Sacred Theory of the Earth: Book IV: Chapter VI

There is also another chanel wherein this doctrine is traditionally deriv’d from St. John, namely by the Clergy of Asia; as Irenæus tells us in the same Chapter. For, arguing the point, he shows that the Blessing promis’d to Jacob from his Father Isaac, was not made good to him in this life, and therefore he says, without doubt those words had a further aim and prospect upon the times of the kingdom: (so they us’d to call the Millennial state) when the Just rising from the dead, shall reign: and when Nature renew’d and set at liberty, shall yield plenty and abundance of all things; being blest with the dew of Heaven, and a great fertility of the Earth. According as has been related by those Ecclesiasticks or Clergy, who see St. John, the Disciple of Christ: and heard of him WHAT OUR LORD HAD TAUGHT CONCERNING THOSE TIMES. This, you see, goes to the Fountain-head. The Christian Clergy receive it from St. John, and St. John relates it from the mouth of our Saviour.

So much for the Original authority of this doctrine, as a Tradition: that it was from St. John, and by him from Christ. And as to the propagation and prevailing of it in the primitive Church, we can bring a witness beyond all exception, Justin Martyr, contemporary with Irenæus, and his Senior. He says, that himself, and all the Orthodox Christians of his time, did acknowledge the Resurrection of the flesh (suppose the first resurrection) and a thousand years reign in Jerusalem restor’d, or in the new Jerusalem. According as the Prophets, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, and Others, attest with common consent. As St. Peter had said before, Act. 3. 21. That all the Prophets had spoken of it. Then he quotes the 65th. Chapter of Isaiah, which is a bulwork for this doctrine, that never can be broken. And to shew the Jew, with whom he had this discourse, that it was the sence of our Prophets, as well as of theirs, He tells him, that a certain Man amongst us Christians, by name John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a Revelation made to him did prophesie, that the faithful believers in Christ should live a thousand years in the new Jerusalem; and after that should be the general Resurrection and day of Judgment. Thus you have the thoughts and sentiment of Justin Martyr, as to himself: as to all the reputed Orthodox of his time; As to the sence of the Prophets in the old Testament, and as to the sence of St. John in the Apocalypse. All conspiring in confirmation of the Millenary doctrine.

To these three witnesses, Papias, Irenæus, and Justin Martyr, we may add two more within the second age of the Church: Melito, Bishop of Sardis, and St. Barnabas, or whosoever was the Author of the Epistle under his name. This Melito, by some is thought to be the Angel of the Church of Sardis, to whom St. John directs the Epistle to that Church: Apoc. 3. 1. But I do not take him to be so ancient; However he was Bishop of that place, at least in the second Century, and a Person of great Sanctity and Learning. He writ many Books, as you may

So much for the first and second Centuries of the Church. By which short account it appears, that the Millenary doctrine was Orthodox and Catholick in those early days. For these Authors do not set it down as a private opinion of their own, but as a Christian doctrine, or an Apostolical Tradition. ’Tis remarkable what Papias says of himself, and his way of learning, In his Book call’d, The Explanation of the Words of the Lord, as St. Jerome gives us an account of it: He says in his Preface, He did not follow various opinions, but had the Apostles for his Authors. And that he consider’d what Andrew, what Peter said; what Philip, what Thomas, and other Disciples of the Lord. As also what Aristion, and John the Senior, Disciples of the Lord, what they spoke. And that he did not profit so much by reading Books, as by the living voice of these persons which resounded from them to that day. This hath very much the air of truth and sincerity, and of a Man that, in good earnest, sought after the Christian doctrine, from those that were the most authentick Teachers of it. I know Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, gives a double Character of this Papias; In one place, he calls him, A very eloquent Man in all things, and skilful in Scripture; and in another, he makes him a man of a small understanding. But what reason there is to suspect Eusebius of partiality in this point of the Millennium; we shall make appear hereafter. However, we do not depend upon the learning of Papias, or the depth of his understanding: allow him but to be an honest man, and a fair witness, and ’tis all we desire. And we have little reason to question his testimony in this point, seeing it is backt by others of good credit; and also because there is no counter-evidence, nor any witness that appears against him. For there is not extant, either the Writing, Name, or Memory, of any Person, that contested this doctrine in the first or second Century. I say, that call’d in question this Millenary doctrine, propos’d after a Christian manner; unless such Hereticks as deny’d the Resurrection wholly: or such Christians as deny’d the divine authority of the Apocalypse.

We proceed now to the third Century. Where you find Tertullian, Origen, Victorinus, Bishop and Martyr: Nepos, Ægyptius, Cyprian, and, at the end of it, Lactantius: All openly professing, or implicitly favouring the Millenary doctrine. We do not mention Clemens Alexandrinus, contemporary with Tertullian, because he hath not any thing, that I know of, expresly either for, or against the Millennium. But he takes notice that the Seventh Day hath been accounted Sacred, both by the Hebrews and Greeks, because of the Revolution of the World, and the Renovation of all things. And giving this as a reason why they kept that day

So much for the first, second, and third Century of the Church. But, by our conclusion, we engag’d to make out this proof as far as the Nicene Council, Inclusively. The Nicene Council was about the year of Christ 325. and we may reasonably suppose Lactantius was then living; at least he came within the time of Constantine's Empire. But however the Fathers of that Council are themselves our witnesses in this point. For, in their Ecclesiastical Forms or Constitutions, in the chapter about the Providence of God, and about the World, they speak thus; The World was made meaner or less perfect, providentially; for God foresee that man would sin. Wherefore we expect New Heavens and a New Earth, according to the holy Scriptures: at the appearance and kingdom of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ. And then, as Daniel says (ch. 7. 18.) The Saints of the most High shall take the kingdom. And the Earth shall be pure, holy, the land of the living, not of the dead. Which David foreseeing by the eye of Faith, cryes out (Ps. 27. 13.) I believe to see the good things of the Lord, in the land of the living. Our Saviour says, Happy are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth, Matt. 5. 5. and the Prophet Isaiah says, (chap. 26. 6.) the feet of the meek and lowly shall tread upon it. So you see, according to the judgment of these Fathers, there will be a kingdom of Christ upon Earth; and moreover, that it will be in the New Heavens and the New Earth. And, in both these points, they cite the Prophets and our Saviour in confirmation of them.

Thus we have discharg’d our promise and given you an account of the doctrine of the Millennium, or future kingdom of Christ, throughout the three first Ages

HAVING dispatch’d this main point, To conclude the Chapter and this head of our discourse, It will be some satisfaction possibly to see, How a Doctrine so generally receiv’d and approv’d, came to decay and almost wear out of the Church, in following Ages. The Christian Millenary doctrine was not call’d into question, so far as appears from History, before the middle of the third Century; when Dionysius Alexandrinus writ against Nepos, an Ægyptian Bishop, who had declar’d himself upon that subject. But we do not find that this Book had any great effect; for the declaration or constitution of the Nicene Fathers was after: and in St. Jerome's time, who writ towards the end of the fourth Century, this doctrine had so much Credit, that, He, who was its greatest adversary, yet durst not condemn it, as he says himself. Quæ licet non sequamur, tamen damnare non possumus; quià multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum & Martyres ista dixerunt. Which things, or doctrines, speaking of the Millennium, tho’ we do not follow, yet we cannot condemn. Because many of our Church-men, and Martyrs, have affirmed these things. And when Apollinarius replyed to that Book of Dionysius, St. Jerome says, that, not only those of his own Sect, but a great multitude of other Christians did agree with Apollinarius in that particular. Ut præsagâ mente jam cernam, quantorum in me rabies concitanda sit. That I now foresee, how many will be enrag’d against me, for what I have spoken against the Millenary doctrine.

We may therefore conclude that in St. Jerome's time the Millenaries made the greater party in the Church; for a little matter would not have frighted him from censuring their opinion. St. Jerome was a rough and rugged Saint, and an unfair adversary, that usually run down, with heat and violence, what stood in his way. As to his unfairness, he shews it sufficiently in this very cause, for he generally represents the Millenary doctrine after a Judaical rather than a Christian manner.