Counter Currents To Chiliasm At The Westminster Assembly: Cornelius Burges And The Second Coming Of Christ

By Andrew J. Young

[Andrew J. Young is the minister of Cheltenham Evangelical Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales.]

I. Introduction

On June 14, 1619, Cornelius Burges (c. 1589-1665) began writing a manuscript entitled “The Grounds of Divinity handled according to the method of the Vulgar Catechisme.”[1] Cramming nearly one thousand words to a page in an A6 size, leather-bound notebook, Burges, in his microscopic yet uniform hand, began his own commentary on the Apostles Creed. Whether intended for publication or simply as notes for a series of sermons to the Watford parish he had been appointed to only six months previously,[2] Burges outlined a simple catechism, and continued with a line by line explanation of the Creed.

As is to be expected from a commentary on the Creed, Burges devoted one of the chapters to the De judicio extremo. Writing approximately thirty-two hundred words over the space of four pages, he delineates his views on eschatology and the second coming of Christ, both topics that had enjoyed increasing attention during the sixteenth century. This attention would continue well into the seventeenth century culminating in the return of an allegedly condemned view, namely, chiliasm.[3] Within one hundred years chiliasm changed from being confessionally repudiated to becoming a widely held and popular view. All three of the mainstream Protestant movements in the sixteenth century articulated creedal condemnation of millenarianism: the Lutherans in the Augsburg Confession of 1530, the English in the Forty-Two Articles of Religion in 1552, and the Reformed in the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566.[4] Yet despite this seemingly authoritative renouncement, by the mid seventeenth century millenarianism was “the most popular eschatological position in England.”[5]

Whilst the inception of this millenarian Protestant movement has been located in the year 1627 through the publication of two influential books on the subject by Joseph Mede and Johann Heinrich Alsted,[6] this by no means identifies the origins of this “reintroduction of a controversial eschatology.”[7] As Howard B. Hotson argues, Alsted’s millenarianism can be traced as far back as 1611, and even further back in the life of his colleague at Herborn University, Johannes Piscator, to as early as the 1590s.[8] Peter Toon, in looking at general trends rather than specific individuals, sees the origins of this English apocalypticism in various theological influences that were abroad before 1600 which “aided the growth of an optimistic eschatology.”[9] He has identified several factors at work between 1550 and 1650 which “helped create conditions favourable to the growth of a belief in a future period of bliss on earth.”[10] Bernard Capp has also noted that developments on the continent had a major impact at this time. The Huguenot and Dutch Calvinist successes in the late sixteenth century “bred hopes that a league of Protestant nations might overthrow Antichrist,” and the Thirty Years War produced a more “cataclysmic” millenarian approach.[11] In support of Capp, Robert Godfrey has drawn attention to a variety of “epochal historical events” during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries which contributed to this rise in eschatological expectation.[12] These include the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, the apostasy of Henry IV of France in 1593, and the Thirty Years War which began in 1618.

Furthermore, the origins of this gradual movement towards millenarianism can be traced even further back to the medieval apocalyptic traditions which influenced early Protestant thinking. Richard Bauckham has classified four of these traditions including the Antichrist legend, commentaries on the Apocalypse, the Joachimist tradition, and the ideas of Wycliffe and the later Lollards and Hussites.[13] Finally, Avihu Zakai has argued that the Reformation’s attempts to provide an historical basis for the break with the Church of Rome led many Protestants to stress the study of history. This itself gave rise to a “new form of historical consciousness—Protestant historiography based upon an apocalyptic interpretation of history.”[14]

Thus Burges is peculiarly situated. He writes before Alsted and Mede and their overt chiliastic influence, yet in the wake of an increasingly strong movement that had gained significant momentum during the sixteenth century and into the early decades of the seventeenth. If R. G. Clouse is correct in his assessment that by the 1620s “not a few English Puritans were moving both by the logic of their Biblical exegesis and the signs of the times in the direction of chiliasm,”[15] then Burges, who began his manuscript in mid-1619, is uniquely positioned. What he wrote and when he wrote it has the potential to supply an unprecedented insight into the thinking of Puritans during this increasingly expectant eschatological milieu.

What adds significance to Burges’s thoughts on this issue is the success that marked his career. He was offered the rectory of St Magnus, London, in 1626, proceeded as Doctor of Divinity at Oxford in 1627, and in 1643 was awarded what was probably the highest ministerial stipend of his day as the Sunday afternoon lecturer in St Paul’s Cathedral.[16] More importantly, he became a leading figure throughout the years of the Westminster Assembly, 1642-1653. Amongst other things at the Assembly, he was appointed to be one of the two assessors who assisted the prolocutor, William Twisse, and he was the convener of one of the three committees. These two key positions of responsibility, enhanced by the fact that he often “supplie[d], so farr as is decent, the Proloqutor’s place,”[17] have established Burges in the eyes of posterity as one of the most significant divines present at the Assembly.[18]

Thus, not only does Burges offer an insight into how some of the Puritans were thinking at this stage in the developing controversy over eschatology, he also played a leading part in producing a confession of faith that somewhat surprisingly “expresses no opinion on the Millennium.”[19] This, despite the fact that according to Robert Baillie “most of the chiefe divines here, not only Independent, bot others, such as Twiss, Marshal, Palmer, and many more, are express Chiliasts.”[20] Even though the divines were meeting during a time of eschatological fervor and expectation, and when many of their own held to chiliastic positions, they were still able to produce a biblically sane and non-controversial statement on this issue.

Keeping these two factors in mind—the timing of Burges’s manuscript in relation to the rise of chiliasm, and the influence he himself enjoyed at the Westminster Assembly—in this article I will attempt three things. First, I will survey Burges’s comments and seek to outline the context and development of his thought. Second, I will analyze his eschatological views in so far as they can be ascertained from his manuscript and compare them with the increasing chiliastic tendencies of his day. Third, in the conclusion, I will consider briefly the debates over eschatology that ensued at the Westminster Assembly and how the thought and influence of Burges may shed light on why the divines produced such a non-controversial statement on the subject of eschatology.

II. An Outline Of Burges’s Comments

1. De Judicio Extremo

Burges begins his comments on the De judicio extremo by quoting the Creed and providing a terse theological comparison:

From thence he shal come to judg both [th]e quick and the dead.
Before we saw him sub judice But now supra judices.[21]

The context of these introductory remarks makes it evident that Burges understood both the Creed and the work of Christ through the mutually related perspectives of humiliation and exaltation. Hinting strongly at the influence of William Perkins—who not only displayed exactly the same approach,[22] but also argued that the “three degrees of Christ’s humiliation are most fitly correspondent to the three degrees of his exaltation”[23]—Burges sets the return of Christ within this soteriological context.[24] He clearly understands Christ’s humiliation as being summed up in the phrase “under law,” and his exaltation, of which the De judicio extremo is a part, being summed up by “above laws.”[25] Thus, the return of Christ with its attendant judgment of both the quick and the dead, is for Burges understood not only as the pinnacle of the exaltation but also as intrinsically related to his humiliation and his role as Savior.

He continues by linking his previous chapter on the De sessione ad extra with his present treatment of the return and judgment of Christ:

. . . by virtue whereof he governeth and
judgeth all, now see: that the end hath appoynted a day in w[hi]ch
he will judg the world in righteousness . . . [26]

Burges obviously understood the “final assisse of all the world”[27] to be an expression of that general rule and authority that was given to Christ at his sitting at the right hand of the Father. In this way, he continues to connect closely each degree of Christ’s mediatorial exaltation.

2. The Second Coming Of Christ

He next turns to the actual topic in hand and divides “the sum of this article” into “1. Xts second coming. fro[m] thence he shal come,” and “2. the ende of his coming, to judg both quick & dead.”[28] In this way Burges binds the return of Christ inextricably to the day of judgment. Clearly for him the second coming of Christ had an “ende” or a purpose, which was to exercise his sovereign rule in the judgment of the whole world.[29]

Taking the first part of this division he “considers,”

1. Ve[r]ses that he will come Act 1.11, 3.19. Rom 13.12. 2 Thes 2.8 Rev. 22.20. 2 Pet. 3.12. this was p[ro]phesyed of old even byEnoch the 7th fro[m] Adam Jude 14, Matt 3.2
2. modu[s] advenius. he shall come gloriously.[30]

His use of Scripture here is revealing on two fronts. He, like William Perkins, is obviously concerned to establish the biblical basis for the second coming of Christ.[31] Thus, many of the verses that he references simply state that Christ will be coming again. In addition, however, some of these passages hint at the imminence of Christ’s return and the present necessity to live in the light of this expectation. In Rom 13:12 Paul, because of the fact that night is now gone and the day is at hand, exhorts his readers to “cast off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light.” Similarly, Matt 3:2 records the words of John the Baptist, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Burges’s use of Scripture gives an insight into the way he understood the second coming of Christ. Whilst, as we shall see, he refuses to be drawn into debate over the exact timing of Christ’s return, he does still use Bible verses that call for holy living in light of the sudden second coming of Christ. In this way he aligns himself with the Tudor apocalyptic belief in the imminent end of the world.[32]

After a brief discussion over what the church fathers thought concerning whether Christ will judge in his humanity as Mediator or as God, he goes on to discuss the time of his coming:

But as for the time how ever some have [?] [?] determined to define it as some by the strong conjunctions and positions of the starrs that ordinaryly portend desolations of empires sayd that the ende of the world sha[ll] Bee in 1588. and others of ancient times have Been wonderfull bold and deceaved divers with their conceits as the chiliasts that dreamed the world should continue 6000 years & then Xt should come. w[hi]ch so much misledd Papias, Justin Martir. Tertullian & especially Eastandius & Ireneus who seem very confident in this. w[hi]ch they ground upon the authority of one Elias not the Tishbite But some sup[er]stitious muddy Individuial Rabine who in the Jewish Talmud of the Sanhedrin . . . sabbatha dei. duo millia inant, duo millia lex, duo millia dors messia.[33]

Here Burges gives insight into some of the beliefs that were circulating at the time revealing two millennial positions. The first one clearly held the date 1588 as eschatologically significant and utilized astrology for its derivations, although who or what Burges is referring to in the first position is not entirely clear. In the year 1588 the Spanish Armada was defeated, which, as we have seen, some took as an eschatological portent that the millennium was near. Others understood phenomena such as “comets, many and strange eclipses, ‘many Sunnes at one time, many Rainebowes, many terrible blazyng Starres, fyres in the ayre like dartes and swords, remarkable conjunctions of planets’” all to be signs of the end.[34] Theodore Beza even understood the nova of 1572 to be some sort of “reappearance of the star which guided the Magi to Bethlehem.”[35] Whether or not Burges had someone in particular in mind when he wrote these comments we cannot be sure.[36] However, we can be certain that he was aware of this more phenomenological apocalypticism. That he rejects the precise date of 1588 is clear; however, later in his book he displays openness to such heavenly signs as portending the return of Christ.

The second position he denotes explicitly as chiliasm. He also identifies several church fathers who held to this view and locates who for him was the source, namely, one “Elias not the Tishbite.” It is at this point that Burges discloses both his affinity with William Perkins and his indebtedness to him as he almost verbatim reproduces what Perkins himself had written only three years previously. In his own published commentary on the Creed, Perkins on this very issue had written:

Two opinions touching the time take place. The first is, that the second comming of Christ shall bee about sixe thousand years from the beginning of the world. . . . The grounds of this opinion are these: First, the testimonie of Elias, two thousand years before the Law: two thousand years under the Law: and two thousand years under Christ . . . this was not the sentence of Elias the Tishbite, but of another Elias which was a Jew, no Prophet.[37]

The similarity between the two statements is unmistakeable, and the fact that Burges was using and relying heavily upon the theology of Perkins and others, including John Calvin, is clear from other parts of his commentary.[38] The concept of the world lasting six thousand years is not something confined to this third-century Hebrew Midrash entitled the School of Elijah.[39] It can also be found in the Epistle of Barnabas where the author, having asserted that the time was close when all things would perish with the evil one, goes on to apply his interpretation of the six days of Genesis to an expected eschatological time frame.[40] Having understood each of the six days of creation to represent one thousand years, the author expresses the belief that the universe would last six thousand years and then end.[41] Perkins goes on to address this particular strain of early church chiliasm, whereas Burges interestingly does not.[42]

Burges’s rejection of chiliasm is palpably evident. His analysis that they had “deceaved divers with their conceits,” “dreamed the world should continue 6000 years,” and “misled” several of the church fathers leaves us in no doubt of his assessment. Yet, he continues with an attempt to refute them according to their own system:

But herein they fayl and contradict Scrip.[ture] for that w[hi]ch they say Of 2000 in [?] and is false. Becaus there was above 2500, & under the law the time was not above 1500, & therefore if Elias cannot cast up the accounts of the time [?] w[hi]ch a boy may doe, we may well suspect his counting for Xts second cominge w[hi]ch no man or angell and God only can doe matt 24. 36. & yet this of Elias is strong enough ag[ai]n. The Jewes who held messiah should come at end of 4000 yeares (as He did) & more by their own computation it is 5000 & [?] since the creation of the world, & yet their messiah is not come. thus the Lord taketh the wise in their owne craftyness, and the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are but vague.[43]

Burges is once again heavily dependent on Perkins as he engages the calculations that were propounded by Elias to support his view. He rejects the first calculation arguing that the time before the law was two thousand five hundred years and not two thousand. He then argues that the time under the law was “not above 1500,” and so concludes with Perkins that if “Elias can not set downe a numer for the past, which a meane man may doe: what shall we thinke that he can doe for the time to come?”[44] He continues by exposing a further fallacy as it relates specifically to the Jews. If, according to Elias’s system, the Messiah was supposed to come after four thousand years, and by their own “computations” the world is five thousand years old, where then is the Messiah? The obvious conclusion is that the whole system is wrong. On the other hand Burges in this polemical refutation hints at his own view on the timing of Christ’s return. In referencing Matt 24:36 he asserts that God alone knows the day and hour of Christ’s return and so, by implication, assigns as out of hand any attempt to conjecture on this subject.

3. The Signs Of The End

Having dealt with the second coming of Christ, Burges moves on to handle the “ende” or purpose of this return, which is to judge the quick and the dead. Under this heading he delineates what he calls “the pr[e]paration there unto.”[45]

Let us speak of the pr[e]paration which this consisteth in 10 things

1. the foretelling of the time by certayne signes w[hi]ch our Lord in His gospel hath left us wherby wee may discern of his approach as men in spring time by the shooting forth of the fig tree may know that summer is nigh w[hi]ch signes are some farther of[f] some neerer to his comminge, as.
2. publicatio & receptio evang [?] mondus Math 24.14
3. apostasia of the most p[ar]t of proffessors who love not The truth. 1 Tim 4.1. 2 Thess 2.3
4. The revealing of the Antichrist that ma[n] of sin who under The title of Xts vicar opposeth himself unto Xt. 2 Thess 2. in all his offices & ordinances in Xch & [?] [?]
5. [?] corruption in manners [?] with security as in the days of Noah and Lott 2. Tim 3.1. Matt 24.12
6. wars and troubles in world and Xch. Matt. 24.6.9.
7. false Xts attended with false prophets, and attended with false miracles Matt. 24.24.
8. the calling of the Jewes to the faith of the gospele Rom 11.25 but where how many or in w[hi]ch manner I see not warrant in Script[ure] to determine.
9. Signes in heaven, earth & all [?] as the trembling of the earth roaring of the sea, darkening of the sun & moon & yea the fyring of, the whole frame of heaven and earth 2 Pet 3.7.10.12.
10. Finally the signes of the son of ma[n] matt 24.30[46]

Once again the influence of Perkins in this list is plain to see, and yet some differences are also evident. Whereas Perkins details seven signs that “goe before the coming of Christ” and some that are “joined with it,”[47] Burges expands them into nine, some of which are “farther of[f] some neerer to his comminge.” In addition he believes that by these signs we can discern the approach of Christ’s return. Likening it to the budding of a fig tree which heralds the dawn of summer, Burges obviously understands these signs to function as a precursor to the actual second coming of Christ.

On the whole this catalogue of signs accords with what many in the sixteenth century believed. Ideas of the imminent end, the revealing of the Antichrist, and the ingathering of the Jews were all mainstream apocalypticism in his day.[48] For Burges, these, together with the preaching of the gospel in the world, a falling away of professing believers, a rise in ungodliness, and the signs of the Son of Man were simply a collection of what the Bible says about the return of Christ. Moreover, the nine signs in Burges’s list all bear the same hallmark, and that is support from biblical references. All of them refer to texts from Scripture that highlight the positive aspect of his dictum in reference to the Jews: “I see not warrant in in Scripture to determine.” Clearly, without such warrant he is unwilling to postulate. Even more, without such warrant he is unwilling to include any sign as a portent of the return of Christ.[49] He is wholly committed to Perkins’s own motto, “Where God hath not a mouth to speake, there we must not have an eare to heare.”[50]

4. De Resurrectione

Two further references in Burges’s commentary pertain to his eschatology and are important to note. The first of these is in his chapter on the De Resurrectione. He asks the question, “W[he]n shall our bodyes arise?” And he gives the answer, “at the last day,” referencing 1 Thess 4:1; 1 Cor 15; Job 14:12; 19:25; and John 11:24.51 He goes on to discuss those who “rose when Xt was crucifyed,” arguing that this was necessary so that

it might appeare whoe he was.
so that we might Better expect our resurrectio[n] from his
so that there is a p[ar]ticular and a g[e]n[e]r[a]l resurectio[n]
ob[served]. Rev. 20.6 the first resurrectio[n][52]

As if to explain this reference to Rev 20 he moves into abbreviated Latin and writes on the same line at the end of the above comment:

spiritualis, aie[?] 

resurrectio est 2ex { 

corporalis, corpis

And he makes further comment in his second “use” of this doctrine:

This confutes the familists who hold no resurrection But only of the Sp[iri]t urging Rev. 20.6 & Bee risen look to the first, But laugh at the second.

[?] to Job 19.25.26. 1 Thes 4.14 

this heresy is as old of Hymineus & Philetus who, by Pauls testimony 2 Tim 2.10 unerring the truth have erred, saying the resurrection is past already and so overthrow the fayth of some.[53]

These comments reveal three things concerning Burges’s eschatology. First, the resurrection will occur at the last day, which precludes any general resurrection before the millennium. Second, he ties the resurrection of Christ closely to the hope of our resurrection using those who were raised when Christ was crucified as an illustration. Third, he provides his view of Rev 20. His use of this passage to prove heretical the “familists” gives us a clearer insight into what he means. The group that Burges refers to as Familists was a Continental religious sect known as the Family of Love which started about 1540. Its members embraced the teachings and writings of Hendrik Niclaes (1502?–1580), a Dutch spiritualist. Their presence, though small, was nevertheless influential in England. It seems they believed that “the resurrection of the Dead . . . is in this life before the naturall death of the body: and that the body cometh to nothing after death.”[54] Burges thus uses Rev 20:6 to refute this notion and to prove the bodily resurrection. According to the flow of his thought he first ties the resurrection of Christ to our resurrection—the particular and the general. Thus, we can “better expect our resurrection from his.” He then moves explicitly to Rev 20:6 and appears to define the resurrection as having two essential parts—spiritual and physical. He applies this understanding against the teaching of the Familists, because if Christ has been physically raised, and our resurrection is dependent upon his, and the resurrection is itself both spiritual and physical, then there must be a physical resurrection. Therefore it seems that he holds to an Augustinian view of the millennium and Rev 20:6, in that he understands it in the context of the particular resurrection of Christ ensuring the general resurrection of all men at the end of the age.

5. De Vita Aterna

The second reference is found in his chapter on the De vita aterna. Discussing the eternal dimension of this eternal life Burges remarks,

Consider the p[er]petuity of it: it is everlastinge not only for 1000 years as the Chiliasts fondly imagine but for ever Dan. 12.2. Matt. 25.46. Joh[n] 11.25.26. Rom. 6.23. 1 Thes. 4.17.[55]

Not only does Burges mention the chiliasts explicitly once again, he also sets forth a line of thought similar to that of John Calvin. Calvin had objected to the chiliasts of the early church on the grounds that the Bible clearly taught “there would be no end to the blessedness of the elect or the punishment of the wicked.”[56] The chiliasm of the early church posed a serious problem for Calvin as he understood it to cast “reproach . . . upon Christ and his Kingdom.” He continued, “If their blessedness is to have an end, then Christ’s Kingdom, on whose firmness it depends, is but temporary.” Whilst Burges does not expound and apply his thinking in such detail, the same foundation yet remains. For him the era of blessing that the millennium was to inaugurate was something that would last forever, and so by derivation could not be limited to one thousand years.

III. An Analysis Of Burges’s Eschatology

1. The Christological And Soteriological Context

Clearly Burges understood the second coming of Christ within the context of his understanding of Christology. In particular he understood it within the framework of the humiliation and exaltation of Christ. He thereby kept his eschatology as a subset of his Christology. In other words, his treatment of the return of Christ was first an expounding of Christology and therefore of soteriology, and only secondly an expounding of eschatology. In this way he approaches the topic as it relates to other foci within the organic nature of revelation, and specifically as it relates to Christ and the salvation of sinners. For Burges, the second coming of Christ and its attendant corollaries were not to be examined in a vacuum. Neither were they to be examined in any way that divorced them from the central work of Christ. This approach, as we have seen, was also evident in Calvin, who rejected chiliasm on the basis of its implications concerning the person and work of Christ. That is not to say that certain eschatological views are by nature born out of certain Christological or soteriological ones, but it is interesting to note the correlations. For example, D. H. Kromminga has suggested a link between the more extreme chiliasm of the Anabaptists and their own “peculiar Christology.”[57]

It could be argued that Burges was necessarily forced into this approach because he was after all commenting on the Apostles Creed, which presents the humiliation and exaltation of Christ as a series of events. This would however ignore what he and others, including Perkins, were doing in their commentaries. They were, rather than being limited by the structure of the Creed, both promoting that structure as orthodox and true, and using it as a platform to instruct, teach, and inform on the central loci of biblical religion. It is interesting that Burges, even forty years after writing his commentary on the Creed and after the work of the Westminster Assembly, still held a high opinion of the Creed. In highlighting the deficiencies of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the need for the reform of doctrine and practice, he refers to the Apostles Creed as “comprising” all that the Scriptures teach and the church holds to as its doctrine.[58] Thus, the Christological and soteriological context is an important factor in gaining an understanding of Burges’s thought.

2. The Antichrist

As we saw above, one of Burges’s nine signs that prepared the way for the second coming of Christ was “the revealing of the Antichrist that ma[n] of sin who under the title of Xts vicar opposeth himself unto Xt. 2 Thess 2. in all his offices & ordinances in Xch.”[59] This should in no way surprise us as Burges was after all living during a “flood of writing on this topic.”[60] This writing did not just expect the revealing of Antichrist; it had by the end of the sixteenth century “identified [Antichrist] exclusively with the papacy.”[61] Many of the Reformers themselves had also made this identification including Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, and Calvin.[62] Burges himself appears to concur when he uses the phrase “Xts vicar” which was a commonly used designation for the Holy See in Rome.[63]

That he was convinced that the Papacy was the Antichrist can be seen from a sermon he preached to the House of Commons in 1641. The title page itself of this sermon is telling as “wherein among others,” we are told, “a list of the Popish traytors in England” is to be “shewed.”[64] Preaching on November 5 from Ps 76:10 (“Surely the rage of man shall praise thee, the rest of the rage shalt thou restraine”) Burges remembers the infamous Gunpowder Plot that thirty-six years before to the day had been uncovered. He proceeds to expose this plot not only as treasonous, but as the rage of the devil himself against the forces of God in England.[65] He harangues the Roman Church for exonerating the perpetrators of the plot and ends by calling on Parliament to “reduce (if possible) those many thousands of poor seduced souls that . . . are miserably hoodwinked by Antichrist.”[66] In this way Burges remained true both to his sixteenth-century Protestant heritage and to the mainstream apocalyptic thought of his day.

3. The Imminent End

The very fact that many identified the Papacy with Antichrist fuelled eschatological fervor and raised apocalyptic expectations. If this revealing of the man of sin was to be one of the signs by which “we can discern of his approach,”[67] and if this Antichrist could so confidently be identified as the Papacy, then it can only be assumed that there was an expectation of the imminent return of Christ. This assumption was true for many of Burges’s contemporaries, but less easy to assume in the case of Burges himself.

For many during the sixteenth century, and especially during the latter years of Elizabeth’s reign, “the conviction of living very close to the very end of the temporal process was widespread.”[68] This was at least partly due to the eschatological conflict they perceived they were engaged in against Antichrist, a conflict they expected to win and thereby usher in the end itself.[69] What is interesting for our study of Burges is that for those who were most preoccupied with these matters, “the main focus of attention was usually the so-called ‘signs’ of the End.”[70] Burges himself also appeared somewhat preoccupied with such signs, cataloguing nine of them. His signs, like those of many contemporary writers, were drawn not so much from Revelation and 2 Thessalonians as from the apocalyptic passages in the Gospels and Epistles.[71] In this regard he displays an affinity with the trend of his day, which would appear to confirm that for him the end was near.

However, Burges clearly holds other factors in tension that should nuance this conclusion. He argues, for example, against the attempt of some to date the end by using one of the very signs he lists as being indicative of the second coming of Christ, that is, “signs in heaven.” Whilst on the one hand he criticizes the belief of some for using “strong conjunctions and positions of the stars”[72] to calculate 1588 as the end, he on the other hand includes such heavenly signs as a precursor to the return of Christ. In repudiating the computations of the chiliasts he also states that only God knows the day and the hour. Furthermore, he prefaces his nine signs of the end with what appears to be a purposefully ambiguous statement. Having asserted that we can discern Christ’s approach, he then qualifies this by saying that these “signes are some farther of[f] some neerer to his comminge.”[73] In other words, he appears to be saying, whilst we have good biblical reason to discern Christ’s approach from these signs, yet we do not know how near or how far the end is. This balance is something that is characteristic of his thought. He seems to be able to hold in tension both what the Bible teaches and what he interprets is happening in his own day.

It is interesting that at the end of his sermon to Parliament on November 5, 1641, Burges identifies the Papacy as the Antichrist and berates them for treason, but he also calls Parliament to be hasty in the reform of the land. Whilst he bemoans the state of the church in such a way that one would think the signs he is expecting before the end are being fulfilled in his day, he then uses this to urge the powers that be to work harder at reversing the tide of “putredinous vermine” and to “suppress their [the Papacy’s] fury, and reduce them to order.”[74] What this illustrates is that even if Burges did see the signs he was expecting before the second coming of Christ being fulfilled in his day, he did not use this as a reason to speculate on the precise arrival of Christ, but as an impetus to further reform of the church and land. Once again something of Burges’s balance is evident.

4. The Millennium And Revelation 20

From Burges’s comments it seems we can be sure that he held at least generally to an Augustinian view of the millennium. As such he was apocalyptic but not millenarian, in that he had “no expectation of a protracted period of terrestrial bliss for the church.”[75] On the contrary, it was eternal life that promised this bliss, something that caused him to reject outright the chiliast understanding of the thousand years. Furthermore, his view of the millennium is of necessity connected to his interpretation of Rev 20, where he espouses a view akin to that of Augustine. As we saw, he argues for a particular and a general resurrection. By this he seems to refer to Christ’s resurrection as the particular, and the rest as general, which would take place “at the last day.” He understands the first resurrection to pertain to Christ and those who were raised from the dead at his crucifixion. In all of this, he finds comfort and assurance that our resurrection is certain. In addition he utilizes this approach to counteract the extreme view of the Familists, who argued against a bodily resurrection. Thus, in accord with Augustine he understood the millennium “to symbolise the whole period of the church’s history from the Incarnation to the End.”[76] A corroborating factor is his expectation that the gospel would be preached throughout the world before Christ’s return. This once again was a characteristic of Augustine’s eschatology.[77]

5. The Chiliasts

Burges in his commentary at least twice explicitly refers to chiliasts and their view of the return of Christ. On each occasion he raises their position to contrast it with his own and to refute their claims. He differs with them for three reasons. First, he believes their calculations for the timing of the return of Christ to be fallacious. Even by examining them on their own merits he exposes their error. More than this, he suspects the character of those who propound this view. He questions both Elias for misleading some of the early church fathers and the fathers themselves for deceiving others. Second, he dismisses their concept of the millennium being one thousand years in length. Whilst he does not make his thought explicit on this, it is as though he is saying: when Christ returns, the dead will rise, and the elect will enjoy eternal life with God forever. How then can the millennium only last for a thousand years? Third, his commitment not to go beyond the warrant of Scripture in discerning the approach of Christ naturally prohibits him from attempting to see specific fulfillments in the historic events of his day. This principle works both positively and negatively in his commentary. He criticizes those who attempt to use astrology to set specific dates, and he refrains from including anything in his list of preparatory signs that is not laid down in Scripture.

What is obvious from this is that chiliasm was a live issue for Burges in 1619. It was clearly important enough for him to have felt the need to address and even to refute it. This provides support for R. G. Clouse’s thesis that by the 1620s “not a few English Puritans were moving both by the logic of their Biblical exegesis and the signs of the times in the direction of Chiliasm.”[78] However, it also provides support for a different, yet not mutually exclusive idea. Despite this movement towards millenarianism, there were those resisting it. Burges’s commentary in this regard is enlightening. It highlights both the presence of chiliasm as a force to be reckoned with in the early seventeenth century, and at the same time highlights the fact that there were those willing to oppose it.

Of further interest is Burges’s reference to the early church fathers in dealing with the issue of chiliasm. By doing so he may have been interacting with one of the factors that caused the rise of millenarianism in the first place, which was a renewed interest in patristic thinking. This was itself facilitated by unprecedented access to patristic texts at the turn of the seventeenth century. In an attempt to justify the Reformation and the Protestant break from Rome, many writers of his day resorted to the early church fathers.[79] Also, because of a new-found interest in the biblical languages, and particularly Hebrew studies, they began examining the theology of various rabbis and turning their attention to the Jews. This influenced their views concerning eschatology to include a future literal restoration of the Jews and even to utilize the rabbinic theory that in the Old Testament a day represents a thousand years.[80] All of this was at least partly the reason why an interest in chiliasm grew throughout the seventeenth century. Thus, it is probable that what Burges was doing was actually trying to engage with the root of the problem. If he could demonstrate that the early church fathers were in error on this issue, and even that the rabbinic sources they used were faulty, then he would have been striking a blow to the very foundation of this movement.

IV. Conclusion

The above outline and analysis have demonstrated that Burges’s eschatology was essentially Augustinian and in line with sixteenth-century apocalyptic thought. Thus, he provides us with an example of someone who was living in a chiliastic eschatological milieu, yet was relatively unaffected by it. He is at least one instance of someone who remained true to the Reformed creeds of the previous century, and who fought against the tide of chiliasm and even extreme millenarianism. As hinted above, this fact is all the more important considering his role and influence at the Westminster Assembly as he provides us with an example of a divine who would have opposed chiliasm. More than this, we have someone who arguably ran the proceedings, chaired the debates, convened the grand committee, and who, among other things, had a hand in writing its confession and catechisms. This same person would have stood against millenarianism, promoted an orthodox eschatology, and championed a more restrained and biblically tempered understanding of the second coming of Christ.

This in many ways contributes very little to our understanding of why the divines exercised great caution “in formulating eschatological pronouncements.”[81] It perhaps highlights nothing more than the fact that there were strong advocates of both the more traditional and the chiliastic viewpoints present and active. Thus, perhaps R. L. Dabney was correct in his assessment that “amidst so many different opinions” the Assembly was “too modest to dictate a belief.”[82] However, it does suggest that despite the wave of chiliasm that swept through British Reformers in the 1630s and 1640s, there was still a strong counter current of opinion that resisted this move to millenarianism. This counter current was clearly influential at the Westminster Assembly, and certainly influential enough to ensure that Burges’s own approach of only being conclusive about that which could be clearly determined from Scripture was adhered to. Whilst on the one hand this supports the notion that the divines exercised “prudent moderation”[83] in order to maximize confessional unity, on the other hand it could point to the fact that this moderation was a forced outcome, rather than predetermined.

It is at this very point that the Minutes of the debates of the Assembly would best inform our understanding of what went on, and why such eschatological moderation was the eventual product. Unfortunately no detailed records of the debates on eschatology were kept and what we have is perfunctory and relatively unrevealing.[84] Whilst it is frustrating to have only the records of those topics that were “Resolved upon the Q[uestion],” and “Ordered,” these still highlight the main areas of debate and the conclusions that were eventually reached. Thus, it can easily be deduced that the divines discussed the resurrection of the soul; the day of judgment, including the fact that Christ would “yet have the day of judgement unknown to men”; the eternal destinies of the elect and reprobate;[85] and the state of man after death.[86] That these issues were perhaps not easy to resolve can be seen in the last resolution on September 4, 1646, that “noe more shall be added to the Report of the last judgement.”[87] Despite this resolve, within a couple of months it is recorded that this subject was debated again.[88]

Thus, although very little can be gleaned from the Minutes, what can be seen is that the various related topics within eschatology were debated, and that at least some of these debates resurfaced. What seems clear is that debate was enjoined and so a moderate approach was not adopted initially. Perhaps it became obvious that with influential men on both sides the only options were restrained statements that could easily be substantiated from Scripture—statements that we know the Assembly eventually produced. However, one cannot help noting that such moderation was as much an expression of Burges’s own eschatology as it was of the divines as a whole. In this way, perhaps the thought of men like Burges had more of an impact on the lasting work of the Assembly than has yet been recognized.

V. Appendix: Extracts From The Minutes Of The Westminster Assembly

The Debates On Eschatology

Session 699: Sept 4 1646: Fryday morning

Report was made from the Grand Committee of the Assembly concerning the Resurrection of the Dead. It was debated and upon debate it was Ordered: the title, of the Resurrection of the Dead.

Resolved upon the Q[uestion]: ther is noe Resurrection of the soule, for the soules of men doe neither dye nor sleepe with their bodyes in death, but the bodyes of all shall be Raised up at the last day, the selfe same bodyes and noe other, with different qualityes, and shall be united againe to their soules for ever.

R[esolved]:The bodyes of the unjust shall by the power of Christ be Raised to dishonour, the bodyes of the just by his Spirit to honour.

The Assembly debated the report of the last judgement and upon debate it was Resolved upon the Q[uestion]: the title, of the last Judgement and life eternall.

Ordered: Ther shall be a day wherin the world shall be judged in Righteousnesse by Jesus Christ, the son, to whom all power and all Judgement is given by the father.

Resolved upon the Q[uestion]: in which day not only the Apostate Angells shall be Judged, but likewise all Persons that have lived upon earth shall apeare before the tribunal of Christ to give an account of their thoughts, words and deeds unto God, and to Receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evill.

Ordered: As Christ would have us to be certenly perswaded that ther shall be a time of Judgement —

Resolved upon the Q[uestion]: both to deterre all men from sin and for the greater consolation of the godly in their Adversity, —

Ordered: see he will yet have the day of judgement to be unknown to men —

Ordered: that they may shale off all carnall security, being always watchfull and prepared because they know not at what houre the lord will come.

Ordered: the end of God’s appointing this day of judgement is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy and goodnesse to them that believe, and of his truth and Justice against them that are wicked and dissobedient in the eternall salvation of the elect, and damnation of the Reprobate.

Ordered: For then shall the Righteous goe into everlasting life, and Receive that fullnesse of Joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord, but the wicked who knew not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternall torments and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power.

Resolved upon the Q[uestion]: noe more shall be added to the Report of the last judgement.[89]

Session 746: Novemb. 26: 1646: Thursday morning

The Assembly debated of the state of man after death and upon debate it was assented too, and is as followeth:

The Assembly debated of the last judgement and upon debate it was assented too, and is as followeth:[90]

Session 804: March 5 1647: Fryday morning

Report was made of the scriptures for the proofe of the 29[th], 30[th], 31[st], 32[nd], 33[rd] chapt. Of the confession of faith.[91]

Notes

1. Burges’s manuscript is catalogued as # 6164 in the Rare Books Room in Cambridge University Library (hereafter cited as “CUL, Add. 6164”). To date this has never been published. I am indebted to Dr. Chad Van Dixhoorn for alerting me to the existence of this manuscript.
2. Burges notes in the Epistle Dedicatory to his first published work that the Countess of Bedford, to whose family he was chaplain, procured for him “a setled comfortable abode, and a pastorall imployment,” in the vicarage of Watford, Hertfordshire (A Chaine of Graces: Drawne out at length for a Reformation of Manners. Or, a briefe Treatise of Virture, Knowledge, Temperance, Patience, Godlinesse, Brotherly-kindnesse, Charitie. So farre forth as they are urged by the Apostle in 2 Pet. 1. Verses 5, 6, 7. [London: I. H. for Samuel Man, 1622], A3). His appointment to this parish was on December 21, 1618 (Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. “Burges, Cornelius”).
3. Many secondary sources claim that the third ecumenical council of Ephesus in 431 condemned chiliasm as heretical; e.g., see Peter Toon, ed., Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel: Puritan Eschatology, 1600 to 1660 (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1970), 14, 17. However, it has recently been argued that the primary source material is not as conclusive as some have alleged; see Michael J. Svigel, “The Phantom Heresy: Did the Council of Ephesus (431) Condemn Chiliasm?” Trinity Journal 24 (2003): 105-12.
4. Howard B. Hotson, Paradise Postponed: Johann Heinrich Alsted and the Birth of Calvinist Millenarianism (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press, 2001), 3.
5. Jeffrey K. Jue, Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586-1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism (Dordtrecht: Springer, 2006), 4.
6. Hotson, Paradise Postponed, 3-4. He writes: “The roots of this revival of millenarianism within mainstream Protestantism are commonly and plausibly traced to a precise date: 1627.”
7. Jue, Heaven Upon Earth, 4.
8. Hotson, Paradise Postponed, 15-17.
9. Peter Toon, “The Latter Day Glory,” in Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel, 23.
10. Peter Toon, “Puritan Eschatology, 1600-1648,” in Puritan Papers, Vol. 5: 1968-1969 (ed. J. I. Packer; Philipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2005), 65-66.
11. Bernard Capp, “The Millennium and Eschatology in England,” Past & Present 57 (Nov. 1972): 156-62.
12. W. Robert Godfrey, “Millennial Views of the Seventeenth Century and Beyond,” in God Is Faithful: Westminster Conference 1999 (London: The Westminster Conference, 1999), 8.
13. Richard Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse (Appleford, U.K.: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1978), 17.
14. Avihu Zakai, “Reformation, History, and Eschatology in English Protestantism,” History & Theory 26 (1987): 300-318.
15. R. G. Clouse, “The Rebirth of Millenarianism,” in Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel, 42.
16. “Burges, Cornelius,” DNB. He enjoyed a salary of £400 a year for this appointment.
17. Robert Baillie, Letters and Journals (ed. D. Laing; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: Alex Lowrie & Co., 1841), 2:108.
18. R. S. Paul numbers him alongside Palmer, Gataker, and Temple as one of “four of the most prominent leaders among the conservative majority” (The Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the ‘Grand Debate’ [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985], 179). Paul notes also that “as one of the Assemblies Assessors, he quickly became one of its leaders” (140). These assessments are supported by Chad Van Dixhoorn’s summary of Burges’s participation as he states that he was “involved in virtually every debate,” and had his hand in the formation of every major document (“Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1652” [7 vols.; Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 2004], 1:155).
19. Derek Thomas, “The Eschatology of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Assembly,” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century (ed. J. Ligon Duncan III; 3 vols.; Fearn, U.K.: Mentor, 2004), 2:320.
20. Baillie, Letters and Journals, 2:313.
21. CUL, Add. 6164, 119.
22. He discusses the humiliation of Christ “first of all set down in the Creede generally,” by which he refers to the words “Suffered under Pontius Pilate,” and secondly “by his parts or degrees.” See William Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole or Creede of the Apostles, According to the Tenour of the Scriptures, and to the Consent of Orthodoxe Fathers of the Church (London: John Legatt, 1616), 154.
23. Ibid., 265.
24. CUL, Add. 6164, 98.
25. It is interesting to note that this same structure of thought is clearly evident in the Westminster Confession (8.4), the Larger Catechism (Qs. 46-56) and the Shorter Catechism (Qs. 27-28).
26. CUL, Add. 6164, 119.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Whilst the conservative millenarians would have agreed with this, the more “extreme millenarians” would not have. The so-called “Fifth Monarchy” men set forth a scheme whereby Christ’s second coming would usher in the 1000-year millennial rule, to be followed by a third return wherein the judgment would occur. See Toon, “Puritan Eschatology,” 75-77.
30. CUL, Add. 6164, 119.
31. Cf. Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole, 326.
32. Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse, 145-58.
33. CUL, Add. 6164, 119.
34. Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse, 151.
35. Ibid.
36. Interestingly, William Perkins in a book entitled A Fruitful Dialogue Concerning the Ende of the World outlines a conversation between two men. One of the men, called “Worlding,” firmly believes, on the basis of certain prophecies, that the world would end in 1588. See Gribben, The Puritan Millenium, 38-39.
37. Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole, 327-28 (italics in the original).
38. Compare, e.g., Burges’s comments on the de descensus ad inferos (CUL, Add. 6164, 103) with Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole, 260, and with John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559; LCC 20; ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 2.16.8.
39. Tana debe Eliyyahu: The Lore of the School of Elijah translated from the Hebrew by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1981), ch. 2. See also Crawford Gribben, The Puritan Millennium Literature and Theology, 1550-1682 (Dublin: Four Courts, 2000), 26-27.
40. “The Epistle of Barnabas” (ANF 1:146-47).
41. For more on this see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (5th rev. ed.; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1977), 462; and Paul J. Landa, “The Advent Hope in Early Christianity,” in The Advent Hope in Scripture and History (ed. V. Norskov Olsen; Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1987), 66.
42. See Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole, 328.
43. CUL, Add. 6164, 119.
44. Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole, 328.
45. CUL, Add. 6164, 119.
46. Ibid., 120.
47. Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole, 329-32. The seven that come before he outlines as: the preaching of the gospel, the revealing of Antichrist, a general departing from the faith, a general corruption in manners, “terrible grievous calamities,” “exceeding deadness of heart,” and the calling of the Jews. Those that will accompany Christ’s second coming are the signs of the Son of Man which include the burning up of heaven and earth.
48. See Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse. For Antichrist see Bernad Capp, “The Millennium and Eschatology in England,” 158.
49. The significance of this is important to note, as Crawford Gribben writes: “Puritans did not restrict themselves to the ‘Bible only’ in their attempts to chart the predicted future. Jewish and classical texts were regularly culled for apocalyptic material” (The Puritan Millenium, 26). Thus, Burges appears to display a rare commitment to the Scriptures when it comes to the signs of the end.
50. Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole, 332.
51. CUL, Add. 6164, 203.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid.
54. Anon., A discouery of the abhominable delusions of those, who call themselues the Family of loue Wherein their false Christ, and false profession is plainely laide open; and all their grosse cauils cleerely confuted (London, 1622), 97. See also John Rogers, The displaying of an horrible secte of grosse and wicked heretiques, naming themselues the Familie of Loue with the liues of their authours, and what doctrine they teach in corners . . . (London: By Henry Middleton for George Bishop, 1578).
55. CUL, Add. 6164, 207.
56. Calvin, Inst., 3.25.5.
57. D. H. Kromminga, “Chiliasm and the Reformation,” in The Millennium in the Church: Studies in the History of Christian Chiliasm (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945), 171.
58. Cornelius Burges, Reasons shewing the necessity of Reformation of the pulick 1. Doctrine, 2. Worship, 3. Rites and Ceremonies, 4. Church-Government and Discipline, Reputed to be (but indeed, not) Established by LAW (London: Printed by J. A. Cottrel, 1660), 7.
59. CUL, Add. 6164, 120.
60. Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 94.
61. Ibid., 95.
62. Stephen J. Nichols, “Prophecy Makes Strange Bedfellows: On the History of Identifying the Antichrist,” JETS 44 (2001): 80-81.
63. For example, John Calvin wrote, “The Pope calls himself the vicar of Christ” (The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St Peter [Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; 12 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 12:263).
64. Cornelius Burges, Another sermon preached to the honourable House of Commons now assembled in Parliament, November the fifth, 1641, wherein among other things are shewed A List of some of the Popish Traytors in England. That their Treasons were not occasioned by our Laws, but from Principles of their own Religion. That their priests are bound to infuse such principles into them. The courses taken by the Priests and Jesuits to animate them into Treason. An Experimentall Prognostication. (London: Printed by R. B. for P. Stephens and C. Meredith, at the Gilded Lion, and at the Criane in S. Pauls Churchyard, 1641).
65. Ibid., 12-13.
66. Ibid., 35.
67. CUL, Add. 6164, 120.
68. Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse, 147.
69. Ibid., 149.
70. Ibid., 150.
71. Ibid., 151.
72. CUL, Add. 6164, 119.
73. Ibid., 120.
74. Cornelius Burges, Another sermon preached to the honourable House of Commons, 60.
75. Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse, 208.
76. Ibid., 209.
77. Toon, “The Latter Day Glory,” 31.
78. Clouse, “The Rebirth of Millenarianism,” 42.
79. See, e.g., Avihu Zakai, “Reformation, History, and Eschatology in English Protestantism,” 301, where he argues that “it was [the Protestant Reformation’s] attempt to provide an historical basis for the break with the Church at Rome , and to demolish thoroughly the historical foundation upon which the Papacy built its claim to exclusive power, that led the Protestants to stress the study of history, an emphasis that became a major dimension of the Reformation itself and gave rise to a new form of historical consciousness—Protestant historiography based upon an apocalyptic interpretation of history.” See also Toon, “Puritan Eschatology: 1600-1648,” 66.
80. For the influence of rabbinic teaching see Katherine Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain, 1530-1645 (London: Oxford University Press, 1979), 5-6, where she asserts that the Talmud and House of Elias were a major source for the Protestant apocalyptic tradition. Also, Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (London: Temple Smith, 1970), 19, goes as far as to say that Jewish prophecy included the “raw materials out of which revolutionary eschatology was gradually built up during the later Middle Ages.” These analyses are supported by Toon, “The Latter-Day Glory,” 23-25; Gribben, The Puritan Millennium, 26-27; C. Cooper, “Chiliasm and the Chiliasts,” The Reformed Theological Review 29 (1970): 11-21. For the idea of the restoration of the Jews see N. I. Matar, “The Idea of the Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought: Between the Reformation and 1660,” Durham University Journal 78 (1985-1986): 23-35; D. S. Katz, Philo-Semitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England, 1603-1655 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982); Katz, “Millenarianism, the Jews, and Biblical Criticism in Seventeenth-Century England,” Pietismus und Neuzeit 14 (1998): 166-84; Matt Goldish, “The Battle for ‘True’ Jewish Christianity: Peter Allix’s Polemics Against the Unitarians and Millenarians,” in Everything Connects: In Conference with Richard H. Popkin; Essays in His Honor (ed. James E. Force; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), 145-62. For the theory that a day represents a thousand years see James Barr, “Why the World Was Created in 4004 B.C.: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67 (1985): 581, where he identifies the parallels between Ussher’s chronology of the world and that of the Talmud. He also notes the significance of the newly discovered Samaritan Bible and its impact on subsequent dating. See also Saul Leeman, “Was Bishop Ussher’s Chronology Influenced by a Midrash?” Semeia 8 (1977): 127-30. However, it would appear that some Puritans, like John Bunyan, came to a similar timeline apart from any Jewish influence; see Brian G. Cooper, “The Academic Re-Discovery of Apocalyptic Ideas in the 17th Century,” Baptist Quarterly 18 (1959-1960): 351-62.
81. Thomas, “The Eschatology of the Westminster Confession and Assembly,” 321.
82. R. L. Dabney, The Westminster Confession and Creeds (Dallas, Tex.: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1983), 14, quoted in Thomas, “The Eschatology of the Westminster Confession and Assembly,” 321.
83. Thomas, “The Eschatology of the Westminster Confession and Assembly,” 329.
84. See the attached Appendix: “Extracts from the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly—The Debates on Eschatology,” for all that I can find in the Minutes on the debates over eschatology.
85. Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation,” 6:348-49.
86. Ibid., 6:379.
87. Ibid.
88. Ibid.
89. Ibid., 6:348-49.
90. Ibid., 6:379.
91. Ibid., 6:419.