A37035:984
A commentary upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the…A commentarie upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the…
A commentary upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the series of the several prophecies contained in that book, deduced according to their order and dependence on each other; the periods and succession of times, at, or about which, these prophecies, that are already fulfilled, began to be, and were more fully accomplished, fixed and applied according to history; and those that are yet to be fulfilled, modestly, and so far as is warrantable, enquired into. Together with some practical observations, and several digressions, necessary for vindicating, clearing, and confirming many weighty and important truths. Delivered in several lectures, by that learned, laborious, and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, James Durham, late Minister of the Gospel in Glasgow. To which is affixed a brief summary of the whole book, with a twofold index, one of the several digressions, another of the chief and principal purposes and words contained in this treatise.A commentarie upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the series of the several prophecies contained in that book, deduced according to their order and dependance on each other; the periods and succession of times, at, or about which, these prophecies, that are already fulfilled, began to be, and were more fully accomplished, fixed and applied according to history; and those that are yet to be fulfilled, modestly, and so far as is warrantable, enquired into. Together with some practical observations, and several digressions, necessary for vindicating, clearing, and confirming many weighty and important truths. Delivered in several lectures, by that learned, laborious, and faithfull servant of Jesus Christ, James Durham, late Minister of the Gospel in Glasgow. To which is affixed a brief summary of the whole book, with a twofold index, one of the several digressions, another of the chief and principall purposes and words contained in this treatise.
Edinburgh: printed by Christopher Higgins, 1658
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
It is like it may be objected, that all antiquity did condemn Aerius, whose opinion is said to be this, that he took away all distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter? Answ. It is the judgement of Learned Rivetus in his Catholicus orthodoxus, in his reply to the same charge given by Ballius, tractatu secundo Quaest. 22. That Aerius was condemned by them, not simply as maintaining any thing contrary to truth, in this, but as imprudently in practice brangling the order then established amongst them, to the hazard of their union. And there are two clear proofs of this, 1. Because where the same tenets were maintained, as in Jerome, and others; yet where these persons continued in the unity of the Church, they were never branded with any name of Heresy for the same. 2. Because even Augustine, who reckons up this Heresy of Aerius, doth yet acknowledge this difference to be by no Divine constitution, as we have formerly seen. And who will consider the rolls of Heresies, set down by these Fathers, will find that oftentimes such are reckoned among Heretics, who much rather ought to be accounted Schismatics. It is observable also, that even adversaries grant that none of these Fathers do condemn him for denying that distinction to be jure divino, (for which see Estius, lib. 4. pag. 35.) but for denying it simply, And so now we leave our second consideration.
It is like it may be objected, that all antiquitie did condemn Aerius, whose opinion is said to be this, that he took away all distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter? Answ. It is the judgement of Learned Rivetus in his Catholicus orthodoxus, in his reply to the same charge given by Ballius, tractatu secundo Quaest. 22. That Aerius was condemned by them, not simply as maintaining any thing contrary to truth, in this, but as imprudently in practice brangling the order then established amongst them, to the hazard of their union. And there are two clear proofs of this, 1. Because where the same tenents were maintained, as in Ierom, and others; yet where these persons continued in the unity of the Church, they were never branded with any name of Heresie for the same. 2. Because even Augustine, who reckons up this Heresie of Aerius, doth yet acknowledge this difference to be by no Divine constitution, as we have formerly seen. And who will consider the rolls of Heresies, set down by these Fathers, will find that oftentimes such are reckoned among Hereticks, who much rather ought to be accounted Schismaticks. It is observable also, that even adversaries grant that none of these Fathers do condemn him for denying that distinction to be jure divino, (for which see Estius, lib. 4. pag. 35.) but for denying it simply, And so now we leave our second consideration.