ster’ in place of presbyter or priest, he argues learnedly in his ‘Discourses.’ In the same strain are his historical arguments for the reverence due to sacred places, and for the view of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. With the puritans he held the pope to be antichrist; with the high churchmen he admitted that the Roman church teaches the fundamentals of the faith. The points at issue between Calvinists and Lutherans he did not take to be fundamental; but professed himself not ‘well versed in the subtilties of those controversies.’ He apprehended that the puritan arguments might make way for Socinianism, which would be ‘to undermine antichrist with a vengeance.’ His warm sympathies were with the object proposed by the unifying schemes of John Durie (1596–1680) [q. v.], with whom he corresponded; but he was not in love with Durie's plan, nor did he think it would commend itself to English acceptance. While inclined to simplify the essentials of communion, he expected better results from an alliance of mutual toleration between churches than from an attempt to frame new terms for a corporate union.
Mead's posthumous fame rests on his ‘Clavis Apocalyptica’ and kindred writings. He has the merit of perceiving that a thorough determination of the structural character of the Apocalypse must be a preliminary to any sound interpretation of it. He decides that its visions form a connected and chronological sequence; the key to the discrimination of an earlier and later chain of events he finds in Rev. xvii. 18; he makes no claim to write history in advance by help of prophecies which remain for fulfilment. Inferences opposed to his own principles were drawn by others from his apocalyptic writings; there is extant on this subject, from the pen of an anonymous admirer, ‘An Apologie, or a Defence of Joseph Mede against the Puritanes’ (Harl. MS. 6648).
His millennial speculations are based on the theory that the ‘day’ of judgment is a period of a thousand years, preceded by the resurrection of martyrs and their admission to heaven. He describes it as a period of ‘most blissful peace’ for the church on earth, but expressly rejects a terrestrial reign of Christ. In reference to the Sabbath question Mead maintains the hallowing of ‘one day of seven’ to be alone of divine obligation. The last day of the week was fixed by the choice of the Jews, and was not their original choice; the first day is fixed by the choice of Christians. Mead has been regarded as the originator of the rationalistic view of demoniacal possession. It is true that he admits of no distinction between demoniacs and maniacs, but he leaves it, to say the least, an open question whether all maniacs are not possessed. As an expositor of scripture in general, Doddridge well says that Mead ‘has a good many original thoughts not to be found anywhere else.’
Till his last year Mead enjoyed strong health. He died on 1 Oct. 1638, and was buried in the inner chapel of his college on 2 Oct. A memorial sermon was preached at St. Mary's on 1 Feb. 1639 by John Alsop, fellow of Christ's and his executor. A Latin epitaph for him by ‘G. D.,’ ‘a reverend person sometime of Cambridge,’ is given in the 1672 edition of his ‘Works.’ He was tall and swarthy, originally spare, but afterwards portly and of a handsome presence, with a sparkling eye. By his will, executed on the day of his death, he left 100l. to the poor of Cambridge, smaller sums to his sisters, their children, and a pupil, and the residue, amounting to 300l., besides his books, to his college. Throughout his correspondence (1620–31) he writes his name ‘Mead,’ occasionally with a flourish which has been mistaken for a final e; his handwriting is remarkably firm and distinct. He latinised his surname into ‘Medus;’ hence, perhaps, the very general adoption of the form ‘Mede’ by his editors.
He published: 1. ‘Clavis Apocalyptica ex innatis et insitis Visionum characteribus,’ &c., Cambridge, 1627, 4to, for private circulation, and extremely rare; reprinted, 1632, 4to, 1642, 4to; translated, ‘The Key of the Revelation,’ &c., 1643, 4to, by Richard More [q. v.], preface by Twisse; another translation, 1833, 8vo, by R. Bransby Cooper. 2. ‘In Sancti Joannis Apocalypsin Commentarius,’ &c., 1632, 4to, an application of the method explained in the ‘Clavis,’ with ‘Appendix’ in reply to Daniel Lawen, a Dutch divine; reprinted and translated with No. 1. 3. ‘Of the Name Altar, or Θυσιαστήριον. … A Chappel Commonplace, An. 1635,’ &c., 1637, 4to (anon.). 4. ‘Churches … Places for Christian Worship, both in and ever since the Apostles times,’ &c., 1638, 4to (Latin dedication to Laud). 5. ‘The Reverence of God's House,’ &c., 1638, 4to, sermon at St. Mary's, Cambridge, 24 Feb. 1636. Posthumous were: 6. ‘The Apostacy of the Latter Times,’ &c., 1641, 4to, preface by Twisse; 2nd edit. 1644, 4to; later editions, 1836, 8vo, introduction by Tresham D. Gregg; 1845, 18mo, introduction by J. R. Birks. 7. ‘A Paraphrase and Exposition of the Prophesie of Saint Peter,’ &c., 1642, 4to (on 2 Peter iii.). 8. ‘Daniel's Weekes,’ &c., 1643, 4to. 9. ‘Diatribæ Discourses on divers texts,’ &c., 1643, 4to; with part ii. 1648, 4to; pt. iii.
