length he did this, he was ftill less in haft to apply it, that is, to fhew its important ufe in explaining the Apocalytic vifions [n]. Cool, deliberate, and severe, in forming his judgments, he was fo far from being obfequious to the fancies of other men, that he was determined only, by the laft degree of evidence, to acquiefce in any conclufions of his own [o].

calyptica in 1627, at his own expence, and for the use of his friends. Pref. to his Commentary.

[] His Commentary, on the principles of his Clavis, did not appear till 1632.

[o] "I am by nature cunctabundus in all things, but in this [his Exposition] let no man blame me, if I take more pause than ordinary." MS. Letter in Gen. Pref. P. 22. And again, in a Letter of reply ad animadverfiones Ludovici de Dieu, " Eo ingenio fum (delicatulo, an morofo) ut nifi ubi interpretatio commodè et abfque falebris eat, nunquam mihi fatisfacere foleam.” WORKS, p. 569. Yet of this fage man, could the Bishop of Meaux allow himself to speak thus negligentLy-Il s'eft rendu de nos jours célébre en Angleterre PAR SES DOCTES REVERIES fur l'Apocalypfe. Hift. des Var. 1. xiii. p. 257. But M. de Meaux knew what he did, when he affected this contempt of Jofeph Mede. He was then at liberty to turn himself from the ablest advocate of the Proteftant caufe, to the weakeft; I mean,

In short, with no vanity to indulge, (for he was fuperior to this laft infirmity of ingenious men [p])-with no intereft in view (for the intereft of Churchmen lay at that time, as he well understood, in a different quarter [9])-with no spleen to gratify (for

M. Jurieu, whofe indiscretions afforded, indeed, ample scope for the raillery of this lively prelate. Mr. Mede was not a man to be confuted in this way, and still lefs by a fanciful and ill-fupported Expofition of the Apocalypfe. [p] As appears from his backwardness to publish his difcoveries, and from his unconcern about the reception of them. But fee his Letter to Mr. Hartlib, Ep. 96, p. 881; and compare with his answer to Dr. Twille, Ep. 51. p. 811. See also Ep. 98, to Mr. Hartlib, Aug. 6, 1638, not long before his death, in which are these words:

"I have not been very obtrufive unto men, to ac quaint them with my notions and conceits-for fome of them that are but lately known have lain by me above these twenty yeats." P. 883.

[9] The point of the Pope's being Antichrift, as a dead fy, marred the favour of THAT OINTMENT-meaning the merit he had of being known to entertain fome opinions, then much cherished by the ruling clergy. Ep. 56. p. 818. He fays afterwards of himself, in the fame Letter,-1 thank God, I never made any thing bitherto the cafter of my refolution, but reason and evidence, on what fide foever the advantage or disadvantage fell.

even neglect and folitude could not engender this unmanly vice in him [r])with no oblique purposes, I fay, which fo often mislead the pens of other writers, but with the fingle, unmixed love of truth, he dedicated his great talents to the study of the prophetic Scriptures, and was able to unfold, in the MANNER I am now to represent to you, this mysterious prophecy of the Revelations.

He had obferved, that the mifcarriage of former interpreters had been owing, chiefly, to a vain defire of finding their own fense in this prophefy, rather than the

[r] His friends fpeak much of his chearful difpofition. But I draw this conclufion from the tenour of his life and writings; and, above all, from that famous declaration which he made in confidence to a friend, that, if he might but obtain a Donative fine curâ, of fo much value as, together with his fellowship [of Chrift's College in Cambridge,] should enable him to keep a horse, for his recreation, he would fet up his ftaff for this world, App. to his Life, p. 40.-The fimplicity of this declaration, makes one confident of it's truth. And a ́man of so moderate defirès, was in no danger of having his temper foured by difappointments.

fenfe

fenfe of the prophet. Laying afide, then, all hypothefes whatsoever, he fate down to the book itself, and refolved to know nothing more of it, than what the frame and texture of its compofition might clearly reveal to him. He confidered the whole, as a naked recital of facts, literally expreffed; and not as a prophetic scheme, myftically represented. In this way of inquiry, he difcerned, that feveral parts of the history, whatever their fecret and involved meaning might be, were homogeneous, and contemporary; that is, they related to the fame fubject, and were comprised within the fame period; and this, though they were not connected in the order of the narration, but lay difperfed in different quarters of it. These feveral fets of historical paffages (or, of Vifions, to speak in the language of the book itself) he carefully analyzed and compared; fhewed, from circumstances, not imagined, but found, in the hiftory, their mutual relation and correfpondency; and established

his

his conclufions, as he went along, not in a loose way of popular conjecture, but in the ftricteft forms of Geometric reasoning. The coincident hiftories, thus claffed and fcrutinized, he distinguished by the name of SYNCHRONISMS; and gave them to the learned world, in this fevere scientific form, without further comment or illuftration, under the title of CLAVIS APOCALYPTICA, or A KEY TO THE REVELATIONS.

In confidering this discovery, which did fo much honour to the profound genius and accurate investigation of its author, one clearly perceives how it ferves to the end propofed.

First, it appears that the order of the Visions is not that of the events; in other words, that the prophecy is not to be fo explained, as if the events, predicted in it, followed each other in the fame train as the Visions. For the facts, which conftitute the scheme or fable of the prophecy, literally and historically confidered, do not fucceed to each other in that train; there

fore