studies (Dordrecht, 1990). Hutton, Sarah and Ann Baldwin (eds.), Platonism and the English Imagination (Cambridge, 1994). Isham, Sir G., The Correspondences of Bishop Brian Duppa and Sir Justinian Isham 1650-1660 (Lamport, Northants., 1954). 6 (Oxford, Israel, Jonathan, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness and Fall 1477-1806 1995). Jacobs, Margaret C., The Newtonians and the English Revolution, 1689-1714 (Ithaca, New York, 1976). Jong, J.A. de, As the Waters Cover the Sea: Millennial Expectations in the Rise of AngloAmerican Missions 1640-1810 (Kampen, 1970). Katchen, Aaron L., Christian Hebraists and Dutch Rabbis: Seventeenth Century Apologetics and the Study of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. Harvard Judaic Texts and Studies, no. 3 (Cambridge, Mass., 1984).

264 Bibliography Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850 (Oxford, 1994). — Philo-Semitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England 1603-1655 (Oxford, 1982). Katz, David S. and Jonathan I. Israel (eds.), Sceptics [sic] and Millenarian and Jews (Leiden, 1990). Katz, David S. and Richard H. Popkin, Messianic Revolution: Radical Religious Politics to the End of the Second Millennium (New York, 1999). Keeble, N. H., and G. F. Nuttall, The Calendar of the Correspondence of Richard Baxter, vol. I (Oxford, 1991). Kendall, R.T., Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Cumbria, 1997). Kenyon, J.P. and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland 1638-1660 (Oxford, 1998). Klaassen, W., Living at the End of the Ages: Apocalyptic Expectation in the Radical Reformation (New York and London, 1992). Knetsch, F. R. J., Pierre Jurieu: Theoloog en Politikus der Refuge (Kampen, 1967). Knight, Janice, Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism (Cambridge, Mass., 1994). Kolakowski, Leszek, Chrétiens sans Église: La conscience religieuse et le lien confessionel au XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1969). Kroll, R., R. Ashcraft and P. Zagovin (eds.), Philosophy, Science and Religion in England 1640-1700 (Cambridge, 1992). Laing, David, (ed.), The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie (Edinburgh, 1841). Lake, Peter, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge, 1982). d (London, 1987). — Protestantism and the National Church in 16 6th Century England — Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitfgift to Hookerr (London, 1988). Lamont, William M., Godly Rule: Politics and Religion 1603-60 (London, 1969). — Richard Baxter and the Millennium: Protestant Imperialism and the English Revolution (London, 1979). — Puritanism and historical controversyy (London, 1996). Lane, Anthony N. S., John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh, 1999). Lewalski, Barbara Kiefer, Protestant Poetics and the Seventeenth-century Religious Lyric (Princeton, 1979). Lichtenstein, Aaron, Henry More: the rational theology of a Cambridge Platonistt (Cambridge, 1962). Lindberg, Carter, The European Reformation (Oxford, 1996). Lim, Paul Chang-Ha, In Pursuit of Purity,Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its SSeventeenth-Century Contextt (Leiden and Boston, 2004). Liu, Tai, Discord in Zion: Puritan Divines and the Puritan Revolution, 1640-1660 (The Hague, 1973). Logan, Alastair H. B., Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh, 1996). Lowance, Jr., Mason I., The Language of Canaan: Metaphor and Symbol in New England from the Puritans to the Transcendentalists (Cambridge, Mass., 1980).

Bibliography 265 Lubac, Henri de., Medieval Exegesis, vols. 1 & 2: The Four Senses of Scripture (Edinburgh, 1998-2000). Macgregor, J.F., and B. Reay (eds.), Radical Religion in the English Revolution (Oxford, 1984). Macinnes, Allan, Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788 (East Linton, 1996). Macinnes, Allan, and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Stuart Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century: Awkward Neighbors (Dublin, 2001). Manning, Brian, The English People and the English Revolution (London, 1976). Manuel, Frank E., Isaac Newton, Historian (Cambridge, Mass., 1963). — The Religion of Isaac Newton (Oxford, 1974). McCoy, F.N., Robert Baillie and the Second Scots Reformation (Berkeley, 1974). McCullough, Peter E., Sermons at Court: Politics and religion in Elizabethan and Jacobean preaching g (Cambridge, 1998). McGinn, Bernard, Vision of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages (New York, 1979). Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evill (San — Francisco, 1994). McGinn, Bernard (ed.), Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism: Apocalypticism in western history and culture, vol. 2 (New York, 1998). McGrath, Alister E., Justitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, (Cambridge, 1998, 2ndd edition). Miller, Perry, The New England Mind, vol. I-II (Cambridge, Mass., 1939, republished 1953). — Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge, Mass., 1956). Milton, Anthony, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600-1640 (Cambridge, 1995). Miner, Earl (ed.), Literary Uses of Typology (Princeton, 1977). Morgan, John, Godly Learning: Puritan Attitudes towards Reason, Learning, and Education, 1560-1640 (Cambridge, 1986). Morrill, John, Impacts of the English Civil Warr (London, 1991). — The Nature of the English Revolution: Essays (London 1993). Reactions to the English Civil War 1641-1649 (London, 1982). — Muller, Richard A., Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1985). Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology — from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids, 1986). — Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1: Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids, 1987). — God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxx (Grand Rapids, 1991). — Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology (Grand Rapids, 1993). After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford, — 2003).

266 Bibliography Muller, Richard A. and John L. Thompson (eds.), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation (Grand Rapids, 1996). Mullinger, J. B., The University of Cambridge, Volume III: From the Election of Buckingham to the Chancellorship in 1626 to the Decline of the Platonist Movementt (Cambridge, 1911). Murdoch, Steve, Britain, Denmark-Norway and the House of Stuart, 1603-1660 (East Lothian, 2000). Murray, Iain H., The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (Edinburgh, 1971). Naphy, William J., Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation (Manchester, 1994). Nellen, Henk J.M. and Edwin Rabbie (eds.), Hugo Grotius – Theologian: Essays in Honour of G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden, 1994). Neuser, Jacob, A. J. Avery-Peck and W. S. Green (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Judaism (Leiden, 2000). Newport, Kenneth, Apocalypse and Millennium: Studies in Biblical Eisegesis (Cambridge, 2000). Niebuhr, Richard H., The Kingdom of God in America (Middleton, Conn., 1988). Nuttall, Geoffrey F., The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (Chicago, 1946). — Visible Saints: The Congregational Way, 1640-1660 (Oxford, 1957). Oberman, Heiko A., The Dawn of the Reformation (Edinburgh, 1986). — The Impact of the Reformation (Grand Rapids, 1994). Luther: Man between God and the Devill (New York, 1989). — — The Reformation: Roots & Ramifications (Edinburgh, 1994). — The Roots of Anti-Semitism In the Age of Renaissance and Reformation (Philadelphia, 1984). Ohlmeyer, Jane, Civil War and Restoration in the Three Stuart Kingdoms: the political career of Randal MacDonnell first marquis of Antrim, 1609-83 (Cambridge, 1993). Oliver, W.H., Prophets and Millennialists: The Uses of Biblical Prophecy in England from the 1790s to the 1840s (Auckland, 1978). Olson, Theodore, Millennialism, Utopianism, and Progress (Toronto, 1982). Oort, J. van (ed.), Kervaders in Reformatie en Nadere Reformatie (Zoetermeer, 1997). Ornsby, G. (ed.), The Correspondence of John Cosin, 2 vols., Sortees Society, 52, 55 (1868-1872). Parker, Geoffrey (ed.), The Thirty Years Warr (London, 1997). Patrides, C.A. and Joseph Wittreich (eds.), The Apocalypse in English Renaissance Thought and Literature (Manchester, 1984). Paul, Robert. The Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the “Grand Debate” (Edinburgh, 1985). Pawson, G.P.H., The Cambridge Platonists and their place in religious thought (London, 1930). Peile, John, Biographical Register of Christ’s College 1505-1905, Vol. I. 1446-1665 (Cambridge, 1910). — A History of Christ’s College (Cambridge, 1910).

Bibliography 267 Petersen, Rodney L., Preaching in the Last Days: The Theme of ‘Two Witnesses’ in the 16th and 17th Centuries (Oxford, 1993). Pettegree, Andrew (ed.), The Early Reformation in Europe (Cambridge, 1992). Popkin, Richard H. (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought 1650-1800 (Leiden, 1988). — (ed.), Menasseh ben Israel and his Worldd (Leiden, 1989). — The Third Force in SSeventeenth-Century Thoughtt (Leiden, 1992). Powicke, Frederick J. The Cambridge Platonists: A Study (London, 1926). Rae, Thomas, John Dury and the Royal Road to Piety (Frankfurt, 1998). Reeves, Majorie, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study in Joachimism (Oxford, 1969). Ritschl, Albrecht, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, trans. by John Black (Edinburgh, 1872). Rivers, Isabel, Reason, Grace, and Sentiment: A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660-1780, Volume I, Whichcote to Wesley (Cambridge, 1991). — Reason, Grace, and Sentiment: A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660-1780, Volume II, Shaftesbury to Hume (Cambridge, 2000). Roberts, A., and J. Donaldson (eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Edinburgh, 1989) — Ante–Nicene Christian Library: Translations of The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325., vol. XXI., The Works of Lactantius Vol. I. (Edinburgh, 1871). i in Seventeenth-Century Roberts, Sr., James Deotis, From Puritanism to Platonism England d (The Hague, 1968). Robinson-Hammerstein, Helga (ed.), European Universities in the Age of Reformation and Counter Reformation (Dublin, 1998). Rooden, Peter T. Van, J. C. Grayson (trans.), Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century: Constantijn L’Empereur (1591-1648) Professor of Hebrew and Theology at Leiden, Studies in the History of Leiden University, vol. 6 (Leiden, 1989). Rooy, Sidney H., The Theology of Missions in the Puritan Tradition: A Study of Representative Puritans: Richard Sibbes, Richard Baxter, John Eliot, Cotton Mather, and Jonathan Edwards (Deft, 1965). Rosconi, Roberto (ed.), Sotira e figure dell’Apocalisse fra ‘500 e ‘600 (Rome, 1996). Russell, Conrad (ed.), The Origins of the English Civil Warr (London, 1973). Russell, D. S., The Method & Message of Jewish Apocalyptic 200 BC – AD 100 (London, 1964). — Divine Disclosure: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic (London, 1992). Sanford, Charles L., The Quest for Paradise: Europe and the American Moral Imagination (Urbana, 1961) Scarisbrick, J. J., The Reformation and the English People (Oxford, 1984). Schaff, Philip, The Creeds of Christendom: with a history and critical notes, vols. 1-3 (Grand Rapids, 1983, 6th edition). Schwartz, Hillel, The French Prophets: The History of a Millenarian Group in Eighteenth-Century England d (Berkeley and London, 1980).

268 Bibliography Scofield, C. I., Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford, 1909; revised 1917). Scribner, R. W., For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation (Cambridge, 1981). Scult, Mel, Millennial Expectations and Jewish Liberties. A Study of Efforts to Convert the Jews in Britain, up to the Mid-Nineteenth Centuryy (Leiden, 1978). Sharpe, Kevin, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, 1993). Skinner, Quentin, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, volume two: the Age of the Reformation (Cambridge, 1978). Smolinski, Reiner (ed.), The Threefold Paradise of Cotton Mather: An Edition of ‘Triparadisus’. (Athens and London, 1995). Sommerville, J. P., Politics and Ideology in England 1603-1640 (Harlow, Essex, 1986). Spellman, W. M., The Latitudinarians and the Church of England, 1660-1700 (Athens, Georgia, 1993). Spijker, W. van’t, De Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619 (Houten, 1987). Sprunger, Keith L., The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Urbana, Chicago and London, 1972). — Dutch Puritanism: A History of English E and Scottish Churches of the Netherlands in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Leiden, 1982). Trumpets from the Tower: English Puritan Printing in the Netherlands 1600— 1640 (Leiden, 1994). Spurr, John, The Restoration Church of England, 1646-1689 (New Haven and London, 1991). Stearns, Raymond P., Congregationalism in the Dutch Netherlands (Chicago, 1940). Stein, Stephen J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism: Apocalypticism in the Modern Period and the Contemporary Age, vol. 3, (New York, 1998). Steinmetz, Daivd C. (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham, 1990). Stephens, W. P., The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford, 1986). Stout, Harry, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England d (New York and Oxford, 1986). Strack, H. L. and G. Stemberger, M. Bochmuehl (trans.), Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh, 1991). Strout, Cushing, The New Heavens and New Earth (New York, 1974). Thomas, Keith, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London, 1973). Thrupp, Sylvia (ed.), Millennial Dreams in Action (New York, 1970). Tichi, Cecilia, New World, New Earth (New Haven, 1979). Todd, Margo, Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Orderr (Cambridge, 1987). — (ed.), Reformation to Revolution: Politics and Religion in Early Modern England d (London, 1995). Toon, Peter (ed.), Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israell (Cambridge and London, 1970). Trevor-Roper, Hugh, Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans: 17th Century Essays (London, 1987). — Religion, the Reformation and Social Change (London, 1967). Trueman, Carl, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Cumbria, 1998).

Bibliography 269 Trueman Carl., & R. S. Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessmentt (Cumbria, 1999). Tulloch, John, Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the Seventeenth Century, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1872). Turnbull, George, Hartlib, Dury, and Comenius: Gleanings from Hartlib’s papers (Liverpool, 1947). Tuveson, Ernst L., Millennium and Utopia: A Study in the Background of the Idea of Progress (New York, 1964). — Redeemer Nation: The Idea of America’s Millennial Role (Chicago, 1968). Tyacke, Nicholas, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c.1590-1640 (Oxford, 1987). — (ed.), England’s Long Reformation 1500-1800 (London, 1998). (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford, x volume IV Seventeenth-Century — Oxford d (Oxford, 1997). Underdown, David, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popularr Politics and Culture in England 1603-1660 (Oxford, 1987). — Fire From Heaven (New Haven, 1992). Wall, Ernestine van der, De mystieke chiliast Petrus Serrarius (1600-1669) en zijn wereld d (Leiden, 1987). Walsh, J., C. Haydon and S. Taylor (eds.), The Church of England c.1689-c.1833: From Toleration to Tractarianism (Cambridge, 1993). d (Oxford, 1999). Walsham, Alexandra, Providence in Early Modern England Walzer, Michael, The Revolution of the Saints (Cambridge, Mass., 1965). Ward, Richard. The Life of the Learned and Pious Dr. Henry More (London, 1710). Weber, Eugene, Apocalypses: Prophecies, Cults and Millennial Beliefs Through the Ages (Cambridge, Mass., 2000). g (Cambridge, 1970). Webster, Charles, Samuel Hartlib and the Advancement of Learning — The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform, 1626-1660 (London, 1975). Webster, Tom, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England: The Caroline Puritan Movement, c.1620-1643 (Cambridge, 1997). Wedgwood, C. V., The Thirty Years Warr (Gloucester, Mass., 1968). Westin, Gunnar, Negotiations about Christian Unity 1628-1634 (Uppsala, 1932). White, B. R., The English Separatist Tradition from the Marian Martyrs to the Pilgrim Fathers (Oxford, 1971). White, Peter, Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil Warr (Cambridge, 1992). Wilks, Michael (ed.), Prophecy and Eschatology (Oxford, 1994). Wilson, J.F., Pulpit in Parliament: Puritanism during the English Civil Wars 1640-1648 (Princeton, 1969). Wrightson, K., English Society (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1982). Zakai, Avihu, Exile and Kingdom: History and Apocalypse in the Puritan Migration to America (Cambridge, 1992).

270 Bibliography

Articles Armitage, David, “Greater Britain: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis?”, American Historical Review, 104 (April 1999), pp. 427-445. Asselt, W. J. van, “Structural Elements in the Eschatology of Johannes Cocceius”, Calvin Theological Journal, 35 (2000), pp. 76-104. — “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought”, Westminster Theological Journal, 64 (2002), pp. 319-336. Backus, Irena, “The Church Fathers and the Canonicity of the Apocalypse in the Sixteenth Century: Erasmus, Frans Titelmans, and Theodore Beza”, Sixteenth Century Journal, XXIX/3 (1988), pp. 651-665. — “Apocalypse “ 20, 2-4 et le Millenium Protestant”, Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, Tome 79, no. 1 (1999), pp. 101-117. — “Irenaeus, Calvin and Calvinistic Orthodoxy. The Patristic Manuel of Abraham Scultetus (1598)”, Reformation and Renaissance Review, 1 (1999), pp. 41-53. Barnard, L. W., “The Use of the Patristics Tradition in the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Centuries”, in Richard Bauckham and Benjamin Drewery (eds.), Scripture, Tradition and Reason. A Study in the Criteria of Christian Doctrine. Essays in Honour of Richard P. C. Hanson (Edinburgh, 1988), pp. 174-203. Barnett, S. J., “The prophetic thought of Isaac Newton, its origin and context”, in B. Taithe and T. Thornton (eds.), Prophecy: The Power of Inspired Language in History 1300-2000 (Stroud, 1997), pp. 101-116. Bauckham, Richard, “Heinrich Bullinger, l’Apocalypse et les Anglais”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses, 74 année, no. 3 (1999), pp. 351-377. Bercovitch, Sacvan, “The Typology of America’s Mission”, American Quarterly, vol. XXX, no. 2 (Summer 1978), pp. 135-155. Berg, Johannes van den, “Quaker and Chiliast: the ‘contrary thoughts’ of William Ames and Petrus Serrarius”, in R. Buick Knox (ed.), Reformation, Conformity, and Dissent: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Nuttalll (London, 1977), pp. 180-198. — “Continuity within a Changing Context: Henry More’s millenarianism, seen against the Background of the Millenarian Concepts of Joseph Mede”, in Martin Brecht, Frederich de Boor and Klaus Deppermann (eds.), Chiliasmus in Deutschland und England Im 17. Jahrhundertt [Pietismus & Neuzeit, 14] (Gottingen, 1988), pp. 185-202. — “Glorious Revolution and Millennium: The ‘Apocalyptic Thoughts’ of Drue Cressener”, in J. van den Berg and P. G. Hoftijzer (eds.), Church, Change and Revolution: Transactions of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch Church History Colloquium (Leiden, Copenhagen, and Cologne, 1991), pp. 130-144. — “Grotius’ views on Antichrst and Apocalyptic Thought in England”, in H. J. M. Nellen and E. Rabbie (eds.), Hugo Grotius Theologian: Essays in Honour of G.H. M. Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden, 1993), pp. 167-183. — “The Synod of Dort in the Balance”, in J. De Bruijn, P. Holtrop and E. van der Wall (eds.), Johannes van den Berg, Religious Currents and Cross-Currents: Essays on Early Modern Protestantism and the Protestant Enlightenment (Leiden, 1999), pp. 1-17.

Bibliography 271 Boer, E.A. de, “The Book of Revelation in Calvin’s Geneva”, in W.H. Neuser, H. J. Selderhuis and W. van’t Spijker (eds.), Calvin’s Books: Festschrift dedicated to Peter de Klerk on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (Heerenveen, 1997), pp. 23-62. Bondos-Greene, Stephen A., “The End of an Era: Cambridge Puritanism and the Christ’s College Election of 1609”, The Historical Journal, 25: I (1982), pp. 197-208. Bost, Hubert, “La Révocation, Apocalypse des Protestants?”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses, 65 (1990/2), pp. 205-219. Bracken, Harry M., “Pierre Jurieu: The Politics of Prophecy”, in R. H. Popkin and J. Laursen (eds.), Millenarianism and Messianism, Volume IV, Continental t Catholics and Heretics (Dordrecht and Boston, Millenarianism Protestants, 2001), pp. 85-86. Clouse, Robert, “The Apocalyptic Interpretation of Thomas Brightman and Joseph Mede”, Fides et Historia, vol. XIII, no.1 (Fall 1980), pp.181-193. Dekker, Eef, “Was Arminius a Molinist?”, Sixteenth Century Journal, XXVII/2 (1996), pp. 337-352. Dockrill, D. W., “The Fathers and the Theology of the Cambridge Platonists”, Studia Patristica, 17/1 (Oxford, 1982), pp. 427-439. — “The Heritage of Patristic Platonism in Seventeenth-century English Philosophical Theology”, in G. A. J. Rogers, J. M. Vienne & Y. C. Zarka (eds.), The Cambridge Platonists in Philosophical Context: Politics, Metaphysics and Religion (Dordrecht, 1997), pp. 55-79. Fitzpatrick, Martin, “Latitudinarianism at the Parting of the Ways: A Suggestion”, in Walsh, J., C. Haydon and S. Taylor (eds.), The Church of England c.1689c.1833: From Toleration to Tractarianism (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 209-227. Ford, Alan, “James Ussher and the Creation of an Irish Protestant Identity”, in Brendan Bradshaw and Peter Roberts (eds.), British Consciousness and Identity, the Making of Britain, 1553-1707 7 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 185-212. Froehlich, Karlfried, ‘”Always to Keep the Literal Sense in Holy Scripture Means to Kill One’s Soul”: The State of Biblical Hermeneutics at the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century’ in E. Miner (ed.), Literary Uses of Typology from the Late Middle Ages to the Presentt (Princeton, 1977), pp. 20-48. George, Timothy, “Calvin’s Psychopannychia: Another Look”, in R. C. Gamble (ed.) Calvin’s Early Writings and Ministry (New York and London, 1992), pp. 87119. Gould, Eliga, H., “A Virtual Nation: Greaterr Britain and the Imperial Legacy of the American Revolution”, American Historical Review, 104 (April 1999), pp. 476-489. Greene, Donald, “Latitudinarianism Reconsidered: A Review Essay”, Anglican and Episcopal History, 62 (June, 1993), pp. 159-174. Hall, Basil, “Calvin against the Calvinists”, in G. E. Duffield (ed.), John Calvin (Abingdon, 1966), pp. 19-37. Hill, Christopher, “A Bourgeois Revolution?”, The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill, vol. III (Brighton, 1986), pp. 94-125.

272 Bibliography Hillerbrand, Hans J., “The Antichrist in the Early German Reformation: Reflections on Theology and Propaganda”, in Andrew C. Fix and Susan KarantNunn (eds.), Germania Illustrat: Essays on Early Modern Germany presented to Gerald Strauss (Kirksville, Mo., 1992), pp. 3-17. Hotson, Howard, “Irenicism and Dogmatics in the Confessional Age: Pareus and Comenius in Heidelberg, 1614”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 46 (1995), pp. 432-456. — “The Historiographical Origins of Calvinist Millenarianism”, in Bruce Gordon (ed.),Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth Century Europe, vol. 2 (Aldershot, 1996), pp. 159-181. — “Antisemitismus, Philosemitismus und Chiliasmus im frühneuzeitlichen Europa”,WerkstattGeschichte, 24 (Berlin, 1999), pp. 7-35. — “Arianism and Millenarianism: The Link between two Heresies from Servetus to Socinus”, in R. H. Popkin and J. Laursen (eds.), Millenarianism and Messianism, Volume IV, Continental Millenarianism: Protestants, Catholics and Heretics (Dordrecht and Boston, 2001), pp. 9-35. Hughes, Seán F., ‘The Problem of “Calvinism”: English theologies of predestination c. 1580-1630’, in Susan Wabuda & Caroline Litzenberger (eds.), Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A Tribute to Patrick Collinson by his students (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 229-249. Hutton, Sarah, “Thomas Jackson, Oxford Platonist and William Twisse, Aristotelian”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 39 (1978), pp. 635-652. — “More, Newton, and the Language of Biblical Prophecy”, in J.E. Force and R. H. Popkin (eds.) The Book of Nature and Scripture: Recent Essays on Natural Philosophy, Theology, Biblical Criticism in the Netherlands of Spinoza’s Time and the British Isles of Newton’s Time (Dordrecht, Boston and London, 1994), pp. 39-54. — “Lord Herbert and the Cambridge Platonists”, in S. Brown (ed.), British Philosophy and the Age of Enlightenment, Routledge History of Philosophy, vol. 5. (London, 1995), pp. 20-42. — “The Seven Trumpets and the Seven Vials: Apocalypticism and Christology in Newton’s Theological Writings”, in J. E. Force and R. H. Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion: Context, Nature, and Influence (Dordrecht, Boston and London, 1999), pp. 165-178. — “The Appropriation of Joseph Mede: Millenarianism in the 1640’s”, in J.E. Force and R.H. Popkin (eds.), Millenarianism and Modernism in Early Modern Millenarian Contexts of Science, Politics Europe,vol. III: The Millenarian Turn: M and everyday Anglo-American Life in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries (Dordrecht, London and Boston, 2001), pp. 1-14. — “The Cambridge Platonists”, in S. Nadler (ed.), Blackwell Companion to Early Modern Philosophy (Oxford, 2002), pp. 308-319. Johnston, Warren, “The Patience of the Saints, the Apocalypse, and Moderate Nonconformity in Restoration England”, Canadian Journal of History 38:3 (December 1, 2003), pp. 505-516. — “The Anglical Apocalypse in Restoration England”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History,Vol. 55, No. 3 (July 2004), pp. 467-501.

Bibliography 273 Knetsch, F. R. J., “Pierre Jurieu and the Glorious Revolution according to his ‘Lettres Pastorales’”, in J. van den Berg and P. G. Hoftijzer (eds.), Church, Change and Revolution: Transactions of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch Church History Colloquium (Leiden, New York, Copenhagen, and Cologne, 1991), pp.146-149. Lake, Peter, “The Significance of the Elizabethan Identification of the Pope as Antichrist”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 31:2 (April 1980), pp. 163-178. — “William Bradshaw, Antichrist and the Community of the Godly”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 36:4 (October, 1985), pp. 570-589. — “Anti-popery: the Structure of a Prejudice”, in R. Cust and A. Hughes (ed.), The English Civil Warr (London, 1997), pp. 181-210. Lamont, William, “Richard Baxter, The Apocalypse and the Mad Major”, Past and Present, no. 55 (May 1972), pp. 68-90. Landsman, Ned C., “Nation, Migration, and the Province in the First British Empire: Scotland and the Americas, 1600-1800”, American Historical Review, 104 (April 1999), pp. 463-475. Laursen, J. C., “Bayle’s Anti-millenarianism: The Dangers of Those Who Claim to Know the Future”, in R. H. Popkin and J. Laursen (eds.), Millenarianism and Messianism, Volume IV, Continental Millenarianism: Protestants, Catholics and Heretics (Dordrecht and Boston, 2001), pp. 95-106. Levine, Joseph M., “Latitudinarians, Neoplatonists, and the Ancient Wisdom”, in Kroll, R., R. Ashcraft and P. Zagovin (eds.). Philosophy, Science and Religion in England 1640-1700 (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 85-108. Mamiani, Maurizio, “Newton on Prophecy and the Apocalypse”, in I.B. Cohen and G.E.Smith (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 387-408. Mandelbrote, Scott., “John Dury and the Practice of Irenicism”, in Nigel Aston (ed.), Religious Change in Europe 1650-1914, Essays for John McManners (Oxford, 1997), pp. 41-58. McGinn, Bernard, “Joachim of Fiore’s Tertius Status: some theological appraisals”, in Antonio Crocco (ed.), L’Eta dello Spirito e la Fine dei Tempi in Gioacchino da Fiore e nel Gioachimismo Medievale, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Gioachimiti, S. Giovanni in Fiore, 6-9 settembre 1984 (San Giovanni in Fiore, 1986), pp. 219-236. Meyjes, G. H. M. Posthumus, “Hugo Grotius as an irenicist”, in The World of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645): Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the Grotius Committee of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Rotterdam 6-9 April 1983 (Amsterdam & Maarssen, 1984), pp. 43-64. Morrill, John, “The Religious Context of the English Civil War”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Series, 34 (1984), pp. 155-178. Morrissey, Mary, “Elect Nations and Prophetic Preaching: Types and Examples in the Paul’s Cross Jeremiad”, in Lori Anne Ferrell and Peter McCullough (eds.), The English Sermon Revised: Religion, Literature and History 1600-1750 (Manchester, 2000), pp. 43-58.

274 Bibliography Muller, Richard A., “Scholasticism Protestant and Catholic: Francis Turretin on the Object and Principles of Theology”, Church History, 55:2 (June 1986), pp. 193205. Murdoch, Steve, “Kith and Kin: John Durie and the Scottish Community in Scandinavia and the Baltic, 1624-1634”, in Patrick Salmon (ed.), Britain and the Baltic: Studies in Commercial, Political and Cultural Relations (Sunderland, 2003), pp. 21-46. Murrin, Michael, “Newton’s Apocalypse”, in J.E. Force and R. H. Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion: Context, Nature and Influence (Dordrecht, Boston and London, 1999), pp. 203-220. Nischan, Bodo, “Reformed Irenicism and the Leipzig Colloquy of 1631”, Central European History, vol. 9 (1976), pp. 3-26. — “Brandenburg’s Reformed Räte and Leipzig Manifesto of 1631”, The Journal of Religious History, vol. 10 (1979), pp. 365-377. — “John Bergius: Irenicism and the Beginnings of Official Religious Toleration in Brandenburg-Prussia”, Church History, 51(1982), pp. 389-404. Nuttall, Geoffrey F., “English Dissenters in the Netherlands 1640-1689”, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeshiedenis, 59 (1978), pp. 37-54. Pettegree, Andrew, “The Latin Polemic of the Marian Exiles”, in James Kirk (ed.), Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England and Scotland, 14001643 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 305-329. Oberman, Heiko A., “Teufelsdreck: Eschatology and Scatology in the ‘old’ Luther”, Sixteenth Century Journal, 19 (1988), pp. 435-450. Ohlmeyer, Jane, “Seventeenth-Century Ireland and the New British and Atlantic Histories,” American Historical Review, 104 (April 1999), pp. 446-462. Platt, John E., “Eirenical Anglicans at the synod of Dort”, in D. Baker (ed.), Reform and the Reformation: England and the Continent c.1500-c.1750 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 221-243. Pocock, J. G. A., “British History: A Plea for a new subject”, Journal of Modern History 47, no. 4 (1975), pp. 601-628 [Republished as: “The New British History in Atlantic Perspective: An Antipodean Commentary”, American Historical Review, 104, no.2 (1999), pp. 490-500]. Popkin, Richard H., “The End of the Career of a Great 17th Century Millenarian: John Dury”, in Pietismus und Neuzeit: Chiliasmus in Deutschland and England im 17. Jahrhundertt (Göttingen, 1988), pp. 203-220. — “The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Indian Theory”, in Y. Kaplan, H. Méchoulan and R. H. Popkin (eds.), Menassah ben Israel and His Worldd (Leiden, 1989), pp. 63-82. — “The Religious Background of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy”, in D. Garber and M. Ayers (eds.), The Cambridge History off Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, vol. II (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 393-424. Rumrich, John P., “Mead and Milton”, Milton Quarterly, 20 (1986), pp. 136-141. Russell, William R., “Martin Luther’s Understanding of the Pope and Antichrist”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 85 (1994), pp. 32-44.

Bibliography 275 Scholl, Hans, “Karl Barth as Interpreter of Calvin’s Psychopannychia”, in W. H. Neuser & B. G. Armstrong (eds.), Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex: Calvin as Protector of the Purer Religion (Kirksville, MO, 1997), pp. 291-308. Sinnema, Donald, “Reformed Scholasticism and the Synod of Dort (1618-1619)”, in B. J. van der Walt (ed.), John Calvin’s Institutes: His Opus Magnum (Potchefstroom, 1986), pp. 467-506. Smolinski, Reiner, “Israel “ Redivivus: The Eschatological Limits of Puritan Typology in New England”, New England Quarterly, 63 (1990), pp. 357-395. — “The Logic of Millennial Thought: Sir Isaac Newton among his contemporaries”, in J.E. Force and R. H. Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion: Context, Nature, and Influence (Dordrecht, Boston and London, 1999), pp. 259-290. Snobelen, Stephen D., ‘”A Time and Times and the Dividing of Times”: Isaac Newton, the Apocalypse and 2060 A.D.’, Canadian Journal of History 38:3 (2003), pp. 537-551. Sturgis, Amy H., “Prophesies and Politics: Millenarians, Rabbis, and the Jewish Indian Theory”, The Seventeenth Century, vol. XIV, no. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp.15-23. Vial, Marc, “Luther et l’Apocalypse d’après les Préfaces de 1522 et 1530”, Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 131 (1999), pp. 25-37. Wall, Ernestine van der, “A Precursor of Christ or a Jewish Imposter? Petrus Serrarius and Jean de Labadie on the Jewish Messianic Movement around Sabbatavi Sevi”, in Martin Brecht, Frederich de Boor and Klaus Deppermann (eds.), Chiliasmus in Deutschland und England Im 17. Jahrhundertt [Pietismus & Neuzeit, 14] (Gottingen, 1988), pp. 109-124. — “Petrus Serrarius and Menasseh ben Israel: Christian Millenarianism and Jewish Messianism in Seventh-Century Amsterdam”, in Y. Kaplan, H. Méchoulan and R. H. Popkin, Menasseh ben Israel and His Worldd (Leiden, 1989), pp. 164-190. — “Orthodoxy and Scepticism in the Early Dutch Enlightenment”, in R. H. Popkin and A. Vanderjagt (eds.), Scepticism and Irreligion in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Leiden, 1993), pp. 121-141. — “Between Grotius and Cocceius: The ‘Theologia Prophetica’ of Campegius Vitringa (1659-1722)”in Henk J.M. Nellen and Edwin Rabbie (eds.), Hugo Grotius – Theologian: Essays in Honour of G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes (Leiden, 1994), pp. 196-215. — “Antichrist Stormed”: The Glorious Revolution and the Dutch Prophetic Tradition’,in D. Hoak and M. Feingold (eds.), The World of William and Mary: Anglo-Dutch Perspective on the Revolution of 1688-89 (Stanford, 1996), pp. 152-164. — “Mystical Millenarianism in the Early Modern Dutch Republic” in R. H. Popkin and J. Laursen (eds.), Millenarianism and Messianism, Volume IV, Continental t Catholics and Heretics (Dordrecht and Boston, Millenarianism: Protestants, 2001), pp. 37-48. Wilson, J. F., “A Gimpse of Syons Glory”, Church History, vol. XXI (1962), pp. 66-73.

276 Bibliography

D. UNPUBLISHED THESES AND DISSERTATIONS Cockburn, David A. J., A Critical Edition of the Letters of the Reverend Joseph Mead, 1626-1627, contained in the British Library Harleain MS.390 (Cambridge University, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1994). Eerdmann, Martin, The Chiliastic Controversy in the Patristic Literature (University of Aberdeen, M.Th. Thesis, 1993). Fesko, J. V., Diversity within the Reformed Tradition: Supra and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort and Westminsterr (University of Aberdeen, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1999). Godfrey, W. R., Tensions Within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 (Stanford University, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1974). Holley, Larry Jackson, The Divines of the Westminster Assembly: A Study of Puritanism and Parliamentt (Yale University, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1979). Hotson, Howard B., Johann Heinrich Alsted: Encyclopedism, Millenarianism and the Second Reformation in Germany (University of Oxford, D.Phil. Dissertation, 1994). Hoyle, D. M., Near Popery yet no Popery. Theological debate in Cambridge 1590-1644 (Cambridge University, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1991). Johnston, Warren, Apocalypticism in Restoration England d (Cambridge University, Ph.D. Dissertation, 2000). Milton, Anthony, The Laudians and the Church of Rome, c.1625-1640 (Cambridge University, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1989). Schaefer, Jr., Paul R., The Spiritual Brotherhood on the Habits of the Heart: Cambridge Protestants and the Doctrine of Sanctification: From William Perkins to Thomas Shepherd d (University of Oxford, D.Phil. Dissertation, 1994). Schaff, M. E. van der, The Theology of Thomas Jackson (1579-1640): An Anglican Alternative to Roman Catholicism, Puritanism and Calvinism (University of Iowa, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1979). Sinnema, Donald W., The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618-19) In Light of the History of this Doctrine (University of St, Michael’s College, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1985). Spencer, Stephen, Reformed Scholasticism in Reformed Perspective: Thomas Aquinas and Francois Turrettini on the Incarnation (Michigan State University, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1988). Wedgbury, Daphne M., An Edition of the Letters (1621-1625) of the Reverend Joseph Mead to Sir Martin Stuteville of Suffolk in BL MS Harleain 389 (University of Leicester, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1991).

Index

Addison, William 10, 11 Adolphus, Gustavus 69 Alcazar, Louis 216 Alsop, John 8, 16, 19, 128 Alsted, Johann Heinrich 4, 12, 89,130, 216, 225, 228, 231, 234, 236 Alting, Heinrich 235 Alting, Jacobus 229, 232, 235 America 176, 184-91, 204, 207, 209 Ames, William 10, 196, 198, 199, 200, 205, 215, 218, 227 Amyraut, Moïse 233 Anabaptists 228, 236 Andrewes, Lancelot 11, 13, 29 Anglicans 2, 26 Anstruther, Sir Robert 213, 215 Antichrist 14, 30-5, 42, 68, 112, 131, 136, 141, 152-3, 156, 160-2, 168, 170, 178-9, 189, 216, 220, 223-5, 232, 240, 246 Anti-Nicene Fathers 110-16 Antinomianism 55 Antiochus Epiphanes 158 Apostles Creed 74, 76, 113 Archer, John 220-1, 225 Arminians 2 26, 49, 61, 68, 143 Arnhem 219, 221, 223 Asche, Rabbi 133n Athanasian Creed 76 Augsburg Confession 126 Augustine 93-4, 119-21

Bedell, William 70 Bellarmine, Robert 8 Bergius, Johannes 69 Beverley, Thomas 154, 163-7 Beza, Theodore 111, 113, 118 Bible Genesis 2:1 124; 5:24 16; 19n; 6-9 123 Exodus 12:46 196 Job 52 Psalms 22:18 196; 92 134 Song of Solomon 197 Isaiah 2 97; 2:12-22 133 Jeremiah 10:11 59 Ezekiel 38:1-2 185 Daniel 2 97-9, 104, 145-6, 148, 158; 7 100-102, 104, 145-9, 152, 157-9, 167, 172, 186; 9 31 170; 11 92; 12 220-1; 17 221, 248 Hosea 14:8 135 Haggai 201 Zechariah 201; 12:10 192 Malachi 201 Matthew 11:28-29 54; 23:39 192; 24:37-39 130 Luke 21: 25 134 Romans 4: 18 56; 8:30 45; 11 191, 193; 11:15 231; 11:25-26 163; 11:26 163, 165, 194 I Corinthians 4:1 25 Ephesians 1:4-6 45 II Thessalonians 2:9 31 I Timothy 4 32, 96; 103-104, 240; 4:1 154, 223; 4:1-3 42 Hebrews 2:5,8 235 2 Peter 124; 2:1 95-6; 3:10 122-4 I John 2 32 Apocalypse: canonicity of 110-113; identification of the beast 13, 17 153, 160, 167, 173, 237 number of the Beast 13 79; seals, trumpets and vials 8:1 82, 16:8-9

Babylon 31, 112, 205, 221, 226, 240 Bacon, Francis 142 Baillie, Robert 225 Bainbridge, Thomas 10 Bale, John 92-3 Baptists 143 Baxter, Richard 150-1, 153-7, 161-7, 169, 173-4 Bayle, Pierre 239n

277

278 Index nd 32; synchronisms 8:1 82; 17:3-6, 10 99; 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20 101-4, 114, 145, 163, 166, 168, 176, 187, 211-2, 216; The 144,000 7:2-4 187; Two Witnesses 11 83, 164, 216, 236 Apocalypse 20: Day of Judgment and the millennium 128-130, 220, 233; first resurrection 20:4,5 110-14; 20:5 77-8; 20:5-7 179, 209; non-millenarian interpretation of 91, 96-8; nature of the millennium 117-9, 222-6, 242; time of the millennium 143, 235; See also Gog and Magog, Mede, Clavis Boston 180, 186, 189 Boswell, Sir William 213 Bossuet, Jacques-Bénegne de 239n Bremen 48 Bridge, William 221, 225 Brightman, Thomas 216, 229 Broughton, Hugh 148, 213n Bulkeley, Peter 189, 193 Bullinger, Heinrich 92-3, 102 Burnet, Gilbert 143 Burnet, William 188 Burroughes, Jeremiah 221-2, 225 Buxtorf, Johannes 128 Calvin, John 4, 102, 110, 127n, 196, 199-203 Cambridge Platonists 37-8, 39, 42, 44, 50, 52, 56-7, 60, 62-3 Cambridge University 70 Christ’s College 9, 11-2, 16, 19, 28, 38-9, 54, 109, 118, 156, 166, 177, 215 Emmanuel College 38, 56 Sidney Sussex College 9 St. Catherine’s College 33 Cary, Valentine 11, 28 Cawdry, Daniel 24n Cerinthus 120-21, 228, 236 Chalcedonian Creed 76 Chappell, William 28, 33, 39-40, 109-10 Charles I 2-4, 21, 24, 28, 34, 144 Charles II 142n, 143, 247 Chrysostom, John 168

Cocceius, Johannes 228-9, 231 Cocceius, Johannes Henricus 229, 232 Coke, Francis 54 Comenius, Jan Amos 232 Constantine 89, 91, 154-5, 166, 173 Cosin, John 13, 30 Cotton, John 178-82, 186, 219 Council of Constantinople 76 Council of Trent 76 Cressner, Drue 166-8 Cromwell, Oliver 20, 142n, 193n Cudworth, Ralph 38, 39, 40, 51-2, 63-4 Cyprian 23, 124, 168 Danforth, Samuel 207-8 Darby, John Nelson 249 Davenant, John 48-50, 70-73 Davenport, John 182-4 De Dieu, Ludovicus 77, 212-4, 218 De Launay, Pierre 233 Dordt, Synod of 45-6, 48, 50, Canons of Dordt 45-6, 50, 61 Du Moulin, Pierre 238 Duppa, Brian 11n Durham, James 196-7, 199-200, 224 Dury, John 20, 54, 66-75, 77, 80-85 Edict of Nantes 168, 238-41 Edwards, Jonathan 185, 209 Elias, Rabbi 133n Eliezer ben Jacob, Rabbi 135n Eliot, John 189-90 Erasmus, Desiderius 111 Estwick, Nicholas 118, 120-21 Eusebius 23, 120, 124 Fifth Monarchists 20, 183, 236 Flacius Illyricus, Matthias 200n Fleming, Robert [elder] 223-4 Fleming, Robert [younger] 224-5 Forbes, Patrick 216, 229 Forty-Two Articles of Religion 4, 126 Franeker 227, 236, 238 Galatinus, Petrus 129, 135 Gallus, Carolus 4 Geneva 28

Index Gnostics 115, 118, 122 Gog and Magog 130, 132, 150, 184-5, 187, 189, 222 Goodwin, Thomas 12, 54, 177-80, 183, 194, 219-20, 222-3, 220 Gregory I 168 Groenewegen, Henricus 229 Groningen 232, 235 Grotius, Hugo 150-61, 172-4, 237 Hall, Joseph 48, 70-72 Hammond, Henry 150-7, 161, 172-3, 237 Hartlib, Samuel 20, 65-85, 160 Harvard College 187 Hayne, Thomas 112, 145-6, 148-50, 172 Hebraists 128 Heidelberg 72, 129 Herborn 4 Higginson, John 206 Hippolytus 168 Hobbes, Thomas 142 Hooke, William 181, 193 Independents 24 Irenaeus 111, 113-4, 117-8, 120, 136, 232 Isham, Justinian 11n Israel 176, 190, 194-7, 205-9 Jackson, Thomas 28, 30, 33, 47-8 James VI/I 28 Jerome 110, 127, 168, 232 Jesus Christ 41, 43, 54, 92, 222 Johnson, Edward 181-2 Jonathan, Rabbi [Yohanna ben Zakkai] 134 Junius, Franciscus 58, 92-3, 148, 216 Jurieu, Pierre 168, 238-43 Keckermann, Bartholomew 12 Ketina, Rabbi 133 Kimchi, David 133 Knox, John 223 Koelman, Jacobus 232

Lactantius 113, 120-22 Lapide, Cornelius a 216 Latitudinarians 37 Laud, William 2, 10, 13-4, 16, 23, 26, 30-3, 37, 40, 68, 246 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 239 Leiden 213, 218, 224, 228-30 Leipzig Colloquy 69 Leipzig Articles 69, 71, 75 Leipzig Manifesto 69 L’Empereur, Constantine 129 Lightfoot, John 128 London 15, 145, 178, 213 Louis XIV, King 241 Luther, Martin 31, 95, 110, 156 Lutherans 66, 68-9, 73, 84 Maccovius, Johannes 227 Mannaseh ben Israel 187 Marcion 114-5, 117-8 Marck, Johannes 229-30 Maresius, Samuel 232, 233, 235 Marian Exiles 34n Martyr, Justin 111, 113, 115, 117-8, 120, 124, 136, 168, 231-2 Massachusetts Bay Colony 180 Mather, Cotton 186, 245 Mather, Increase 151, 174, 193-4, 204-5 Mather, Samuel 204 Maton, Robert 226 Meddus, Samuel 16, 131, 135 Mede, Sir John 8 Mede, Joseph: works of, The Apostasy of the Latter Times: citation of Apocalypse 20 92; dating of 92, 95-100; publication of 14; synchronism within 101-2, 104; use of Platonism in 42-4 Churches, that is, appropriate places for Christian Worship 13, 21, 24, 30 De Sanctitate Relativa 13 Daniels Weeks 14 Dissertationum ecclesiasticarum Clavis Apocalyptica: circulation of 16, 77, 213, 215, 231; dating of 92,

280 Index nd 98; publication of 14, 20, 90; related to Alsted 4, synchronisms 81-2, 101-7; translation of 144 The Key to the Revelation 33-4; The Day of Judgement 131-5; synchronisms 238; the typology of Israel 202 The name altar or Thysiaterion 21, 23 A paraphrase and exposition of the prophesie of Saint Peterr 14, 122-5 The reverence of God’s house 13, 21-2 Methodius 168 Milton, John 4, 12 Montagu, Richard 29-30 More, Henry 4, 12, 38-41, 50-51, 56-6, 63-4, 143, 156-63, 167, 169, 174, 224, 229 More, Richard 33 Morton, Thomas 70-72 Munster 234 Musculus, Wolfgang 193 Nag Hammadi 122 Napier, John 92, 216, 229 Nebuchadnezzar 99, 146 Neile, Richard 30 Neo-platonism 40-41 Netherlands 213, 218, 223, 233, 238, 243 New Haven 181-2 New Jerusalem 185-8, 190, 246 Newton, Isaac 4, 169-71, 174, 248 Nicene Creed 76 Noyes, Nicholas 188, 207 Nye, Philip 221 Overall, John 30 Owen, John 151 Oxford University 70 Pareus, David 72, 92, 129, 131-2 Paul, Apostle 42, 100, 187, 191-2, 194 Pemberton, William 28 Perkins, William 9, 196, 199-200, 202-4 Petrie, Alexander 225-7

Piscator, Johannis 4, 130-31, 236 Plato 40-41, 43-44 Plotinus 40 Polycarp 117 Polycratis 124 Potter, Christopher 70-71 Potter, Francis 79-80 Power, William 39 Quakers 41, 236 Reuchlin, Johann 129 Remonstrants 45, 48-9 Ribera, Francisco 157, 216 Richardson, John 70 Rivet, Andre 213 Roe, Sir Thomas 68n Rogers, Daniel 9, 10 Rogers, Richard 8, 9, 11 Rotterdam 221, 223-5, 238-9 Rutherford, Samuel 223 Saadas, Rabbi 134 Saumur 233 Satan 3, 184, 188, 190 Schelomo, Rabbi 133 Scofield, C. I. 249 Second Helvetic Confession 126 Serrarius, Petrus 22-3, 235 Servetus, Michael 127n Sewall, Samuel 187-8, 190 Sibbes, Richard 33 Simpson, Sidrach 24n Socinians 61, 74 Solemn League and Covenant 24 Smith, John 38-40, 57, 63-4 Stuteville, Sir Martin 11, 15, 29-31 Squanto 187 Tertullian 23, 112-15, 117-8, 120, 136, 168, 232 Testard, Paul 15, 234 Theodoret 168 Theophilus 124 Thirty Years War 66, 90, 246 Tremmelius, Immanuel 144 Trinity College, Dublin 16, 28, 33

Index Trypho 118 Tuckney, Anthony 56, 61-2 Turretin, Francis 120, 233n, 234n Tyconius 93 Twisse, William 13, 22, 28, 32-3, 47, 54, 78-80, 92, 174, 184, 192, 194, 225 Ussher, Archbishop James 16, 28, 33, 70, 179, 216 Utrecht 224, 230 Valentinian III 42 Van Laren, Daniel 215-8, 221, 235-6 Van Til, Saloman 229 Vermigli, Peter Martyr 59, 102 Victorinus 168 Vitringa, Campegius 229, 236-8 Voetius, Gisbertus 230-2

Walaeus, Antonius 218, 228 Ward, Samuel 9, 54, 70 Wesley, Charles 248 Westminster Assembly 14, 20, 24, 52-3, 56, 179, 225 Whichote, Benjamin 38 56, 59-61, 63 Whiston, William 171-4 Whitgift, Bishop John 8 William and Mary 168, 241-2 Williams, Gryffith 143 Winthrop, John 175 Worthington, John 7, 14, 38-9, 64, 218 York House Conference 29 Zwingli, Ulrich 110

´ ARCHIVES INTERNATIONALES D’HISTOIRE DES IDEES * INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

E. Labrousse: Pierre Bayle. Tome I: Du pays de foix a` la cité d’Erasme. 1963; 2nd printing 1984 ISBN 90-247-3136-4 For Tome II see below under Volume 6. P. Merlan: Monopsychism, Mysticism, Metaconsciousness. Problems of the Soul in the Neoaristotelian and Neoplatonic Tradition. 1963; 2nd printing 1969 ISBN 90-247-0178-3 H.G. van Leeuwen: The Problem of Certainty in English Thought, 1630–1690. With a Preface by R.H. Popkin. 1963; 2nd printing 1970 ISBN 90-247-0179-1 P.W. Janssen: Les origines de la réforme des Carmes en France au 17 e Siècle. 1963; 2nd printing 1969 ISBN 90-247-0180-5 G. Sebba: Bibliographia Cartesiana. A Critical Guide to the Descartes Literature (1800–1960). 1964 ISBN 90-247-0181-3 E. Labrousse: Pierre Bayle. Tome II: Heterodoxie et rigorisme. 1964 ISBN 90-247-0182-1 K.W. Swart: The Sense of Decadence in 19th-Century France. 1964 ISBN 90-247-0183-X W. Rex: Essays on Pierre Bayle and Religious Controversy. 1965 ISBN 90-247-0184-8 E. Heier: L.H. Nicolay (1737–1820) and His Contemporaries. Diderot, Rousseau, Voltaire, Gluck, Metastasio, Galiani, D’Escherny, Gessner, Bodmer, Lavater, Wieland, Frederick II, Falconet, W. Robertson, Paul I, Cagliostro, Gellert, Winckelmann, Poinsinet, Lloyd, Sanchez, Masson, and Others. 1965 ISBN 90-247-0185-6 H.M. Bracken: The Early Reception of Berkeley’s Immaterialism, 1710–1733. [1958] Rev. ed. 1965 ISBN 90-247-0186-4 R.A. Watson: The Downfall of Cartesianism, 1673–1712. A Study of Epistemological Issues in Late 17th-Century Cartesianism. 1966 ISBN 90-247-0187-2 R. Descartes: Regulæ ad Directionem Ingenii. Texte critique e´ tabli par Giovanni Crapulli avec ISBN 90-247-0188-0 la version hollandaise du 17e siècle. 1966 J. Chapelain: Soixante-dix-sept Lettres inédites a` Nicolas Heinsius (1649–1658). Publiées d’après le manuscrit de Leyde avec une introduction et des notes par B. Bray. 1966 ISBN 90-247-0189-9 C. B. Brush: Montaigne and Bayle. Variations on the Theme of Skepticism. 1966 ISBN 90-247-0190-2 B. Neveu: Un historien a` l’Ecole de Port-Royal. Sébastien le Nain de Tillemont (1637–1698). 1966 ISBN 90-247-0191-0 ISBN 90-247-0192-9 A. Faivre: Kirchberger et l’Illuminisme du 18 e siècle. 1966 J.A. Clarke: Huguenot Warrior. The Life and Times of Henri de Rohan (1579–1638). 1966 ISBN 90-247-0193-7 S. Kinser: The Works of Jacques-Auguste de Thou. 1966 ISBN 90-247-0194-5 E.F. Hirsch: Damião de Gois. The Life and Thought of a Portuguese Humanist (1502–1574). 1967 ISBN 90-247-0195-3 P.J.S. Whitemore: The Order of Minims in 17th-Century France. 1967 ISBN 90-247-0196-1 H. Hillenaar: Fénelon et les Jésuites. 1967 ISBN 90-247-0197-X W.N. Hargreaves-Mawdsley: The English Della Cruscans and Their Time, 1783–1828. 1967 ISBN 90-247-0198-8 C.B. Schmitt: Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola (1469–1533) and his Critique of Aristotle. 1967 ISBN 90-247-0199-6 H.B. White: Peace among the Willows. The Political Philosophy of Francis Bacon. 1968 ISBN 90-247-0200-3

´ ARCHIVES INTERNATIONALES D’HISTOIRE DES IDEES * INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

40. 41. 42.

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

L. Apt: Louis-Philippe de Ségur. An Intellectual in a Revolutionary Age. 1969 ISBN 90-247-0201-1 E.H. Kadler: Literary Figures in French Drama (1784–1834). 1969 ISBN 90-247-0202-X G. Postel: Le Thrésor des prophéties de l’univers. Manuscrit publié avec une introduction et des notes par F. Secret. 1969 ISBN 90-247-0203-8 E.G. Boscherini: Lexicon Spinozanum. 2 vols., 1970 Set ISBN 90-247-0205-4 C.A. Bolton: Church Reform in 18th-Century Italy. The Synod of Pistoia (1786). 1969 ISBN 90-247-0208-9 D. Janicaud: Une généalogie du spiritualisme fran¸cais. Aux sources du bergsonisme: [Félix] Ravaisson [1813–1900] et la métaphysique. 1969 ISBN 90-247-0209-7 J.-E. d’Angers: L’Humanisme chrétien au 17 e siècle. St. Fran¸cois de Sales et Yves de Paris. 1970 ISBN 90-247-0210-0 H.B. White: Copp’d Hills towards Heaven. Shakespeare and the Classical Polity. 1970 ISBN 90-247-0250-X P.J. Olscamp: The Moral Philosophy of George Berkeley. 1970 ISBN 90-247-0303-4 C.G. Noreña: Juan Luis Vives (1492–1540). 1970 ISBN 90-247-5008-3 J. O’Higgens: Anthony Collins (1676–1729), the Man and His World. 1970 ISBN 90-247-5007-5 F.T. Brechka: Gerard van Swieten and His World (1700–1772). 1970 ISBN 90-247-5009-1 M.H. Waddicor: Montesquieu and the Pilosophy of Natural Law. 1970 ISBN 90-247-5039-3 O.R. Bloch: La Philosophie de Gassendi (1592–1655). Nominalisme, matérialisme et métaphysique. 1971 ISBN 90-247-5035-0 J. Hoyles: The Waning of the Renaissance (1640–1740). Studies in the Thought and Poetry of Henry More, John Norris and Isaac Watts. 1971 ISBN 90-247-5077-6 For Henry More, see also below under Volume 122 and 127. H. Bots: Correspondance de Jacques Dupuy et de Nicolas Heinsius (1646–1656). 1971 ISBN 90-247-5092-X W.C. Lehmann: Henry Home, Lord Kames, and the Scottish Enlightenment. A Study in National Character and in the History of Ideas. 1971 ISBN 90-247-5018-0 C. Kramer: Emmery de Lyere et Marnix de Sainte Aldegonde. Un admirateur de Sébastien Franck et de Montaigne aux prises avec le champion des calvinistes néerlandais.[Avec le texte d’Emmery de Lyere:] Antidote ou contrepoison contre les conseils sanguinaires et envinemez de Philippe de Marnix Sr. de Ste. Aldegonde. 1971 ISBN 90-247-5136-5 P. Dibon: Inventaire de la correspondance (1595–1650) d’André Rivet (1572–1651). 1971 ISBN 90-247-5112-8 K.A. Kottman: Law and Apocalypse. The Moral Thought of Luis de Leon (1527?–1591). 1972 ISBN 90-247-1183-5 F.G. Nauen: Revolution, Idealism and Human Freedom. Schelling, Hölderlin and Hegel, and the Crisis of Early German Idealism. 1971 ISBN 90-247-5117-9 H. Jensen: Motivation and the Moral Sense in Francis Hutcheson’s [1694–1746] Ethical Theory. 1971 ISBN 90-247-1187-8 A. Rosenberg: [Simon] Tyssot de Patot and His Work (1655–1738). 1972 ISBN 90-247-1199-1 C. Walton: De la recherche du bien. A study of [Nicolas de] Malebranche’s [1638–1715] Science of Ethics. 1972 ISBN 90-247-1205-X

´ ARCHIVES INTERNATIONALES D’HISTOIRE DES IDEES * INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

55.

56. 57. 58.

59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69.

P.J.S. Whitmore (ed.): A 17th-Century Exposure of Superstition. Select Text of Claude Pithoys (1587–1676). 1972 ISBN 90-247-1298-X A. Sauvy: Livres saisis a` Paris entre 1678 et 1701. D’après une e´ tude préliminaire de Motoko Ninomiya. 1972 ISBN 90-247-1347-1 W.R. Redmond: Bibliography of the Philosophy in the Iberian Colonies of America. 1972 ISBN 90-247-1190-8 C.B. Schmitt: Cicero Scepticus. A Study of the Influence of the Academica in the Renaissance. 1972 ISBN 90-247-1299-8 J. Hoyles: The Edges of Augustanism. The Aesthetics of Spirituality in Thomas Ken, John Byrom and William Law. 1972 ISBN 90-247-1317-X J. Bruggeman and A.J. van de Ven (éds.): Inventaire des pièces d’Archives fran¸caises se rapportant a` l’Abbaye de Port-Royal des Champs et son cercle et a` la Résistance contre la Bulle Unigenitus et a` l’Appel. 1972 ISBN 90-247-5122-5 J.W. Montgomery: Cross and Crucible. Johann Valentin Andreae (1586–1654), Phoenix of the Theologians. Volume I: Andreae’s Life, World-View, and Relations with Rosicrucianism and Alchemy; Volume II: The Chymische Hochzeit with Notes and Commentary. 1973 Set ISBN 90-247-5054-7 O. Lutaud: Des révolutions d’Angleterre a` la Révolution fran¸caise. Le tyrannicide & Killing No Murder (Cromwell, Athalie, Bonaparte). 1973 ISBN 90-247-1509-1 F. Duchesneau: L’Empirisme de Locke. 1973 ISBN 90-247-1349-8 R. Simon (éd.): Henry de Boulainviller – Œuvres Philosophiques, Tome I. 1973 ISBN 90-247-1332-3 For Œuvres Philosophiques, Tome II see below under Volume 70. E.E. Harris: Salvation from Despair. A Reappraisal of Spinoza’s Philosophy. 1973 ISBN 90-247-5158-6 J.-F. Battail: L’Avocat philosophe Géraud de Cordemoy (1626–1684). 1973 ISBN 90-247-1542-3 T. Liu: Discord in Zion. The Puritan Divines and the Puritan Revolution (1640–1660). 1973 ISBN 90-247-5156-X A. Strugnell: Diderot’s Politics. A Study of the Evolution of Diderot’s Political Thought after the Encyclopédie. 1973 ISBN 90-247-1540-7 G. Defaux: Pantagruel et les Sophistes. Contribution a` l’histoire de l’humanisme chrétien au ISBN 90-247-1566-0 16 e siècle. 1973 G. Planty-Bonjour: Hegel et la pensée philosophique en Russie (1830–1917). 1974 ISBN 90-247-1576-8 R.J. Brook: [George] Berkeley’s Philosophy of Science. 1973 ISBN 90-247-1555-5 T.E. Jessop: A Bibliography of George Berkeley. With: Inventory of Berkeley’s Manuscript Remains by A.A. Luce. 2nd revised and enlarged ed. 1973 ISBN 90-247-1577-6 E.I. Perry: From Theology to History. French Religious Controversy and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. 1973 ISBN 90-247-1578-4 P. Dibbon, H. Bots et E. Bots-Estourgie: Inventaire de la correspondance (1631–1671) de Johannes Fredericus Gronovius [1611–1671]. 1974 ISBN 90-247-1600-4 A.B. Collins: The Secular is Sacred. Platonism and Thomism in Marsilio Ficino’s Platonic Theology. 1974 ISBN 90-247-1588-1

´ ARCHIVES INTERNATIONALES D’HISTOIRE DES IDEES * INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 70.

71.

72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87.

88.

89. 90. 91.

R. Simon (éd.): Henry de Boulainviller. Œuvres Philosophiques, Tome II. 1975 ISBN 90-247-1633-0 For Œuvres Philosophiques, Tome I see under Volume 58. J.A.G. Tans et H. Schmitz du Moulin: Pasquier Quesnel devant la Congrégation de l’Index. Correspondance avec Francesco Barberini et mémoires sur la mise a` l’Index de son e´ dition des Œuvres de Saint Léon, publiés avec introduction et annotations. 1974 ISBN 90-247-1661-6 J.W. Carven: Napoleon and the Lazarists (1804–1809). 1974 ISBN 90-247-1667-5 G. Symcox: The Crisis of French Sea Power (1688–1697). From the Guerre d’Escadre to the Guerre de Course. 1974 ISBN 90-247-1645-4 R. MacGillivray: Restoration Historians and the English Civil War. 1974 ISBN 90-247-1678-0 A. Soman (ed.): The Massacre of St. Bartholomew. Reappraisals and Documents. 1974 ISBN 90-247-1652-7 R.E. Wanner: Claude Fleury (1640–1723) as an Educational Historiographer and Thinker. With an Introduction by W.W. Brickman. 1975 ISBN 90-247-1684-5 R.T. Carroll: The Common-Sense Philosophy of Religion of Bishop Edward Stillingfleet (1635– 1699). 1975 ISBN 90-247-1647-0 J. Macary: Masque et lumières au 18 e [siècle]. André-Fran¸cois Deslandes, Citoyen et philosophe (1689–1757). 1975 ISBN 90-247-1698-5 S.M. Mason: Montesquieu’s Idea of Justice. 1975 ISBN 90-247-1670-5 D.J.H. van Elden: Esprits fins et esprits géométriques dans les portraits de Saint-Simon. Contributions a` l’étude du vocabulaire et du style. 1975 ISBN 90-247-1726-4 I. Primer (ed.): Mandeville Studies. New Explorations in the Art and Thought of Dr Bernard Mandeville (1670–1733). 1975 ISBN 90-247-1686-1 C.G. Noreña: Studies in Spanish Renaissance Thought. 1975 ISBN 90-247-1727-2 G. Wilson: A Medievalist in the 18th Century. Le Grand d’Aussy and the Fabliaux ou Contes. 1975 ISBN 90-247-1782-5 J.-R. Armogathe: Theologia Cartesiana. L’explication physique de l’Eucharistie chez Descartes et Dom Robert Desgabets. 1977 ISBN 90-247-1869-4 Bérault Stuart, Seigneur d’Aubigny: Traité sur l’art de la guerre. Introduction et e´ dition par ´ de Comminges. 1976 Elie ISBN 90-247-1871-6 S.L. Kaplan: Bread, Politics and Political Economy in the Reign of Louis XV. 2 vols., 1976 Set ISBN 90-247-1873-2 M. Lienhard (ed.): The Origins and Characteristics of Anabaptism / Les débuts et les caractéristiques de l’Anabaptisme. With an Extensive Bibliography / Avec une bibliographie détaillée. 1977 ISBN 90-247-1896-1 R. Descartes: Règles utiles et claires pour la direction de l’esprit en la recherche de la vérité. Traduction selon le lexique cartésien, et annotation conceptuelle par J.-L. Marion. Avec des notes mathématiques de P. Costabel. 1977 ISBN 90-247-1907-0 K. Hardesty: The ‘Supplément’ to the ‘Encyclopédie’. [Diderot et d’Alembert]. 1977 ISBN 90-247-1965-8 H.B. White: Antiquity Forgot. Essays on Shakespeare, [Francis] Bacon, and Rembrandt. 1978 ISBN 90-247-1971-2 P.B.M. Blaas: Continuity and Anachronism. Parliamentary and Constitutional Development in Whig Historiography and in the Anti-Whig Reaction between 1890 and 1930. 1978 ISBN 90-247-2063-X

´ ARCHIVES INTERNATIONALES D’HISTOIRE DES IDEES * INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 92. 93. 94. 95. 96.

97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107.

108.

109. 110. 111. 112. 113.

S.L. Kaplan (ed.): La Bagarre. Ferdinando Galiani’s (1728–1787) ‘Lost’ Parody. With an Introduction by the Editor. 1979 ISBN 90-247-2125-3 ´ E. McNiven Hine: A Critical Study of [Etienne Bonnot de] Condillac’s [1714–1780]‘Traité des Systèmes’. 1979 ISBN 90-247-2120-2 M.R.G. Spiller: Concerning Natural Experimental Philosphy. Meric Casaubon [1599–1671] and the Royal Society. 1980 ISBN 90-247-2414-7 F. Duchesneau: La physiologie des Lumières. Empirisme, modèles et théories. 1982 ISBN 90-247-2500-3 M. Heyd: Between Orthodoxy and the Enlightenment. Jean-Robert Chouet [1642–1731] and the Introduction of Cartesian Science in the Academy of Geneva. 1982 ISBN 90-247-2508-9 James O’Higgins: Yves de Vallone [1666/7–1705]: The Making of an Esprit Fort. 1982 ISBN 90-247-2520-8 M.L. Kuntz: Guillaume Postel [1510–1581]. Prophet of the Restitution of All Things. His Life and Thought. 1981 ISBN 90-247-2523-2 A. Rosenberg: Nicolas Gueudeville and His Work (1652–172?). 1982 ISBN 90-247-2533-X S.L. Jaki: Uneasy Genius: The Life and Work of Pierre Duhem [1861-1916]. 1984 ISBN 90-247-2897-5; Pb (1987) 90-247-3532-7 Anne Conway [1631–1679]: The Principles of the Most Ancient Modern Philosophy. Edited and with an Introduction by P. Loptson. 1982 ISBN 90-247-2671-9 E.C. Patterson: [Mrs.] Mary [Fairfax Greig] Sommerville [1780–1872] and the Cultivation of Science (1815–1840). 1983 ISBN 90-247-2823-1 C.J. Berry: Hume, Hegel and Human Nature. 1982 ISBN 90-247-2682-4 C.J. Betts: Early Deism in France. From the so-called ‘déistes’ of Lyon (1564) to Voltaire’s ‘Lettres philosophiques’ (1734). 1984 ISBN 90-247-2923-8 R. Gascoigne: Religion, Rationality and Community. Sacred and Secular in the Thought of Hegel and His Critics. 1985 ISBN 90-247-2992-0 S. Tweyman: Scepticism and Belief in Hume’s ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’. 1986 ISBN 90-247-3090-2 G. Cerny: Theology, Politics and Letters at the Crossroads of European Civilization. Jacques Basnage [1653–1723] and the Baylean Huguenot Refugees in the Dutch Republic. 1987 ISBN 90-247-3150-X Spinoza’s Algebraic Calculation of the Rainbow & Calculation of Changes. Edited and Translated from Dutch, with an Introduction, Explanatory Notes and an Appendix by M.J. Petry. 1985 ISBN 90-247-3149-6 R.G. McRae: Philosophy and the Absolute. The Modes of Hegel’s Speculation. 1985 ISBN 90-247-3151-8 J.D. North and J.J. Roche (eds.): The Light of Nature. Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science presented to A.C. Crombie. 1985 ISBN 90-247-3165-8 C. Walton and P.J. Johnson (eds.): [Thomas] Hobbes’s ‘Science of Natural Justice’. 1987 ISBN 90-247-3226-3 B.W. Head: Ideology and Social Science. Destutt de Tracy and French Liberalism. 1985 ISBN 90-247-3228-X A.Th. Peperzak: Philosophy and Politics. A Commentary on the Preface to Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. 1987 ISBN Hb 90-247-3337-5; Pb ISBN 90-247-3338-3

´ ARCHIVES INTERNATIONALES D’HISTOIRE DES IDEES * INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 114. S. Pines and Y. Yovel (eds.): Maimonides [1135-1204] and Philosophy. Papers Presented at the 6th Jerusalem Philosophical Encounter (May 1985). 1986 ISBN 90-247-3439-8 115. T.J. Saxby: The Quest for the New Jerusalem, Jean de Labadie [1610–1674] and the Labadists (1610–1744). 1987 ISBN 90-247-3485-1 116. C.E. Harline: Pamphlets, Printing, and Political Culture in the Early Dutch Republic. 1987 ISBN 90-247-3511-4 117. R.A. Watson and J.E. Force (eds.): The Sceptical Mode in Modern Philosophy. Essays in Honor of Richard H. Popkin. 1988 ISBN 90-247-3584-X 118. R.T. Bienvenu and M. Feingold (eds.): In the Presence of the Past. Essays in Honor of Frank Manuel. 1991 ISBN 0-7923-1008-X 119. J. van den Berg and E.G.E. van der Wall (eds.): Jewish-Christian Relations in the 17th Century. Studies and Documents. 1988 ISBN 90-247-3617-X 120. N. Waszek: The Scottish Enlightenment and Hegel’s Account of ‘Civil Society’. 1988 ISBN 90-247-3596-3 121. J. Walker (ed.): Thought and Faith in the Philosophy of Hegel. 1991 ISBN 0-7923-1234-1 122. Henry More [1614–1687]: The Immortality of the Soul. Edited with Introduction and Notes by A. Jacob. 1987 ISBN 90-247-3512-2 123. P.B. Scheurer and G. Debrock (eds.): Newton’s Scientific and Philosophical Legacy. 1988 ISBN 90-247-3723-0 124. D.R. Kelley and R.H. Popkin (eds.): The Shapes of Knowledge from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. 1991 ISBN 0-7923-1259-7 125. R.M. Golden (ed.): The Huguenot Connection. The Edict of Nantes, Its Revocation, and Early French Migration to South Carolina. 1988 ISBN 90-247-3645-5 126. S. Lindroth: Les chemins du savoir en Suède. De la fondation de l’Université d’Upsal a` Jacob ´ Berzelius. Etudes et Portraits. Traduit du suédois, présenté et annoté par J.-F. Battail. Avec une introduction sur Sten Lindroth par G. Eriksson. 1988 ISBN 90-247-3579-3 127. S. Hutton (ed.): Henry More (1614–1687). Tercentenary Studies. With a Biography and Bibliography by R. Crocker. 1989 ISBN 0-7923-0095-5 128. Y. Yovel (ed.): Kant’s Practical Philosophy Reconsidered. Papers Presented at the 7th Jerusalem Philosophical Encounter (December 1986). 1989 ISBN 0-7923-0405-5 129. J.E. Force and R.H. Popkin: Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology. 1990 ISBN 0-7923-0583-3 130. N. Capaldi and D.W. Livingston (eds.): Liberty in Hume’s ‘History of England’. 1990 ISBN 0-7923-0650-3 131. W. Brand: Hume’s Theory of Moral Judgment. A Study in the Unity of A Treatise of Human Nature. 1992 ISBN 0-7923-1415-8 132. C.E. Harline (ed.): The Rhyme and Reason of Politics in Early Modern Europe. Collected Essays of Herbert H. Rowen. 1992 ISBN 0-7923-1527-8 133. N. Malebranche: Treatise on Ethics (1684). Translated and edited by C. Walton. 1993 ISBN 0-7923-1763-7 134. B.C. Southgate: ‘Covetous of Truth’. The Life and Work of Thomas White (1593–1676). 1993 ISBN 0-7923-1926-5 135. G. Santinello, C.W.T. Blackwell and Ph. Weller (eds.): Models of the History of Philosophy. Vol. 1: From its Origins in the Renaissance to the ‘Historia Philosophica’. 1993 ISBN 0-7923-2200-2 136. M.J. Petry (ed.): Hegel and Newtonianism. 1993 ISBN 0-7923-2202-9

´ ARCHIVES INTERNATIONALES D’HISTOIRE DES IDEES * INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 137. Otto von Guericke: The New (so-called Magdeburg) Experiments [Experimenta Nova, Amsterdam 1672]. Translated and edited by M.G. Foley Ames. 1994 ISBN 0-7923-2399-8 138. R.H. Popkin and G.M. Weiner (eds.): Jewish Christians and Cristian Jews. From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. 1994 ISBN 0-7923-2452-8 139. J.E. Force and R.H. Popkin (eds.): The Books of Nature and Scripture. Recent Essays on Natural Philosophy, Theology, and Biblical Criticism in the Netherlands of Spinoza’s Time and the British Isles of Newton’s Time. 1994 ISBN 0-7923-2467-6 140. P. Rattansi and A. Clericuzio (eds.): Alchemy and Chemistry in the 16th and 17th Centuries. 1994 ISBN 0-7923-2573-7 141. S. Jayne: Plato in Renaissance England. 1995 ISBN 0-7923-3060-9 142. A.P. Coudert: Leibniz and the Kabbalah. 1995 ISBN 0-7923-3114-1 143. M.H. Hoffheimer: Eduard Gans and the Hegelian Philosophy of Law. 1995 ISBN 0-7923-3114-1 144. J.R.M. Neto: The Christianization of Pyrrhonism. Scepticism and Faith in Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Shestov. 1995 ISBN 0-7923-3381-0 145. R.H. Popkin (ed.): Scepticism in the History of Philosophy. A Pan-American Dialogue. 1996 ISBN 0-7923-3769-7 146. M. de Baar, M. Löwensteyn, M. Monteiro and A.A. Sneller (eds.): Choosing the Better Part. Anna Maria van Schurman (1607–1678). 1995 ISBN 0-7923-3799-9 147. M. Degenaar: Molyneux’s Problem. Three Centuries of Discussion on the Perception of Forms. 1996 ISBN 0-7923-3934-7 148. S. Berti, F. Charles-Daubert and R.H. Popkin (eds.): Heterodoxy, Spinozism, and Free Thought in Early-Eighteenth-Century Europe. Studies on the Traité des trois imposteurs. 1996 ISBN 0-7923-4192-9 149. G.K. Browning (ed.): Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: A Reappraisal. 1997 ISBN 0-7923-4480-4 150. G.A.J. Rogers, J.M. Vienne and Y.C. Zarka (eds.): The Cambridge Platonists in Philosophical Context. Politics, Metaphysics and Religion. 1997 ISBN 0-7923-4530-4 151. R.L. Williams: The Letters of Dominique Chaix, Botanist-Curé. 1997 ISBN 0-7923-4615-7 152. R.H. Popkin, E. de Olaso and G. Tonelli (eds.): Scepticism in the Enlightenment. 1997 ISBN 0-7923-4643-2 153. L. de la Forge. Translated and edited by D.M. Clarke: Treatise on the Human Mind (1664). 1997 ISBN 0-7923-4778-1 154. S.P. Foster: Melancholy Duty. The Hume-Gibbon Attack on Christianity. 1997 ISBN 0-7923-4785-4 155. J. van der Zande and R.H. Popkin (eds.): The Skeptical Tradition Around 1800. Skepticism in Philosophy, Science, and Society. 1997 ISBN 0-7923-4846-X 156. P. Ferretti: A Russian Advocate of Peace: Vasilii Malinovskii (1765–1814). 1997 ISBN 0-7923-4846-6 157. M. Goldish: Judaism in the Theology of Sir Isaac Newton. 1998 ISBN 0-7923-4996-2 158. A.P. Coudert, R.H. Popkin and G.M. Weiner (eds.): Leibniz, Mysticism and Religion. 1998 ISBN 0-7923-5223-8 159. B. Fridén: Rousseau’s Economic Philosophy. Beyond the Market of Innocents. 1998 ISBN 0-7923-5270-X 160. C.F. Fowler O.P.: Descartes on the Human Soul. Philosophy and the Demands of Christian Doctrine. 1999 ISBN 0-7923-5473-7

´ ARCHIVES INTERNATIONALES D’HISTOIRE DES IDEES * INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 161. J.E. Force and R.H. Popkin (eds.): Newton and Religion. Context, Nature and Influence. 1999 ISBN 0-7923-5744-2 162. J.V. Andreae: Christianapolis. Introduced and translated by E.H. Thompson. 1999 ISBN 0-7923-5745-0 163. A.P. Coudert, S. Hutton, R.H. Popkin and G.M. Weiner (eds.): Judaeo-Christian Intellectual Culture in the Seventeenth Century. A Celebration of the Library of Narcissus Marsh (1638– 1713). 1999 ISBN 0-7923-5789-2 164. T. Verbeek (ed.): Johannes Clauberg and Cartesian Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century. 1999 ISBN 0-7923-5831-7 165. A. Fix: Fallen Angels. Balthasar Bekker, Spirit Belief, and Confessionalism in the Seventeenth Century Dutch Republic. 1999 ISBN 0-7923-5876-7 166. S. Brown (ed.): The Young Leibniz and his Philosophy (1646–76). 2000 ISBN 0-7923-5997-6 167. R. Ward: The Life of Henry More. Parts 1 and 2. 2000 ISBN 0-7923-6097-4 168. Z. Janowski: Cartesian Theodicy. Descartes’ Quest for Certitude. 2000 ISBN 0-7923-6127-X 169. J.D. Popkin and R.H. Popkin (eds.): The Abbé Grégoire and his World. 2000 ISBN 0-7923-6247-0 170. C.G. Caffentzis: Exciting the Industry of Mankind. George Berkeley’s Philosophy of Money. 2000 ISBN 0-7923-6297-7 171. A. Clericuzio: Elements, Principles and Corpuscles. A Study of Atomisms and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century. 2001 ISBN 0-7923-6782-0 172. H. Hotson: Paradise Postponed. Johann Heinrich Alsted and the Birth of Calvinist Millenarianism. 2001 ISBN 0-7923-6787-1 173. M. Goldish and R.H. Popkin (eds.): Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture. Volume I. Jewish Messianism in the Early Modern World. 2001 ISBN 0-7923-6850-9 174. K.A. Kottman (ed.): Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture. Volume II. Catholic Millenarianism: From Savonarola to the Abbé Grégoire. 2001 ISBN 0-7923-6849-5 175. J.E. Force and R.H. Popkin (eds.): Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture. Volume III. The Millenarian Turn: Millenarian Contexts of Science, Politics and Everyday Anglo-American Life in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. 2001 ISBN 0-7923-6848-7 176. J.C. Laursen and R.H. Popkin (eds.): Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture. Volume IV. Continental Millenarians: Protestants, Catholics, Heretics. 2001 ISBN 0-7923-6847-9 177. C. von Linné: Nemesis Divina. (edited and translated with explanatory notes by M.J. Petry). 2001 ISBN 0-7923-6820-7 178. M.A. Bad´ıa Cabrera: Hume’s Reflection on Religion. 2001 ISBN 0-7923-7024-4 179. R.L. Williams: Botanophilia in Eighteenth-Century France. The Spirit of the Enlightenment. 2001 ISBN 0-7923-6886-X 180. R. Crocker (ed.): Religion, Reason and Nature in Early Modern Europe. 2001 ISBN 1-4020-0047-2

´ ARCHIVES INTERNATIONALES D’HISTOIRE DES IDEES * INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS 181. E. Slowik: Cartesian Spacetime. Descartes’ Physics and the Relational Theory of Space and Motion. 2001 ISBN 1-4020-0265-3 182. R.L. Williams: French Botany in the Enlightenment. The Ill-fated Voyages of La Pérouse and His Rescuers. 2003 ISBN 1-4020-1109-1 183. A. Leshem: Newton on Mathematics and Spiritual Purity. 2003 ISBN 1-4020-1151-2 184. G. Paganini (ed.): The Return of Scepticism. From Hobbes and Descartes to Bayle. 2003 ISBN 1-4020-1377-9 185. R. Crocker: Henry More, 1614–1687. A Biography of the Cambridge Platonist. 2003 ISBN 1-4020-1502-X 186. T.J. Hochstrasser and P. Schröder (eds.): Early Modern Natural Law Theories. Contexts and Strategies in the Early Enlightenment. 2003 ISBN 1-4020-1569-0 187. F. Tomasoni: Modernity and the Final Aim of History. The Debate over Judaism from Kant to the Young Hegelians. 2003 ISBN 1-4020-1594-1 188. J.E. Force and S. Hutton (eds.): Newton and Newtonianism. New Studies. 2004 ISBN 1-4020-1969-6 189. W. Schmidt-Biggemann: Philosophia perennis. Historical Outlines of Western Spirituality in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought. 2004 ISBN 1-4020-3066-5 190. R. Faggionato: A Rosicrucian Utopia in Eighteenth-Century Russia. The Masonic Circle of N.I. Novikov. 2005 ISBN 1-4020-3486-5 191. L. Hill: The Passionate Society. The Social, Political and Moral Thought of Adam Ferguson. 2005 ISBN 1-4020-3889-5 192. D. Offord: Journeys to a Graveyard. Perceptions of Europe in Classical Russian Travel Writing. 2005 ISBN 1-4020-3908-5 193. S. Clucas (ed.): John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies in English Renaissance Thought. 2006 ISBN 1-4020-4245-0 194. J.K. Jue: Heaven Upon Earth. Joseph Mede (1586-1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism. 2006 ISBN 1-4020-4292-2

springer.com

Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586-1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism (International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées)

Renaissance Scepticisms (International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées)

Renaissance Scepticisms (International Archives of the History of Ideas - Archives internationales d'histoire des idées)