Christs personall reigne on earth, one thousand yeares with his saints the manner, beginning, and continuation of his reigne clearly proved by many plain texts of Scripture, and the chiefe objections against it fully answered, explaining the 20 Revelations and all other Scripture-prophecies that treat of it : containing a full reply to Mr. Alexander Petrie ... who wrote against ... Israels redemption / by Robert Maton.

Reply.

1. Surely he is a wrangler (and no other) who multiplieth words without knowledge: and against all reason and evidence still persists in his errour. To make good then what I have said touching the opposition betwixt the first and second resurrection, to wit, that it doth impose the same sense on both, there is this logicall rule, Quod in omni legitima distributione, membra inter s•• opponuntur sub eodem genere, That in every legitimate distributi∣on, the members are opposed under the same genus: that is, doe divide the same thing, which according to your expounding the first resurrection of a bodily resurrection, is so here. For we make the resurrection of the dead, or a bodily resurrection, to be the genus, the thing divided. And the first and second resurrecti∣ons, to be the members dividing this genus. And this exposition these words in ver. 5. But the rest of the dead, (that is, of them whose bodies were in the g••ave) lived not till the 1000 yeares were finished, doe confirme. Seeing they doe necessarily imply that some of those that had been in the grave, were then risen: for the partitive pronoune [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the rest, doth shew, that they who were risen, were before their resu••rection held in the same con∣dition, in which these other were left, that is, under the power, and bondage of abodily death, as well as they. From which death these other also were to be delivered at the last resurrecti∣on of bodies, described, ver. 12, 13. &c. But your expounding the first resurrection, of a spirituall resurrection; and the second, of a bodily resurrection: doth make the first and second resurrections,

the members of no resurrection. But paraphrases onely, and e∣quivalent expressions, of a spirituall and bodily resurrection; that is, the first resurrect on to be all one with a spirituall resurrection: and the second resurrection to be all one with a bodily resurre∣ction. And yet in your answer here you acknowledge, what we affirme, to wit, that the first and second resurrection are to be ex∣pounded in the same sense. For [there is no more opposition nor agree∣ment, (you say) betwixt the first and second resurrection, then is betwixt the first & second death.] True, and are not these opposed under the same genus? are not the first & second death, both bodily deaths? doubtlesse the second death is not opposed to the spirituall death of the soule, (which is a death in sinne,) but to the naturall death of the body (which is the first death of it for sin,) and this these words ver. 6. On such the second death hath no power, do confirme; for they doe plaincly intimate, that the first death of the body, the naturail death thereof had had power over them, as well as over others; although the second death of the body, the supernaturall death thereof, (which is its destination to eternall torments,) should have no power over them.

2. Looke againe, and you shall finde that there is more perfe∣ction of wit in my words, then there is in yours. For surely I make no comparison betwixt the spirituall perfection of men, who shall be beheaded, and the soules of them that are beheaded, (but betwixt their naturall perfection) for all that I say, is this; That John saw not at first, perfect men, that is, men that should be beheaded for the witnesse of Jesus; but the soules of men on∣ly: and that as of men already beheaded. And what perfection of wit is it, to imagine, that a part of a man (the soule onely,) is a more perfect essence then the whole man, (then the soule and body both?)

3. In the preceding words, you aske [what perfection of wit it is to imagine, that men who shall be beheaded—are more perfect then the soules of them that are beheaded.] And so in that passage you grant, that I doe take the soules which Saint John saw, for the soules of men beheaded. And yet here you make your selfe ig∣norant of the sense in which I take them. For you say [If by these soules he understand the spirituall part of men ere they be made perfect, then he must understand the soules before they entred into the bodies, or

after they entred into the bodies before their regeneration.] But surely I understand neither of these by them, but the soules departed from their bodies, as the text saith they were: (and as any man may perceive by my words.) And what perfection of wit were it, by soules onely to understand soules entred into bodies? Or what are both these parts of your answer, but a vaine wresting of the wordes [perfect men,] which (to avoide the answering of my argument) you purposely mistake, for regenerate men: for men perfect in grace. Whereas [perfect men,] opposed to the soules of men onely, must needs signifie, men perfect in essence, men con∣sisting both of bodies and soules. And therefore that the reader may see how poorely you have shifted off the force of my words; I will lay it before him in this Syllogisme. If Saint John at first saw the soules onely of them that were beheaded, and not men that should be beheaded, then by the word, [they lived,] is meant the living againe of them that had been beheaded, (the ri∣sing of men after their death,) and not the regenerating of them that should be beheaded, (the rising of men before their death.) But Saint John saw onely the soules of them that were beheaded, and not men that should be beheaded. Therefore by the word [they lived,] is meant the living of them that had been beheaded, (the sing of men after their death,) and not the regenerating of them that should be beheaded, (the rising of men before their death.) For the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] they lived, must needes be opposed to the death of the body, to the death of the beheaded, the death here men∣tioned: and not to the death of the soule, the death of men before they are regenerated, a death not here mentioned.

4. This argument is a meere petitio principii, a begging of the point in question, for it supposeth, that the first resurrection is to be understood spiritually, which is the very subject of the con∣troversie. And therefore it is just as if you had said, If the first resurrection be that which we say it is, then it goes before the Saints death, as we say it doth: & surely if interpreters do expound the first resurrection of the Saints, [of the forsaking of Antichrist's errours, of their not worshipping of the Beast, nor receiving his marke, and of their constant profession, &c:] then they doe understand it of the effects and consequents of the spirituall resurrection, and not of the spirituall resurrection it selfe; For the regeneration of

the Saints, is the change and renewing of their soules by the infu∣sion of sanctifying and saving graces of their regeneration. And they doe herein put a tautology upon the text, which according to this interpretation must be thus paraphrased, And I saw the soules of them that were beheaded for the witnesse of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the Beast, neither his i∣mage, neither had received his marke upon their foreheads, or in their bands, and they lived, that is, and they worshipped not the Beast, nor his image, nor received his marke, &c. And if for the word, [they lived,] you say, they were regenerated; I demand, when they were regenerated, were they regenerated again, after they were be∣headed, &c. & after they had in their life time refused to worship the Beast, &c? For all this was revealed as past when St. John saw their soules: and yet it was after he saw their soules, that they lived, and reigned with Christ a 1000 yeares. Thus then is the text by your interpretation deprived both of truth and sense, which taken in its proper signification, doth of it selfe speake in this manner to every understanding. And I saw the soules of them that were beheaded for the witnesse of Jesus—and (the soules of them) which had not (in their life time) worshipped the Beast, neither his image—and they lived, that is, and they (that were thus beheaded) lived againe in their bodies; they rose from the dead, and reign∣ed with Christ a 1000 yeares. But the rest of the dead lived not till the 1000 yeares were finished. That is, till the resurrection of the dead described, ver. 12, 13. &c. And now who hath shewed himselfe the [strange wrangler,] hath this Authour, or Mr. Petrie?