That the Scripture speaks of the first Resurrection in express Terms. That famous Text, Revel. 20. considered and vindicated. That the Resurrection there spoken of is a Corporal Resurrection, proved by Six Arguments. That the Primitive Christians believed the Chiliad, and the First Resurrection, in the Literal Sense. Concerning the Sibyls. Testimonies out of them are of no Validity.

pp. 18–2315 passages

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.

:72p. 18

CHAP. VI. That the Scripture speaks of the first Resurrection in express Terms. That famous Text, Revel. 20. considered and vindicated. That the Resurrection there spoken of is a Corporal Resurrection, proved by Six Arguments. That the Primitive Christians believed the Chiliad, and the First Resurrection, in the Literal Sense. Concerning the Sibyls. Testimonies out of them are of no Validity.

:73p. 18–19

THE Scriptures in the former Chapter in […] in, […] implicitly, and by just Consequence prove that the Resurrection of the just shall precede that of the unjust. But there is one Place which does expressly, and in Terms assert he First Resurrection. Let that therefore be a Fourth Reason. Notwithstanding it as been done abundantly by others, we shall a little consider and vindicate that eminent Text,

A dissertation concerning the future conversion of the Jewish Nation. Answering the objections of…Increase Mather, 1709

That the Scripture speaks of the first Resurrection in express Terms. That famous Text, Revel. 20. considered and vindicated. That the Resurrection there spoken of is a Corporal Resurrection, proved by Six Arguments. That the Primitive Christians believed the Chiliad, and the First Resurrection, in the Literal Sense. Concerning the Sibyls. Testimonies out of them are of no Validity.

pp. 18–2315 passages

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.

:72p. 18

CHAP. VI. That the Scripture speaks of the first Resurrection in express Terms. That famous Text, Revel. 20. considered and vindicated. That the Resurrection there spoken of is a Corporal Resurrection, proved by Six Arguments. That the Primitive Christians believed the Chiliad, and the First Resurrection, in the Literal Sense. Concerning the Sibyls. Testimonies out of them are of no Validity.

:73p. 18–19

THE Scriptures in the former Chapter in 〈…〉 in, 〈…〉 implicitly, and by just Consequence prove that the Resurrection of the just shall precede that of the unjust. But there is one Place which does expresly, and in Terms assert •he First Resurrection. Let that therefore be a Fourth Reason. Notwithstanding it •as been done abundantly by others, we shall a little consider and vindicate that eminent Text, Rev. 20.4, 5, 6. The Words are, I saw Thrones, and they sate upon them, and Iudgment was given to them, and (there must be repeated as in our English Translation is expressed [I saw]) the Souls of them that were beheaded for the Witness of Iesus Christ and the Word of God, and (there must again 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 be repeated, notwithstanding the Translators have omitted it. [I saw them]) which had not Worshiped the Beast, neither his Image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, nor in their hands, and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand Years; but the rest of the dead lived not again 'till the thousand Years were finished. This is the first Resurrection, Blessed and Holy is he who has part in the first Resurrection, on such the second death shall have no power, but they shall be Priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand Years. From which words says Dr. Thomas Burnet (in his Theory — B. 4. p. 152.) If you please we will raise this Doctrine, That those that have suffered for the sake of Christ and a good Conscience, shall be raised from the dead a thousand Years before the General Resurrection, and reign with Christ in an happy State. His Doctrine I believe is an Holy Truth, only I cannot understand why this Millenial Reign should be restrained to the Martyrs, since 'tis promised not only to them that were beheaded for the Word of God, but to them that have not worshiped the Beast, nor received his mark. Which comprehends not only the Iews yet to be converted, but many Protestants and Saints who never had •he Honour (tho' they would have rejoyced in it) to die for Christ, or for •earing Witness to his Truth. If it can be proved that it is a Corporal Re•urrection which is here intended, it puts an end to the present Controversie. ⟨p. 19⟩••••edius in his Diatribe de Mille Annis p. 129.

:76p. 19¶2

2. It is evident by the Law of Opposites. The First and Second Resurrection must needs be of the same Kind, otherwise the Discourse would be Illogical, which may not be supposed. Piscator speaks like a Logician as well as a Divine when he says, In omni Legitim• distribution membra inter s• opponuntur sub eodem genere. In every Rational Distribution the opposite Parts are of the same Kind. Here is a Distribution or Distinction of dead Men living again, some at the Beginning of the Thousand Years, the rest not until the Thousand Years were finished. But those that live again after the Thousand Years, live as to their Bodies. That the Second Resurrection is not Metaphorical but real, and to be taken in a Literal Sense is clear and indisputable. For then the dead, small and great, shall stand before God and be judged according to what is written in the Books, and the Sea gave up the dead which were in it, Ver. 12.13. This is the Second Resurrection which comes after the Thousand Years; and it is certainly a Resurrection of the Body. And thus does Mr. Mede argue, It would (says he) be a most harsh and violent Interpretation to say that [Dead] and consequently [living again from the dead] should not, •trobique, be taken in the same Meaning. For such a Speech in ordinary Construction implies, that as some of the dead lived again in the Beginning of the Thousand Years, in that Sense the rest of the dead should live again at the End of the Thousand Years, and é contra, in what Manner the rest of the dead should live again at the End of the Thousand Years, in that Manner those that were beheaded for Jesus, lived again in the Beginning of the Thousand Years; which living again of those some, is called the First Resurrection.

2. It is evident by the Law of Opposites. The First and Second Resurrection must needs be of the same Kind, otherwise the Discourse would be Illogical, which may not be supposed. Piscator speaks like a Logician as well as a Divine when he says, In omni Legitim• distributione membra inter s• opponuntur sub eodem genere. In every Rational Distribution the opposite Parts are of the same Kind. Here is a Distribution or Distinction of dead Men living again, some at the Beginning of the Thousand Years, the rest not until the Thousand Years were finished. But those that live again after the Thousand Years, live as to their Bodies. That the Second Resurrection is not Metaphorical but real, and to be taken in a Literal Sense is clear and indisputable. For then the dead, small and great, shall stand before God and be judged according to what is written in the Books, and the Sea gave up the dead which were in it, Ver. 12.13. This is the Second Resurrection which comes after the Thousand Years; and it is certainly a Resurrection of the Body. And thus does Mr. Mede argue, It would (says he) be a most harsh and violent Interpretation to say that [Dead] and consequently [living again from the dead] should not, •trobique, be taken in the same Meaning. For such a Speech in ordinary Construction implies, that as some of the dead lived again in the Beginning of the Thousand Years, in that Sense the rest of the dead should live again at the End of the Thousand Years, and é contra, in what Manner the rest of the dead should live again at the End of the Thousand Years, in that Manner those that were beheaded for Jesus, lived again in the Beginning of the Thousand Years; which living again of those some, is called the First Resurrection.

:78p. 19–20¶4

4. As is the Death of those Reigning Saints, such will be their Resurrection: But their Death was of their Bodies: For it is said they were beheaded, which implies a Natural Death. The Romans did usually, and the Jews often put Men to Death (as John Baptist was) by cutting off their Heads with a Sword. Although' ⟨p. 20⟩it is said Souls that were beheaded, that does not in the least imply that the Death spoken of was a Spiritual Death peculiar to the Soul; for how can an immortal Soul be beheaded? But frequently in Scripture the Soul is put for the Person, Gen. 46.26. Ezek. 44.25. nay for the Body; As when it is said, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell. i. e. my Body in the Grave, Psal. 16.10. The martyred sacrificed Bodies of the Saints, are said to be Souls slain, which cry for Vengeance, Rev. 6.9. Dr. Goodwin observes well, their Resurrection to Life must be taken in the same Sense and Proportion to the Life they lost. Inasmuch then as the Natural Lives of the […] were taken away, their Living implies a Resurrection of their Bodies, for their Souls to be re-united with and live in. The Argument stands thus, A Resurrection of the dead in Body is a Corporal Resurrection; but the First Resurrection is a Resurrection of the dead in Body; for it is a Resurrection of them that were beheaded.

4. As is the Death of those Reigning Saints, such will be their Resurrection: But their Death was of their Bodies: For it is said they were beheaded, which implies a Natural Death. The Romans did usually, and the Iews often put Men to Death (as Iohn Baptist was) by cutting off their Heads with a Sword. Altho' ⟨p. 20⟩it is said Souls that were beheaded, that does not in the least imply that the Death spoken of was a Spiritual Death peculiar to the Soul; for how can an immortal Soul be beheaded? But frequently in Scripture the Soul is put for the Person, Gen. 46.26. Ezek. 44.25. nay for the Body; As when it is said, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell. i. e. my Body in the Grave, Psal. 16.10. The martyred sacrificed Bodies of the Saints, are said to be Souls slain, which cry for Vengeance, Rev. 6.9. Dr. Goodwin observes well, their Resurrection to Life must be taken in the same Sense and Proportion to the Life they lost. Inasmuch then as the Natural Lives of the 〈…〉 were taken away, their Living implies a Resurrection of their Bodies, for their Souls to be re-united with and live in. The Argument stands thus, A Resurrection of the dead in Body is a Corporal Resurrection; but the First Resurrection is a Resurrection of the dead in Body; for it is a Resurrection of them that were beheaded.

:79p. 20¶5

5. The First Resurrection spoken of in the Apocalypse is either a Spiritual, or a Political, or Corporal Resurrection: But neither of the former. It has commonly been interpreted as meant of a Spiritual Resurrection of the Soul, in Respect of Regeneration; as if it were the same with what Paul speaks, Eph. 2.5. You hath he quickened who were dead in Trespasses and Sins. But if this were intended, how is it •aid, that they lived and reigned a thousand Years? Do all that are made Partakers of Regeneration live a Thousand Years? And how is it said that the rest of the dead lived not again until the Thousand Years were finished? There never was a Thousand Years in which there was no Conversion, or Spiritual Resurrection of Souls. Besides, a Death in Sin is not called the first Death, and consequently Conversion from a State of Sin is not properly called [the] first (supposing it be [a] first) Resurrection. The Spiritual Resurrection began presently after Adam's Fall, and shall continue to the End of the World; when as that which John speaks of is proper to the Thousand Years, and not to begin before Antichrist's Reign is ended. Yet again, how can it be said of Men that were beheaded, that they were converted after their beheading? Such Absurdities has this (tho' a vulgar) Exposition in it. This Notion is therefore rejected by most that have studied the Apocalypse: But there are many learned and judicious Authors who take the First Resurrection in a Political Sense, as if it were of the same Nature with the Resurrection of the Witnesses spoken of in the 11th of Revelation, and did intend only thus much, that when Antichrist is destroyed, the Church shall be delivered from the Death of Affliction, and continue in a glorious State for a Thousand Years before the ultimate Judgment, during all which Time Men shall be ruled by the Laws of Christ, and only Saints shall have Power in their Hands. All this I freely acknowledge to be true and according to the Scriptures: But with all due Respect to these Expositors, I conceive that does not comprehend the full Meaning of the Text before us. For this Interpretation does imply that the Saints of the First Resurrection suffered a Political Death only, like that of the Two Witnesses. Were that so, a Political Resurrection would be intended by their living again.

5. The First Resurrection spoken of in the Apocalypse is either a Spiritual, or a Political, or Corporal Resurrection: But neither of the former. It has commonly been interpreted as meant of a Spiritual Resurrection of the Soul, in Respect of Regeneration; as if it were the same with what Paul speaks, Eph. 2.5. You hath he quickened who were dead in Trespasses and Sins. But if this were intended, how is it •aid, that they lived and reigned a thousand Years? Do all that are made Partakers of Regeneration live a Thousand Years? And how is it said that the rest of the dead lived not again until the Thousand Years were finished? There never was a Thousand Years in which there was no Conversion, or Spiritual Resurrection of Souls. Besides, a Death in Sin is not called the first Death, and consequently Conversion from a State of Sin is not properly called [the] first (supposing it be [a] first) Resurrection. The Spiritual Resurrection began presently after Adam's Fall, and shall continue to the End of the World; when as that which Iohn speaks of is proper to the Thousand Years, and not to begin before Antichrist's Reign is ended. Yet again, how can it be said of Men that were beheaded, that they were converted after their beheading? Such Absurdities has this (tho' a vulgar) Exposition in it. This Notion is therefore rejected by most that have studied the Apocalypse: But there are many learned and judicious Authors who take the First Resurrection in a Political Sense, as if it were of the same Nature with the Resurrection of the Witnesses spoken of in the 11th of Revelation, and did intend only thus much, that when Antichrist is destroyed, the Church shall be delivered from the Death of Affliction, and continue in a glorious State for a Thousand Years before the ultimate Iudgment, during all which Time Men shall be ruled by the Laws of Christ, and only Saints shall have Power in their Hands. All this I freely acknowledge to be true and according to the Scriptures: But with all due Respect to these Expositors, I conceive that does not comprehend the full Meaning of the Text before us. For this Interpretation does imply that the Saints of the First Resurrection suffered a Political Death only, like that of the Two Witnesses. Were that so, a Political Resurrection would be intended by their living again.

:81p. 21

Yet further, it is said concerning the Saints of the First Resurrection, that they are blessed and holy, and that the Second Death shall have no Power over them. How does this agree to them that are the Subjects of only a Political Resurrection? Will there be a Time when in the Church on Earth there shall be no Reprobate, nor any unregenerate Person for a Thousand Years together? So indeed it will be at the Day of Judgment: But before that Blessed Day it will not be, Mat. 13.30. Nor does this Political Sense well agree with that Expression of the rest of the dead not living again until the Thousand Years were finished. Shall all the dead have a Political Resurrection at the End of the Thousand Years? They must have a Resurrection of the same Kind with that which some had at the Beginning of the Thousand Years. I have yet one Thing more to object here. This Political Resurrection does imply that the Lord's People shall enjoy great Prosperity, yea, and Dominion in this present World, and that for many Ages, when as the Scripture tells them of Persecutions and of an evil World, and that the Sufferings of the Church shall last throughout this present Time; yea, until the Day comes when the Creature shall be delivered from the Bondage of Corruption, and we shall have the Redemption of our Body, Rom. 8.18,—24. There is a Kingdom promised, but the Enjoyment of it not to be expected in this present, but in the World to come. In the Resurrection World we shall reign on Earth, but it must be made a New Earth, which it will not be before the Conflagration: The Fire of the Judgment Day will purify and renovate the World. The Scripture is express, that the last Days of this present World will be perilous Times, 2 Tim. 3.1. It is not said some of the last Days will be so: Nor may we distinguish where the Scripture does not. But how then can we believe that the last Thousand Years of this World will be Times without any Peril? The New Heaven and the New Earth which God has promised, i. e. the New World which shall begin with the Resurrection, will be another kind of World than what this which we see is, and has been ever since the Fall of Adam. In that World they shall have Rest and Refreshing, Luk. 20.35. Acts 3.19, 21. 2 Thess. 1.7. In the mean Time they must bear the Cross, conflict with Enemies, and suffer Persecution, Mat. 16.24. Joh. 18.36. 2 Tim. 3.12.

Yet further, it is said concerning the Saints of the First Resurrection, that they are blessed and holy, and that the Second Death shall have no Power over them. How does this agree to them that are the Subjects of only a Political Resurrection? Will there be a Time when in the Church on Earth there shall be no Reprobate, nor any unregenerate Person for a Thousand Years together? So indeed it will be at the Day of Judgment: But before that Blessed Day it will not be, Mat. 13.30. Nor does this Political Sense well agree with that Expression of the rest of the dead not living again until the Thousand Years were finished. Shall all the dead have a Political Resurrection at the End of the Thousand Years? They must have a Resurrection of the same Kind with that which some had at the Beginning of the Thousand Years. I have yet one Thing more to object here. This Political Resurrection does imply that the Lord's People shall enjoy great Prosperity, yea, and Dominion in this present World, and that for many Ages, when as the Scripture tells them of Persecutions and of an evil World, and that the Sufferings of the Church shall last throughout this present Time; yea, until the Day comes when the Creature shall be delivered from the Bondage of Corruption, and we shall have the Redemption of our Body, Rom. 8.18,—24. There is a Kingdom promised, but the Enjoyment of it not to be expected in this present, but in the World to come. In the Resurrection World we shall reign on Earth, but it must be made a New Earth, which it will not be before the Conflagration: The Fire of the Judgment Day will purifie and renovate the World. The Scripture is express, that the last Days of this present World will be perilous Times, 2 Tim. 3.1. It is not said some of the last Days will be so: Nor may we distinguish where the Scripture does not. But how then can we believe that the last Thousand Years of this World will be Times without any Peril? The New Heaven and the New Earth which God has promised, i. e. the New World which shall begin with the Resurrection, will be another kind of World than what this which we see is, and has been ever since the Fall of Adam. In that World they shall have Rest and Refreshing, Luk. 20.35. Acts 3.19, 21. 2 Thess. 1.7. In the mean Time they must bear the Cross, conflict with Enemies, and suffer Persecution,

:83p. 21–22¶6

6. Primitive and Orthodox Christianity was of this Mind. Indeed since Antichristianism has had the Ascendant, as many other glorious Truths, so the Doctrine of the First Resurrection and the Thousand Years Reign has been condemned for Heresy. Baronius calls it Heresy, but A Lapide is more modest. He saith the Millenary Opinion is an Error, but he dared not to call it Heresy, because it was never condemned by any Council. Some Lutherans have been as severe in their Censures as Baronius. There was a late Lutheran Minister, viz. Georgius Laurentius, who wrote a Book which he calls Problema Theologicum de Regno Sanctorum in Terris Millenario. His Arguments are proposed with great Modesty▪ Nevertheless a Lutheran Consistory condemned his Book as Heretical, and the Author was excommunicated. It is an odd Passage which the Editor of that Treatise has in his Preface to it, viz. That when Laurentius fell sick, he desired to speak with the Vicar who had excommunicated him, told him that he should die with that Sickness, and that the Vicar should quickly follow him. Within a few Days the Vicar was taken ill and died, but in great Horror often over cried out, Laurentius has written the Truth, Laurentius has written the Truth; and so departed this Life. Let Papists and Lutherans think what they please of it, I am certain that if this Opinion be Heretical, the Fathers and Martyrs in the Primitive ⟨p. 22⟩Times were Heretics. Jerome was one of the first that did set himself fiercely against it; and yet in one Place he says, that although' he did not approve of the Chiliastical Opinion, he dared not condemn it, because (says he) many Ecclesiastical Doctors and Martyrs have so taught. This has been so often spoke to, and by so many, that it would be Loss of Time to insist or enlarge upon it. Dr. Burnet has laid down this Conclusion, That the Millennial Kingdom of Christ was the General Doctrine of the Primitive Church, from the Times of the Apostles to the Nicene Council inclusively. He observes truly that in the First and Second Century this Doctrine was not contested, or opposed by any excepting Heretics, who denied the Resurrection wholly. I cannot omit the mentioning of what Justin Martyr speaks, whose Words are so express and full as that nothing can be more.

6. Primitive and Orthodox Christianity was of this Mind. Indeed since Antichristianism has had the Ascendant, as many other glorious Truths, so the Doctrine of the First Resurrection and the Thousand Years Reign has been condemned for Heresie. Baronius calls it Heresie, but A Lapide is more modest. He saith the Millenary Opinion is an Error, but he dared not to call it Heresie, because it was never condemned by any Council. Some Lutherans have been as severe in their Censures as Baronius. There was a late Lutheran Minister, viz. Georgius Laurentius, who wrote a Book which he calls Problema Theologicum de Regno Sanctorum in Terris Millenario. His Arguments are proposed with great Modesty▪ Nevertheless a Lutheran Consistory condemned his Book as Heretical, and the Author was excommunicated. It is an odd Passage which the Editor of that Treatise has in his Preface to it, viz. That when Laurentius fell sick, he desired to speak with the Vicar who had excommunicated him, told him that he should die with that Sickness, and that the Vicar should quickly follow him. Within a few Days the Vicar was taken ill and died, but in great Horror often over cried out, Laurentius has written the Truth, Laurentius has written the Truth; and so departed this Life. Let Papists and Lutherans think what they please of it, I am certain that if this Opinion be Heretical, the Fathers and Martyrs in the Primitive ⟨p. 22⟩Times were Hereticks. Ierome was one of the first that did set himself fiercely against it; and yet in one Place he says, that altho' he did not approve of the Chiliastical Opinion, he dar'd not condemn it, because (says he) many Ecclesiastical Doctors and Martyrs have so taught. This has been so often spoke to, and by so many, that it would be Loss of Time to insist or enlarge upon it. Dr. Burnet has laid down this Conclusion, That the Millennial Kingdom of Christ was the General Doctrine of the Primitive Church, from the Times of the Apostles to the Nicene Council inclusively. He observes truly that in the First and Second Century this Doctrine was not contested, or opposed by any excepting Hereticks, who denied the Resurrection wholly. I cannot omit the mentioning of what Iustin Martyr speaks, whose Words are so express and full as that nothing can be more.

:84p. 22¶6

He tells Trypho the Jew, that not only himself but [Greek or Hebrew] whosoever amongst Christians were thoroughly Orthodox did believe the Resurrection, and the Thousand Years in Jerusalem, as the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel had foretold: For (says he) Isaiah speaking of the Time of these Thousand Years saith, there shall be a New Heaven and a New Earth, &c. He adds, One of ours whose Name was John, one of the Twelve Apostles of Christ, in the Revelation exhibited to him, has foretold that they who believe on our Christ shall continue a Thousand Years in Jerusalem, and after that shall be the universal Resurrection and Judgment. Vid. Dial. p. (mihi) 307, 308. Now that Justin Martyr, a Learned and Holy Man who lived within Thirty Years of the Apostle John, should affirm that all Orthodox Christians did then believe a particular Resurrection at the Beginning of the Thousand Years, and that the New Jerusalem would continue for a Thousand Years, and after that a Catholic Resurrection of all together, (as his Words are) is a Demonstration that this Doctrine was received from the Apostles themselves. It is incredible that Justin Martyr would affirm that all Orthodox Christians were of this Belief, if it were not so indeed; and it is not to be thought that Christians living so near the Apostles, could not some, but all of them be of this Persuasion, if the Notion of the Chiliad and of the First Resurrection, in the Sense expressed and contended for were not Scripture Truth, and some Part of the Faith once delivered to the Saints. Irenaeus was contemporary with Justin, and also a Martyr for Christ; he does expressly assert a first Corporal Resurrection to begin with the Millennium. He spends an whole Chapter in proving that the Scriptures by him alleged will not admit of Allegorical Interpretations; and that they do not speak of a Super-Celestial Happiness. Cont. Heret. Lib. 3. Cap. 35. He affirms that the Presbyteri who knew the Apostle John declared that they received this Doctrine from him, and that John was thus taught by the Lord himself, Cap. 33. In some Editions of Irenaeus, the Five last Chapters of his Fifth Book▪ are left out. Fenardentius ingeniously confesses that he believes the Reason was because therein Irenaeus discovers himself to be a Chiliast.

He tells Trypho the Iew, that not only himself but 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 whosoever amongst Christians were thorowly Orthodox did believe the Resurrection, and the Thousand Years in Jerusalem, as the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel had foretold: For (says he) Isaiah speaking of the Time of these Thousand Years saith, there shall be a New Heaven and a New Earth, &c. He adds, One of ours whose Name was John, one of the Twelve Apostles of Christ, in the Revelation exhibited to him, has foretold that they who believe on our Christ shall continue a Thousand Years in Jerusalem, and after that shall be the universal Resurrection and Iudgment. Vid. Dial. p. (mihi) 307, 308. Now that Iustin Martyr, a Learned and Holy Man who lived within Thirty Years of the Apostle Iohn, should affirm that all Orthodox Christians did then believe a particular Resurrection at the Beginning of the Thousand Years, and that the New Ierusalem would continue for a Thousand Years, and after that a Catholick Resurrection of all together, (as his Words are) is a Demonstration that this Doctrine was received from the Apostles themselves. It is incredible that Iustin Martyr would affirm that all Orthodox Christians were of this Belief, if it were not so indeed; and it is not to be thought that Christians living so near the Apostles, could not some, but all of them be of this Perswasion, if the Notion of the Chiliad and of the First Resurrection, in the Sense expressed and contended for were not Scripture Truth, and some Part of the Faith once delivered to the Saints. Irenaeus was contemporary with Iustin, and also a Martyr for Christ; he does expresly assert a first Corporal Resurrection to begin with the Millennium. He spends an whole Chapter in proving that the Scriptures by him alledged will not admit of Allegorical Interpretations; and that they do not speak of a Super-Caelestial Happiness. Cont. Heret. Lib. 3. Cap. 35. He affirms that the Presbyteri who knew the Apostle Iohn declared that they received this Doctrine from him, and that Iohn was thus taught by the Lord himself, Cap. 33. In some Editions of Irenaeus, the Five last Chapters of his Fifth Book▪ are left out. Fenardentius ingeniously confesses that he believes the Reason was because therein Irenaeus discovers himself to be a Chiliast.

:85p. 22–23¶6

What Irenaeus says, if well considered, amounts to little less than a Demonstration that the Doctrine of the Chiliad and of the First Corporal Resurrection is not an Error, but an Apostolical Tradition and Truth. Would Irenaeus say that he received it from those Elders who had it from the Apostles themselves, if it were not so? In one Place he mentions Papias as having thus taught, who was one of John's Scholars, instructed by him. Eusebius confesses that Papias was an holy Man, only to blast his Opinion, he said he had [Greek or Hebrew], but a weak Judgment. It ill becomes such an Arianish Author as Eusebius was, to reflect on a venerable Father for Weakness of Judgment, who had so little of Solidity and Orthodoxy of Judgment himself. But Irenaeus speaks in the Plural Number, Presbyteri (p. mihi 497.) quemadmodum [Presbyteri] meminerunt qui Johannem Dis•ipul•m Domini i•d erunt. As (says he) the Elders who have seen John the Disciple ⟨p. 23⟩of the Lord have declared that they learned from him. Doubtless Irenaeus intends Polycarp as well as Papias; for in his Epistle to Florinus, he mentions Polycarp by Name as one of those Elders that were taught by the Apostles. And he says, that when he was a young Man, he heard Polycarp affirm that he was frequently with John and others of the Apostles: Now if Irenaeus had his Chiliastical Opinion from such Elders as Polycarp and Papias, declaring that they had it from John, and from other of the Apostles, doubtless it is no Error, but an holy Scripture Truth. I omit all Citation of Testimonies out of the Sibyls. As for those Sibylline Oracles which were sacred with the Romans of old, they are lost, being consumed when the Capitol was burnt. The Eight Books of Pseudo-Sibylline Oracles which are in the Hands of many (notwithstanding what Isaac Vossius has said to the contrary) were composed and imposed upon the World by the Fraud and Forgery of Christians pretending to be Inspired Gentiles. Therefore Celsus in Origen scornfully calleth the Christians Sibyllista's, complaining that they themselves were the Authors of those Oracles which they attributed to the old Sibyls.

What Irenaeus says, if well considered, amounts to little less than a Demonstration that the Doctrine of the Chiliad and of the First Corporal Resurrection is not an Error, but an Apostolical Tradition and Truth. Would Irenaeus say that he received it from those Elders who had it from the Apostles themselves, if it were not so? In one Place he mentions Papias as having thus taught, who was one of Iohn's Scholars, instructed by him. Eusebius confesses that Papias was an holy Man, only to blast his Opinion, he said he had 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, but a weak Judgment. It ill becomes such an Arianish Author as Eusebius was, to reflect on a venerable Father for Weakness of Judgment, who had so little of Solidity and Orthodoxy of Judgment himself. But Irenaeus speaks in the Plural Number, Presbyteri (p. mihi 497.) quemadmodum [Presbyteri] meminerunt qui Iohannem Dis•ipul•m Domini i•d erunt. As (says he) the Elders who have seen Iohn the Disciple ⟨p. 23⟩of the Lord have declared that they learned from him. Doubtless Irenaeus intends Polycarp as well as Papias; for in his Epistle to Florinus, he mentions Polycarp by Name as one of those Elders that were taught by the Apostles. And he says, that when he was a young Man, he heard Polycarp affirm that he was frequently with Iohn and others of the Apostles: Now if Irenaeus had his Chiliastical Opinion from such Elders as Polycarp and Papias, declaring that they had it from Iohn, and from other of the Apostles, doubtless it is no Error, but an holy Scripture Truth. I omit all Citation of Testimonies out of the Sibyls. As for those Sibylline Oracles which were sacred with the Romans of old, they are lost, being consumed when the Capitol was burnt. The Eight Books of Pseudo-Sibylline Oracles which are in the Hands of many (notwithstanding what Isaac Vossius has said to the contrary) were composed and imposed upon the World by the Fraud and Forgery of Christians pretending to be Inspir'd Gentiles. Therefore Celsus in Origen scornfully calleth the Christians Sibyllista's, complaining that they themselves were the Authors of those Oracles which they attributed to the old Sibyls.

:86p. 23¶6

Is it probable that the Gentiles should have a more distinct Knowledge of the Trinity, of the Incarnation and Sufferings of Christ, and of the particular Miracles wrought by him than ever the Children of Israel, or the Prophets, or the Apostles themselves had, before they saw the Things accomplished? Nor could the Author of those Books be [Greek or Hebrew], divinely inspired. For there are some Things therein very futile, as that of Adam's being the first that did descend into Eden, &c. and some Things that are false, concerning God's being the Author of Evil, of Purgatory; and not to mention other Particulars, Erythraea's feigning her self to be Noah's Nymph is an egregious Lie. Could Noah's Daughter not only speak Greek, but write Greek Verses? It seems the true Author was a Gnostic: For the Sibyl pretends to know how many Stars there are in Heaven; how many Men there are, or shall ever be on Earth, which is more than any Angel in Heaven knows: This is perfect Gnosticism. The Author lived in the Primitive Times: For the most ancient Fathers, Justin Martyr and Athenagoras mention the Sibyls. But as to the Subject which we have in Hand, we may gather from these pretended Oracles that Christians who believed the Day of Judgment and the Resurrection, did also believe the Chiliad, and the Glory of the New Jerusalem; for of all these do these Prophetesses speak many Things. Vid. Plurae apud Hornbeck. de conv. Indor. Lib. 2. Cap. 3. Dupin (the Regius Professor in Paris) in his lately published Ecclesiastical History, calls the Millenary Notion the Dotage of Antiquity, Vol. 1. p. 47. He confesseth that Justin, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and many other ancient Writers, yea, the Primitive Christians, for the most Part, were of that Opinion. He concludes that the Author of the Sibylline Verses was a Christian, who lived in the Primitive Times, because he asserts the Chiliad. Du Pin Vol. 1. P. 21.

Is it probable that the Gentiles should have a more distinct Knowledge of the Trinity, of the Incarnation and Sufferings of Christ, and of the particular Miracles wrought by him than ever the Children of Israel, or the Prophets, or the Apostles themselves had, before they saw the Things accomplished? Nor cou'd the Author of those Books be 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, divinely inspir'd. For there are some Things therein very futile, as that of Adam's being the first that did descend into Eden, &c. and some Things that are false, concerning God's being the Author of Evil, of Purgatory; and not to mention other Particulars, Erythraea's feigning her self to be Noah's Nymph is an egregious Lie. Could Noah's Daughter not only speak Greek, but write Greek Verses? It seems the true Author was a Gnostick: For the Sibyl pretends to know how many Stars there are in Heaven; how many Men there are, or shall ever be on Earth, which is more than any Angel in Heaven knows: This is perfect Gnosticism. The Author lived in the Primitive Times: For the most ancient Fathers, Iustin Martyr and Athenagoras mention the Sibyls. But as to the Subject which we have in Hand, we may gather from these pretended Oracles that Christians who believed the Day of Judgment and the Resurrection, did also believe the Chiliad, and the Glory of the New Ierusalem; for of all these do these Prophetesses speak many Things. Vid. Plurae apud Hornbeck. de conv. Indor. Lib. 2. Cap. 3. Dupin (the Regius Professor in Paris) in his lately publish'd Ecclesiastical History, calls the Millenary Notion the Dotage of Antiquity, Vol. 1. p. 47. He confesseth that Iustin, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and many other ancient Writers, yea, the Primitive Christians, for the most Part, were of that Opinion. He concludes that the Author of the Sibylline Verses was a Christian, who lived in the Primitive Times, because he asserts the Chiliad. Du Pin Vol. 1. P. 21.

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36