ups and downs until it flow into heaven, "from whence it took its rife; which is the "confummation of all divine friendships, and "where all true friends do at length happily "meet, never to part."

*

And now, my friends, I fhall conclude this long epiftle in the words of a famous doctor and father of the ancient church: "Learn, "oh faithful and religious men, and carefully

66

apprehend the design of the gospel polity. “For which end, ftudy to conquer fleshly "lufts, to be humble in heart, pure in mind, "and mafters of your paffions. If ye are "called to fuffer, act heroically, and do fome"thing over and above mere paffiveness, for "the honour of your Lord. If ye are un

66

justly treated, evidence that ye are not con"tentious if hated, love your enemies; if

66

perfecuted, endure it; and if reviled, an"fwer no man otherwise than by prayer and "good wishes. Die to fin, crucify your af"fections for God, and caft all your care upon your Lord and Mafter. That thus ye may

66

66

at length reach the glorious place, where "millions of angels, and the glorious affem

* Bafil Magn. in his Necta pès Tès res. The words begin thus: Male où éisds 'Artрax, &c.

bly of the first born are praising God, and "where the holy apoles, prophets, pa"triarchs, martyrs, and all the righteous are. "To this bleffed fociety, let us labour and pray to be joined, through Jefus Christ our "Lord, to whom be glory for ever."

66

Now that both ye and I may attain, through grace, to be thus happy, is and shall be the ferious, fervent, and conftant prayer of,

My very dear friends,

Yours to love and ferve you in the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Christ,

London, Jan. 1, 1700,

Being the first Day both of the

Year and Century.

ROBERT FLEMING.

A POSTSCRIPT,

A POSTSCRIPT,

CONTAINING

A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST PRINCI PLES OF THE APOCALYPTICAL INTERPRETATIONS ADVANCED IN THE PRECED

ING DISCOURSE.

AFTER I had finished the foregoing difcourfe, and that all the sheets were almost printed, I was earnestly urged by a friend, to fay fomething to fecure the foundation I go upon; efpecially because the learning of Grotius and Dr. Hammond had influenced many to follow another way of interpreting the Revelation, as the reputation of Mr. Baxter had swayed others to think well of the fame. And when I urged that Dr. More in his Mystery of Iniquity, and Dr. Cressener in his Demonftration of the first Principles of the Proteftant Interpretations of the Apocalypfe, had done this fufficiently already; he replied, that these books were both voluminous and dark, and not eafy to be purchased by every one; and that therefore fome short account of this matter at this time seemed to be neceffary. I urged many things

things against this, as that this advice came too late, and that should I contract never fo much, it would fwell this part of my book too much, to keep a due proportion with the other difcourfes, and indeed make the whole too bulky. But after all, importunity and the refpect I bore my friend, prevailed with me to fay fomething to all thofe things that he thought I ought to premife. Therefore, not to spend any longer time in giving the reafons why I did not speak to these things before, in their proper place, or why I do fo now, I fhall give my thoughts of this book and the first principles of the right interpretation of it, in fome propofitions, which do gradually lay the foundation of what I advanced before,

ift Propofition. The revelation was written by the apostle John, and is a facred and canonical Book of the New Testament.

I hope there is no Christian that will dif pute the truth of this propofition with me. For, befides that the ftile of John may be easily traced in this book, notwithstanding the dif ference of the fubject from that which he wrote of in his gofpel and epiftles, he does frequently make mention of himself, and that

with fuch peculiar circumftances, as agree with none but the apoftle; as we see chap. i, verfe 1, 2, 4, 9. See alfo chap. xxi. 2,

and xxii. 8.

I know indeed that fome of the ancients doubted of this, as Caius a Latin father, mentioned by Eufebius, hift. lib. 3. cap. 28, and Dionyfius of Alexandria, who made a great noise against it for a while, as we see in Eusebius alfo, hift. lib. 7. cap. 4. But yet even this man declares that he owns it to be a facred book, though not written by the apostle John. Wherein he speaks, what we must look upon to be altogether abfurd. For if St. John be not the author, it must be an imposture, seeing his name is inferted in it, as being the penman. So that if it be not St. John's, it is no facred book. Or if it be a facred book, the author is none but the beloved apostle. But the weakness and inconfiftency of this Diony fius's reafons against this book, are sufficiently though briefly expofed by Monfieur du Pin, both in his preliminary differtation to his Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclefiaftiques, and in his Hiftory of the Canon of the Books of Scripture.

And if this were any argument against the Divinity of this book, that fome perfons have doubted